Datasets:

hitachi-nlp

/

FLD.v2

like 7

DeductionInstance

the Guyanese is not a crouch or a spinmeister or both.

(¬{C}{b} v {B}{b})

sent1: the potpie is not a spinmeister if the fact that it does abuse surcoat and scrabbles EDS does not hold. sent2: the fact that the Guyanese either is not a crouch or scrabbles EDS or both is not right if the potpie does not scrabbles EDS. sent3: the Guyanese does crouch. sent4: if the fact that the harvest is not technical is right the exocrine is not non-prokaryotic and not non-apiarian. sent5: the fact that that the potpie does abuse surcoat and it does scrabble EDS is not false does not hold. sent6: if the potpie is not a spinmeister that the Guyanese is either not a crouch or a spinmeister or both is not right. sent7: the potpie is not a kind of a bid. sent8: the potpie is not a spinmeister if it does not abuse surcoat. sent9: the exocrine is not vicinal if that it is a kindness and is not centromeric is not correct. sent10: the Guyanese is not a kind of a spinmeister if that it crouches and does abuse surcoat is not true. sent11: the Guyanese is a crouch if the potpie is not a spinmeister. sent12: something does not jell fetlock if that it is not vicinal is not incorrect. sent13: if the potpie does scrabble EDS or it is not a retardant or both then that the Babylonian does not scrabble EDS hold. sent14: if the Guyanese does not jell Skuld then the potpie crouches and it is a kind of a spinmeister. sent15: the fact that the Guyanese is a spinmeister and it scrabbles EDS does not hold. sent16: something is a kind of non-genuine thing that gels Skuld if it does not jell fetlock. sent17: if the potpie is not a kind of a retardant then the Guyanese is not a crouch or it is a spinmeister or both. sent18: that the exocrine is both a kindness and not centromeric is incorrect if it is prokaryotic. sent19: something that is a spinmeister scrabbles EDS or is not a retardant or both.

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

the Guyanese does not crouch or it is a spinmeister or both.

(¬{C}{b} v {B}{b})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Guyanese is not a crouch or a spinmeister or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the potpie is not a spinmeister if the fact that it does abuse surcoat and scrabbles EDS does not hold. sent2: the fact that the Guyanese either is not a crouch or scrabbles EDS or both is not right if the potpie does not scrabbles EDS. sent3: the Guyanese does crouch. sent4: if the fact that the harvest is not technical is right the exocrine is not non-prokaryotic and not non-apiarian. sent5: the fact that that the potpie does abuse surcoat and it does scrabble EDS is not false does not hold. sent6: if the potpie is not a spinmeister that the Guyanese is either not a crouch or a spinmeister or both is not right. sent7: the potpie is not a kind of a bid. sent8: the potpie is not a spinmeister if it does not abuse surcoat. sent9: the exocrine is not vicinal if that it is a kindness and is not centromeric is not correct. sent10: the Guyanese is not a kind of a spinmeister if that it crouches and does abuse surcoat is not true. sent11: the Guyanese is a crouch if the potpie is not a spinmeister. sent12: something does not jell fetlock if that it is not vicinal is not incorrect. sent13: if the potpie does scrabble EDS or it is not a retardant or both then that the Babylonian does not scrabble EDS hold. sent14: if the Guyanese does not jell Skuld then the potpie crouches and it is a kind of a spinmeister. sent15: the fact that the Guyanese is a spinmeister and it scrabbles EDS does not hold. sent16: something is a kind of non-genuine thing that gels Skuld if it does not jell fetlock. sent17: if the potpie is not a kind of a retardant then the Guyanese is not a crouch or it is a spinmeister or both. sent18: that the exocrine is both a kindness and not centromeric is incorrect if it is prokaryotic. sent19: something that is a spinmeister scrabbles EDS or is not a retardant or both. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent5 -> int1: the potpie is not a spinmeister.; int1 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the provider is a millionairess.

{B}{a}

sent1: if something does not scrabble flamefish or it husks or both it does not scrabble flamefish. sent2: if something is a kind of a pantheist then the fact that it does not jell Psophia and does not abuse M3 is not right. sent3: if either the ilmenite gels Psophia or it does not husk or both it does not scrabble flamefish. sent4: if that that something is not a kind of a millionairess but it is a impenitence hold is not correct it is a kind of a kickback. sent5: the provider does not jell waterleaf. sent6: the ilmenite is not a husk. sent7: if the fact that the berm does not jell Psophia and it does not abuse M3 is not true the provider jell Psophia. sent8: the horn does jell heterocycle and scrabbles raisin. sent9: the provider retrains but it does not jell waterleaf. sent10: something does scrabble provider but it does not jell Acanthuridae if it is a kickback. sent11: if the provider retrains and does not jell waterleaf it is not a kind of a millionairess. sent12: something is not a H-bomb and/or it does not tuck monarch if it does scrabble raisin. sent13: if the provider retrains and gels waterleaf it is not a kind of a millionairess. sent14: something that gels Psophia does not scrabble flamefish and/or is a husk. sent15: the ilmenite is not an abortion if the horn is not a kind of a H-bomb or it does not tuck monarch or both. sent16: that the stair-carpet is not a millionairess but a impenitence is not correct if the provider does not scrabble flamefish. sent17: if the ilmenite is not a kind of an abortion then the fact that the berm is proconsular and it is pantheist hold.

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

the provider is a kind of a millionairess.

{B}{a}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the provider is a millionairess. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not scrabble flamefish or it husks or both it does not scrabble flamefish. sent2: if something is a kind of a pantheist then the fact that it does not jell Psophia and does not abuse M3 is not right. sent3: if either the ilmenite gels Psophia or it does not husk or both it does not scrabble flamefish. sent4: if that that something is not a kind of a millionairess but it is a impenitence hold is not correct it is a kind of a kickback. sent5: the provider does not jell waterleaf. sent6: the ilmenite is not a husk. sent7: if the fact that the berm does not jell Psophia and it does not abuse M3 is not true the provider jell Psophia. sent8: the horn does jell heterocycle and scrabbles raisin. sent9: the provider retrains but it does not jell waterleaf. sent10: something does scrabble provider but it does not jell Acanthuridae if it is a kickback. sent11: if the provider retrains and does not jell waterleaf it is not a kind of a millionairess. sent12: something is not a H-bomb and/or it does not tuck monarch if it does scrabble raisin. sent13: if the provider retrains and gels waterleaf it is not a kind of a millionairess. sent14: something that gels Psophia does not scrabble flamefish and/or is a husk. sent15: the ilmenite is not an abortion if the horn is not a kind of a H-bomb or it does not tuck monarch or both. sent16: that the stair-carpet is not a millionairess but a impenitence is not correct if the provider does not scrabble flamefish. sent17: if the ilmenite is not a kind of an abortion then the fact that the berm is proconsular and it is pantheist hold. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the babbitt is not a kind of a Veneto.

¬{C}{a}

sent1: the babbitt is not daisylike and it is not a Veneto if the Maltese abuses sacrilegiousness. sent2: if the Maltese is a essonite the babbitt does not abuse sacrilegiousness but it is a Veneto. sent3: if the babbitt does abuse sacrilegiousness that the environment is a Veneto is true. sent4: if something is not a kind of a Ni-hard and does jell weekend it does not abuse Bukharin. sent5: if something does not abuse sacrilegiousness and is a Veneto it is daisylike. sent6: if something does not abuse Bukharin it does not fling and does not abuse environment. sent7: if the jointer does jell weekend then that it is not a kind of a Ni-hard and it abuses Bukharin is false. sent8: everything is not daisylike. sent9: something does not abuse environment and does not fling if it does not abuse Bukharin. sent10: the Maltese is not a Paracelsus. sent11: something is a kind of a essonite and it abuses sacrilegiousness if it does not abuse environment. sent12: if that something is not a philatelist or not a Ni-hard or both is correct then it is not a Ni-hard. sent13: if the intercostal gels lionfish then it gels weekend. sent14: the Maltese is not a philatelist and/or it is not a Ni-hard if it is not a Paracelsus. sent15: the diaphone does not jell egress and/or is Orthodox if the babbitt is daisylike. sent16: if the intercostal does jell weekend the Maltese does jell weekend. sent17: if the fact that the environment is non-daisylike or it abuses sacrilegiousness or both is right the babbitt is a Veneto. sent18: if the environment abuses sacrilegiousness the babbitt is a Veneto. sent19: if the intercostal does not fling and it does not abuse environment then the Maltese is a essonite.

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

the diaphone does not jell egress or is not non-Orthodox or both.

(¬{GB}{ea} v {AN}{ea})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the babbitt is not a kind of a Veneto. ; $context$ = sent1: the babbitt is not daisylike and it is not a Veneto if the Maltese abuses sacrilegiousness. sent2: if the Maltese is a essonite the babbitt does not abuse sacrilegiousness but it is a Veneto. sent3: if the babbitt does abuse sacrilegiousness that the environment is a Veneto is true. sent4: if something is not a kind of a Ni-hard and does jell weekend it does not abuse Bukharin. sent5: if something does not abuse sacrilegiousness and is a Veneto it is daisylike. sent6: if something does not abuse Bukharin it does not fling and does not abuse environment. sent7: if the jointer does jell weekend then that it is not a kind of a Ni-hard and it abuses Bukharin is false. sent8: everything is not daisylike. sent9: something does not abuse environment and does not fling if it does not abuse Bukharin. sent10: the Maltese is not a Paracelsus. sent11: something is a kind of a essonite and it abuses sacrilegiousness if it does not abuse environment. sent12: if that something is not a philatelist or not a Ni-hard or both is correct then it is not a Ni-hard. sent13: if the intercostal gels lionfish then it gels weekend. sent14: the Maltese is not a philatelist and/or it is not a Ni-hard if it is not a Paracelsus. sent15: the diaphone does not jell egress and/or is Orthodox if the babbitt is daisylike. sent16: if the intercostal does jell weekend the Maltese does jell weekend. sent17: if the fact that the environment is non-daisylike or it abuses sacrilegiousness or both is right the babbitt is a Veneto. sent18: if the environment abuses sacrilegiousness the babbitt is a Veneto. sent19: if the intercostal does not fling and it does not abuse environment then the Maltese is a essonite. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the environment is not daisylike.; int1 -> int2: the environment is not daisylike or it abuses sacrilegiousness or both.; sent17 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the bathymetry and the non-atonalisticness happens.

({AA} & ¬{AB})

sent1: the crayoning does not occur but the tucking decorator happens if that the meatiness does not occur is not incorrect. sent2: the fact that the bathymetry but not the atonalisticness occurs does not hold. sent3: if that the dolichocephalicness does not occur is correct both the bathymetry and the non-atonalisticness occurs. sent4: that both the aerodynamicness and the maximization occurs is not correct. sent5: the dolichocephalic does not occur if the crayoning does not occur. sent6: the fact that the bathymetry and the atonalisticness happens is false. sent7: the fact that the fact that the diadromousness but not the abusing commandant occurs is not false does not hold.

sent1: ¬{D} -> (¬{B} & {C}) sent2: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent3: ¬{A} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent4: ¬({EO} & {GL}) sent5: ¬{B} -> ¬{A} sent6: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent7: ¬({FG} & ¬{BT})

the bathymetry and the non-atonalisticness happens.

({AA} & ¬{AB})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the bathymetry and the non-atonalisticness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the crayoning does not occur but the tucking decorator happens if that the meatiness does not occur is not incorrect. sent2: the fact that the bathymetry but not the atonalisticness occurs does not hold. sent3: if that the dolichocephalicness does not occur is correct both the bathymetry and the non-atonalisticness occurs. sent4: that both the aerodynamicness and the maximization occurs is not correct. sent5: the dolichocephalic does not occur if the crayoning does not occur. sent6: the fact that the bathymetry and the atonalisticness happens is false. sent7: the fact that the fact that the diadromousness but not the abusing commandant occurs is not false does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the mackintosh is not a kind of a half-mast and does not scrabble sprayer does not hold.

¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

sent1: if the sprayer does not abuse musicianship but it is virological then the mackintosh does abuse weekend. sent2: the cuff is not a half-mast. sent3: if something does not jell overhead and does jell jagged that it does not abuse monoblast is not wrong. sent4: the fact that the mackintosh is not amoebic and it does not abuse Newgate is not true if it is not a Lincolnshire. sent5: the demand does not jell overhead but it gels jagged. sent6: that the mackintosh is not a half-mast and it does not scrabble sprayer is not right if it is not a Lincolnshire. sent7: if something is virological and/or it does not scrabble sprayer then it does not scrabble sprayer. sent8: the fact that something is not bivalve and is not a Lincolnshire is not true if it does abuse weekend. sent9: something that is a Lincolnshire is virological or does not scrabble sprayer or both. sent10: that the demand does not abuse musicianship and is not dramatic is false if the depressive is incontinent. sent11: if the mackintosh is not a Lincolnshire that it is a half-mast and does not scrabble sprayer is incorrect. sent12: that the mackintosh is not a half-mast and scrabbles sprayer is wrong. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it does not abuse monoblast is true then the bryanthus is both not incontinent and a noradrenaline. sent14: if something is not undramatic then it does not abuse musicianship and is virological. sent15: the fact that the mackintosh is not a half-mast and scrabbles sprayer is not right if the fact that it is not a Lincolnshire is right. sent16: the mackintosh is a Lincolnshire if the fact that the demand does not abuse musicianship but it is undramatic is wrong. sent17: if the sprayer is not a kind of a half-mast then the mackintosh is not a kind of a half-mast. sent18: the fact that the mackintosh is a half-mast but it does not scrabble sprayer does not hold. sent19: the mackintosh is not a Lincolnshire. sent20: the bryanthus does abuse weekend. sent21: that that the skydiver is not a kind of a Lincolnshire and is not neoplastic is right is wrong. sent22: if the bryanthus does abuse weekend and is a kind of a half-mast the sprayer is not a kind of a half-mast.

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

the mackintosh is not a half-mast and does not scrabble sprayer.

(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the mackintosh is not a kind of a half-mast and does not scrabble sprayer does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sprayer does not abuse musicianship but it is virological then the mackintosh does abuse weekend. sent2: the cuff is not a half-mast. sent3: if something does not jell overhead and does jell jagged that it does not abuse monoblast is not wrong. sent4: the fact that the mackintosh is not amoebic and it does not abuse Newgate is not true if it is not a Lincolnshire. sent5: the demand does not jell overhead but it gels jagged. sent6: that the mackintosh is not a half-mast and it does not scrabble sprayer is not right if it is not a Lincolnshire. sent7: if something is virological and/or it does not scrabble sprayer then it does not scrabble sprayer. sent8: the fact that something is not bivalve and is not a Lincolnshire is not true if it does abuse weekend. sent9: something that is a Lincolnshire is virological or does not scrabble sprayer or both. sent10: that the demand does not abuse musicianship and is not dramatic is false if the depressive is incontinent. sent11: if the mackintosh is not a Lincolnshire that it is a half-mast and does not scrabble sprayer is incorrect. sent12: that the mackintosh is not a half-mast and scrabbles sprayer is wrong. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it does not abuse monoblast is true then the bryanthus is both not incontinent and a noradrenaline. sent14: if something is not undramatic then it does not abuse musicianship and is virological. sent15: the fact that the mackintosh is not a half-mast and scrabbles sprayer is not right if the fact that it is not a Lincolnshire is right. sent16: the mackintosh is a Lincolnshire if the fact that the demand does not abuse musicianship but it is undramatic is wrong. sent17: if the sprayer is not a kind of a half-mast then the mackintosh is not a kind of a half-mast. sent18: the fact that the mackintosh is a half-mast but it does not scrabble sprayer does not hold. sent19: the mackintosh is not a Lincolnshire. sent20: the bryanthus does abuse weekend. sent21: that that the skydiver is not a kind of a Lincolnshire and is not neoplastic is right is wrong. sent22: if the bryanthus does abuse weekend and is a kind of a half-mast the sprayer is not a kind of a half-mast. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent19 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the non-structuralness prevents that the inflection occurs.

¬{B} -> ¬{A}

sent1: the inflection occurs if the structuralness does not occur. sent2: that the translationalness does not occur is correct. sent3: that that either the inflection happens or the structuralness occurs or both is not correct if the bimorphemicness does not occur is not incorrect. sent4: the fact that the postdoctoralness does not occur hold if that either the inflection occurs or the structuralness occurs or both does not hold. sent5: the inflection does not occur if that the structuralness happens is correct.

sent1: ¬{B} -> {A} sent2: ¬{ET} sent3: ¬{C} -> ¬({A} v {B}) sent4: ¬({A} v {B}) -> ¬{IG} sent5: {B} -> ¬{A}

the postdoctoral does not occur.

¬{IG}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the non-structuralness prevents that the inflection occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the inflection occurs if the structuralness does not occur. sent2: that the translationalness does not occur is correct. sent3: that that either the inflection happens or the structuralness occurs or both is not correct if the bimorphemicness does not occur is not incorrect. sent4: the fact that the postdoctoralness does not occur hold if that either the inflection occurs or the structuralness occurs or both does not hold. sent5: the inflection does not occur if that the structuralness happens is correct. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the inflection occurs.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the lotus does not jell geophagy hold.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: the embankment is not malodorous if the kerchief is not malodorous but a frost. sent2: the fact that the embankment is a Ledum is right. sent3: something does not jell geophagy and it is not a Ledum if it is not malodorous. sent4: if that something gels pustule and/or it is a kind of a Ardisia is not right then it does not jell geophagy. sent5: that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or it is a kind of a Ardisia is false if the embankment is a Ledum. sent6: if that something either does not jell pustule or is a Ardisia or both is incorrect it does not jell geophagy. sent7: if the embankment does not jell geophagy and is not a kind of a Ledum the lotus jell geophagy. sent8: if something does not scrabble workhouse then it is not malodorous but a frost.

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

the lotus does jell geophagy.

{B}{b}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the lotus does not jell geophagy hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the embankment is not malodorous if the kerchief is not malodorous but a frost. sent2: the fact that the embankment is a Ledum is right. sent3: something does not jell geophagy and it is not a Ledum if it is not malodorous. sent4: if that something gels pustule and/or it is a kind of a Ardisia is not right then it does not jell geophagy. sent5: that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or it is a kind of a Ardisia is false if the embankment is a Ledum. sent6: if that something either does not jell pustule or is a Ardisia or both is incorrect it does not jell geophagy. sent7: if the embankment does not jell geophagy and is not a kind of a Ledum the lotus jell geophagy. sent8: if something does not scrabble workhouse then it is not malodorous but a frost. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent2 -> int1: that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or is a Ardisia is not true.; sent6 -> int2: if that that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or is a Ardisia is not true hold then it does not jell geophagy.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the thoracotomy happens.

{B}

sent1: the Franciscanness happens. sent2: if the fact that the abusing Mojave does not occur is not wrong the thoracotomy does not occur and the updraft does not occur. sent3: that the thoracotomy happens is caused by that the updraft occurs. sent4: that the middle happens is not incorrect. sent5: the invocation happens. sent6: the working occurs. sent7: the coloration occurs. sent8: that the assault does not occur is prevented by the pallone. sent9: the crutch happens. sent10: that the abusing noon occurs is not wrong if the bisontineness occurs. sent11: the assault occurs. sent12: the abusing discovery occurs. sent13: the Nestorian occurs. sent14: the updraft occurs.

sent1: {DJ} sent2: ¬{C} -> (¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent3: {A} -> {B} sent4: {JA} sent5: {CO} sent6: {DM} sent7: {IR} sent8: {DT} -> {EC} sent9: {HA} sent10: {HJ} -> {I} sent11: {EC} sent12: {GM} sent13: {ER} sent14: {A}

the thoracotomy does not occur.

¬{B}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the thoracotomy happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the Franciscanness happens. sent2: if the fact that the abusing Mojave does not occur is not wrong the thoracotomy does not occur and the updraft does not occur. sent3: that the thoracotomy happens is caused by that the updraft occurs. sent4: that the middle happens is not incorrect. sent5: the invocation happens. sent6: the working occurs. sent7: the coloration occurs. sent8: that the assault does not occur is prevented by the pallone. sent9: the crutch happens. sent10: that the abusing noon occurs is not wrong if the bisontineness occurs. sent11: the assault occurs. sent12: the abusing discovery occurs. sent13: the Nestorian occurs. sent14: the updraft occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the squawbush gels probabilism and/or it is non-paralytic.

({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a})

sent1: if the rawhide does not jell hydrofluorocarbon and/or is not a conveyance that the squawbush is not a Cynewulf is not wrong. sent2: something does not jell hydrofluorocarbon and/or is not a conveyance if it is not a kind of a linoleum. sent3: that either the squawbush gels probabilism or it is not paralytic or both does not hold if there is something such that it is a bob. sent4: something does jell probabilism and it does bob if it is not a Cynewulf. sent5: there is something such that it gels probabilism. sent6: the squawbush does not jell probabilism. sent7: if something gels oca then the fact that the prince is a kind of a kamikaze or it is not photoemissive or both is not true. sent8: the follow-up is a kind of a Skuld. sent9: that either the squawbush is a kind of a bob or it does not jell founder or both is false. sent10: if the fact that the rawhide is not laryngeal and it is non-buccal is not correct then it is not a kind of a linoleum. sent11: something is a bob. sent12: the fact that the Adams gels probabilism and/or does not tuck murre is incorrect. sent13: the squawbush does not jell probabilism if something does bob. sent14: the cock-a-leekie scrabbles ulcer if the follow-up is a characterization. sent15: something is paralytic. sent16: the follow-up is a characterization if it is a Skuld.

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

that the squawbush gels probabilism and/or it is not paralytic hold.

({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the squawbush gels probabilism and/or it is non-paralytic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the rawhide does not jell hydrofluorocarbon and/or is not a conveyance that the squawbush is not a Cynewulf is not wrong. sent2: something does not jell hydrofluorocarbon and/or is not a conveyance if it is not a kind of a linoleum. sent3: that either the squawbush gels probabilism or it is not paralytic or both does not hold if there is something such that it is a bob. sent4: something does jell probabilism and it does bob if it is not a Cynewulf. sent5: there is something such that it gels probabilism. sent6: the squawbush does not jell probabilism. sent7: if something gels oca then the fact that the prince is a kind of a kamikaze or it is not photoemissive or both is not true. sent8: the follow-up is a kind of a Skuld. sent9: that either the squawbush is a kind of a bob or it does not jell founder or both is false. sent10: if the fact that the rawhide is not laryngeal and it is non-buccal is not correct then it is not a kind of a linoleum. sent11: something is a bob. sent12: the fact that the Adams gels probabilism and/or does not tuck murre is incorrect. sent13: the squawbush does not jell probabilism if something does bob. sent14: the cock-a-leekie scrabbles ulcer if the follow-up is a characterization. sent15: something is paralytic. sent16: the follow-up is a characterization if it is a Skuld. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that if that the ablactation occurs is not false that the abusing bob occurs hold is not right.

¬({A} -> {AA})

sent1: the abusing bob but not the scandal happens if the ablactation happens. sent2: the scandal does not occur. sent3: if the abusing Balboa occurs the fact that not the bloomer but the dot occurs is not correct. sent4: the diadromousness happens. sent5: the abusing Balboa occurs. sent6: the gelling dugout occurs but the figurativeness does not occur. sent7: the gerundialness does not occur if that not the bloomer but the dotting occurs is incorrect. sent8: the scandal does not occur if the ablactation occurs. sent9: that the gerundialness does not occur triggers that the unwearableness happens and the ablactation happens.

sent1: {A} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent2: ¬{AB} sent3: {I} -> ¬(¬{F} & {H}) sent4: {CA} sent5: {I} sent6: ({DB} & ¬{CJ}) sent7: ¬(¬{F} & {H}) -> ¬{E} sent8: {A} -> ¬{AB} sent9: ¬{E} -> ({IG} & {A})

the unwearableness occurs and the matrimony does not occur.

({IG} & ¬{T})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that if that the ablactation occurs is not false that the abusing bob occurs hold is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the abusing bob but not the scandal happens if the ablactation happens. sent2: the scandal does not occur. sent3: if the abusing Balboa occurs the fact that not the bloomer but the dot occurs is not correct. sent4: the diadromousness happens. sent5: the abusing Balboa occurs. sent6: the gelling dugout occurs but the figurativeness does not occur. sent7: the gerundialness does not occur if that not the bloomer but the dotting occurs is incorrect. sent8: the scandal does not occur if the ablactation occurs. sent9: that the gerundialness does not occur triggers that the unwearableness happens and the ablactation happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the ablactation occurs.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the abusing bob occurs and the scandal does not occur.; int1 -> int2: the abusing bob happens.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the sweep does not jell gloved.

¬{F}{c}

sent1: the sweep does not jell gloved if the Centre is ascensional and it is a kind of a furosemide. sent2: the fact that the provider is a kind of a loop but it is not a kind of a stickball does not hold if there are non-subhuman things. sent3: the sweep is a furosemide if the fact that the fact that the Centre does not jell gloved and it is not a life-style is correct is not true. sent4: if that the provider is not a loop and is not a stickball does not hold the fact that the Centre is ascensional is not wrong. sent5: if the Centre is a kind of a federation and is a life-style then it is a Welsh. sent6: the fact that the provider loops but it is not a stickball is false. sent7: if the fact that something is not subhuman and it is not a loop is false it does jell gloved. sent8: the Centre is not a life-style. sent9: the fact that the provider is not a loop and is a stickball is not correct. sent10: if there are non-subhuman things the fact that the provider is not a loop and not a stickball is wrong. sent11: there exists something such that it is not subhuman. sent12: the amaranth intrigues and is a kind of a life-style. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is subhuman is right. sent14: something is a furosemide if it is Welsh. sent15: if the sweep gels gloved and is not a furosemide it is a stickball. sent16: the Centre is a federation that is not a kind of a life-style. sent17: that the provider is both not a loop and a stickball is wrong if there exists something such that it is not subhuman. sent18: that something is not subhuman and it does not loop is incorrect if it is a stickball.

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

the sweep gels gloved.

{F}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sweep does not jell gloved. ; $context$ = sent1: the sweep does not jell gloved if the Centre is ascensional and it is a kind of a furosemide. sent2: the fact that the provider is a kind of a loop but it is not a kind of a stickball does not hold if there are non-subhuman things. sent3: the sweep is a furosemide if the fact that the fact that the Centre does not jell gloved and it is not a life-style is correct is not true. sent4: if that the provider is not a loop and is not a stickball does not hold the fact that the Centre is ascensional is not wrong. sent5: if the Centre is a kind of a federation and is a life-style then it is a Welsh. sent6: the fact that the provider loops but it is not a stickball is false. sent7: if the fact that something is not subhuman and it is not a loop is false it does jell gloved. sent8: the Centre is not a life-style. sent9: the fact that the provider is not a loop and is a stickball is not correct. sent10: if there are non-subhuman things the fact that the provider is not a loop and not a stickball is wrong. sent11: there exists something such that it is not subhuman. sent12: the amaranth intrigues and is a kind of a life-style. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is subhuman is right. sent14: something is a furosemide if it is Welsh. sent15: if the sweep gels gloved and is not a furosemide it is a stickball. sent16: the Centre is a federation that is not a kind of a life-style. sent17: that the provider is both not a loop and a stickball is wrong if there exists something such that it is not subhuman. sent18: that something is not subhuman and it does not loop is incorrect if it is a stickball. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent10 -> int1: the fact that the provider is not a loop and is not a stickball does not hold.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the Centre is ascensional hold.; sent14 -> int3: if the Centre is a Welsh it is a furosemide.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the decomposition does cavil.

{A}{a}

sent1: the decomposition is a spermatophyte and it is an absolute. sent2: the decomposition is a kind of a prude. sent3: the cardboard does abuse foxhole and it is a kind of a Toxicodendron. sent4: the decomposition does abuse foxhole. sent5: the grimoire does cavil if the decomposition does not cavil. sent6: the decomposition does cavil and abuses foxhole. sent7: the decomposition gels caiman and is a kind of a shoelace. sent8: the decomposition does scrabble ceilidh. sent9: the Zoroastrian does abuse foxhole. sent10: if something that is a prude is a Guangzhou then it does not cavil. sent11: the decomposition gels entablature. sent12: the Chickasaw abuses foxhole. sent13: the keratin cavils and it does retract. sent14: the decomposition is a Guangzhou and is a kind of a vegetarianism if the everyman does not pelt.

sent1: ({AH}{a} & {AL}{a}) sent2: {C}{a} sent3: ({B}{gg} & {FG}{gg}) sent4: {B}{a} sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> {A}{iu} sent6: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent7: ({II}{a} & {HH}{a}) sent8: {JK}{a} sent9: {B}{bo} sent10: (x): ({C}x & {D}x) -> ¬{A}x sent11: {CO}{a} sent12: {B}{gn} sent13: ({A}{ir} & {CR}{ir}) sent14: ¬{F}{c} -> ({D}{a} & {E}{a})

the grimoire cavils and is not adequate.

({A}{iu} & {GE}{iu})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the decomposition does cavil. ; $context$ = sent1: the decomposition is a spermatophyte and it is an absolute. sent2: the decomposition is a kind of a prude. sent3: the cardboard does abuse foxhole and it is a kind of a Toxicodendron. sent4: the decomposition does abuse foxhole. sent5: the grimoire does cavil if the decomposition does not cavil. sent6: the decomposition does cavil and abuses foxhole. sent7: the decomposition gels caiman and is a kind of a shoelace. sent8: the decomposition does scrabble ceilidh. sent9: the Zoroastrian does abuse foxhole. sent10: if something that is a prude is a Guangzhou then it does not cavil. sent11: the decomposition gels entablature. sent12: the Chickasaw abuses foxhole. sent13: the keratin cavils and it does retract. sent14: the decomposition is a Guangzhou and is a kind of a vegetarianism if the everyman does not pelt. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the exchanger scrabbles porker and it is not non-transdermal hold.

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

sent1: there is something such that it is a Gothic. sent2: the exchanger is transdermal. sent3: there exists something such that that it is non-civilian does not hold. sent4: something is splintery and not anthropological. sent5: if something that is calcic does not scrabble Danu then the exchanger does scrabble porker. sent6: if that something is not a one-hundredth but it does scrabble toucanet is wrong then the fact that it is a one-hundredth is not incorrect. sent7: there is something such that it is a kind of a Acaridae that does not scrabble Offertory. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it scrabbles heliosphere hold. sent9: something does scrabble porker. sent10: something does not scrabble Danu. sent11: something is a kind of calcic thing that scrabbles Danu. sent12: there is something such that it scrabbles porker and is not transdermal. sent13: the exchanger is splenic if something is calcic thing that does not abuse dressing. sent14: there is something such that it is transdermal and it does scrabble porker. sent15: something is not non-substantival but it does not scrabble porker if it is a one-hundredth. sent16: there exists something such that it is not non-calcic. sent17: something is transdermal but it does not scrabble porker. sent18: something is a kind of calcic thing that does not scrabble Danu. sent19: that something is corrigible but it does not scrabble strip hold. sent20: the fact that if there is something such that it is thalassic and does not scrabble porker the exchanger is flowerless is not incorrect. sent21: that the exchanger is calcic is correct. sent22: the towpath is a kind of a strangeness if a transdermal thing does not avert.

sent1: (Ex): {EA}x sent2: {B}{a} sent3: (Ex): {E}x sent4: (Ex): ({FQ}x & ¬{IB}x) sent5: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {F}x) -> {D}x sent7: (Ex): ({CG}x & ¬{EJ}x) sent8: (Ex): {FK}x sent9: (Ex): {A}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent11: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent12: (Ex): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent13: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{DE}x) -> {BO}{a} sent14: (Ex): ({B}x & {A}x) sent15: (x): {D}x -> ({C}x & ¬{A}x) sent16: (Ex): {AA}x sent17: (Ex): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent18: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent19: (Ex): ({ER}x & ¬{IE}x) sent20: (x): ({EQ}x & ¬{A}x) -> {BU}{a} sent21: {AA}{a} sent22: (x): ({B}x & ¬{CA}x) -> {CK}{eu}

the fact that the exchanger does scrabble porker and it is transdermal is incorrect.

¬({A}{a} & {B}{a})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the exchanger scrabbles porker and it is not non-transdermal hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is a Gothic. sent2: the exchanger is transdermal. sent3: there exists something such that that it is non-civilian does not hold. sent4: something is splintery and not anthropological. sent5: if something that is calcic does not scrabble Danu then the exchanger does scrabble porker. sent6: if that something is not a one-hundredth but it does scrabble toucanet is wrong then the fact that it is a one-hundredth is not incorrect. sent7: there is something such that it is a kind of a Acaridae that does not scrabble Offertory. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it scrabbles heliosphere hold. sent9: something does scrabble porker. sent10: something does not scrabble Danu. sent11: something is a kind of calcic thing that scrabbles Danu. sent12: there is something such that it scrabbles porker and is not transdermal. sent13: the exchanger is splenic if something is calcic thing that does not abuse dressing. sent14: there is something such that it is transdermal and it does scrabble porker. sent15: something is not non-substantival but it does not scrabble porker if it is a one-hundredth. sent16: there exists something such that it is not non-calcic. sent17: something is transdermal but it does not scrabble porker. sent18: something is a kind of calcic thing that does not scrabble Danu. sent19: that something is corrigible but it does not scrabble strip hold. sent20: the fact that if there is something such that it is thalassic and does not scrabble porker the exchanger is flowerless is not incorrect. sent21: that the exchanger is calcic is correct. sent22: the towpath is a kind of a strangeness if a transdermal thing does not avert. ; $proof$ =

sent18 & sent5 -> int1: the exchanger does scrabble porker.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the condonation does not occur and the cyclopeanness occurs.

(¬{AA} & {AB})

sent1: the inedibleness occurs if the scrabbling cockhorse does not occur. sent2: that the unknownness does not occur prevents that the parimutuel occurs. sent3: that that the unknown occurs is correct does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the condonation does not occur but the cyclopeanness happens is incorrect the parimutuel occurs.

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the condonation does not occur and the cyclopeanness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the inedibleness occurs if the scrabbling cockhorse does not occur. sent2: that the unknownness does not occur prevents that the parimutuel occurs. sent3: that that the unknown occurs is correct does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the condonation does not occur but the cyclopeanness happens is incorrect the parimutuel occurs. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the condonation does not occur but the cyclopeanness happens does not hold.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the parimutuel happens.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the parimutuel does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the squawbush is a kind of a joylessness.

{A}{c}

sent1: if the furfural is both phenomenal and unoriginal the decline ashes. sent2: if the fact that something is a foster-daughter and is a kind of a joylessness is false it is not a joylessness. sent3: the furfural is phenomenal and is not unoriginal. sent4: if the furfural is phenomenal but it is not unoriginal the decline is an ash. sent5: if the squawbush is a rhinovirus but it does not abuse squawbush it does not ash. sent6: the furfural is not unoriginal. sent7: if something is not an ash the fact that it is a foster-daughter that is a joylessness is incorrect. sent8: something is not an ash but it is a joylessness if it is not a foster-daughter.

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

that the squawbush is not a joylessness is not incorrect.

¬{A}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the squawbush is a kind of a joylessness. ; $context$ = sent1: if the furfural is both phenomenal and unoriginal the decline ashes. sent2: if the fact that something is a foster-daughter and is a kind of a joylessness is false it is not a joylessness. sent3: the furfural is phenomenal and is not unoriginal. sent4: if the furfural is phenomenal but it is not unoriginal the decline is an ash. sent5: if the squawbush is a rhinovirus but it does not abuse squawbush it does not ash. sent6: the furfural is not unoriginal. sent7: if something is not an ash the fact that it is a foster-daughter that is a joylessness is incorrect. sent8: something is not an ash but it is a joylessness if it is not a foster-daughter. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the decline is a kind of an ash is not incorrect.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it is an ash.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the nones occurs.

{A}

sent1: if the scrabbling pizzicato does not occur then the mapping does not occur. sent2: the fact that either the Terpsichore does not occur or the articularness does not occur or both is incorrect. sent3: if that the weightlessness does not occur is right then the fact that the theatricalness but not the nones occurs is incorrect. sent4: if the theatrical does not occur then the nones does not occur. sent5: that the shuttingness does not occur or the gelling Laos does not occur or both is not correct. sent6: the shuttingness occurs. sent7: the variolation does not occur. sent8: if the fact that the shirking does not occur and/or the reshuffle does not occur does not hold then the Britannicness does not occur. sent9: the drinking does not occur and the weightlessness does not occur if that the abusing Oppenheimer does not occur is true. sent10: the theatricalness does not occur if that either the shuttingness occurs or the gelling Laos does not occur or both does not hold. sent11: either the abusing murre does not occur or the abusing Oppenheimer does not occur or both if that the probation does not occur hold. sent12: the fact that the tucking in-joke does not occur hold. sent13: the nonreticulateness does not occur. sent14: the abusing Oppenheimer is prevented by that the abusing murre does not occur and/or that the abusing Oppenheimer does not occur. sent15: the smacker does not occur if that the conversion does not occur and/or the Exodus does not occur is not true. sent16: the Education does not occur. sent17: the theatricalness does not occur if that the shuttingness does not occur or the gelling Laos does not occur or both is not right.

sent1: ¬{DN} -> ¬{FS} sent2: ¬(¬{ES} v ¬{T}) sent3: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & ¬{A}) sent4: ¬{B} -> ¬{A} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) sent6: {AA} sent7: ¬{EF} sent8: ¬(¬{IJ} v ¬{IE}) -> ¬{BO} sent9: ¬{E} -> (¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent10: ¬({AA} v ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent11: ¬{G} -> (¬{F} v ¬{E}) sent12: ¬{IK} sent13: ¬{IF} sent14: (¬{F} v ¬{E}) -> ¬{E} sent15: ¬(¬{FT} v ¬{EJ}) -> ¬{CP} sent16: ¬{DK} sent17: ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B}

the nones happens.

{A}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nones occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the scrabbling pizzicato does not occur then the mapping does not occur. sent2: the fact that either the Terpsichore does not occur or the articularness does not occur or both is incorrect. sent3: if that the weightlessness does not occur is right then the fact that the theatricalness but not the nones occurs is incorrect. sent4: if the theatrical does not occur then the nones does not occur. sent5: that the shuttingness does not occur or the gelling Laos does not occur or both is not correct. sent6: the shuttingness occurs. sent7: the variolation does not occur. sent8: if the fact that the shirking does not occur and/or the reshuffle does not occur does not hold then the Britannicness does not occur. sent9: the drinking does not occur and the weightlessness does not occur if that the abusing Oppenheimer does not occur is true. sent10: the theatricalness does not occur if that either the shuttingness occurs or the gelling Laos does not occur or both does not hold. sent11: either the abusing murre does not occur or the abusing Oppenheimer does not occur or both if that the probation does not occur hold. sent12: the fact that the tucking in-joke does not occur hold. sent13: the nonreticulateness does not occur. sent14: the abusing Oppenheimer is prevented by that the abusing murre does not occur and/or that the abusing Oppenheimer does not occur. sent15: the smacker does not occur if that the conversion does not occur and/or the Exodus does not occur is not true. sent16: the Education does not occur. sent17: the theatricalness does not occur if that the shuttingness does not occur or the gelling Laos does not occur or both is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent17 & sent5 -> int1: the theatrical does not occur.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the analysand does fire but it is not a luger.

({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

sent1: the fact that the raider is a kind of a fire that does not bond is incorrect. sent2: the fact that something is a fire but it is not a luger is true if the fact that it is a thermojunction is correct. sent3: that the Riff is a kind of a luger is true. sent4: that that the fact that the analysand is a fire but it is not a luger is not false is not right hold if there exists something such that it is a thermojunction. sent5: that the raider is a luger and is not a fire does not hold if there is something such that it is a thermojunction. sent6: the raider is a thermojunction. sent7: the fact that the analysand is a fire and a luger is false. sent8: the fact that the analysand is a kind of a fire and it is a luger is not right if there is something such that it is a kind of a thermojunction.

sent1: ¬({B}{aa} & ¬{BN}{aa}) sent2: (x): {A}x -> ({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent3: {C}{jj} sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent5: (x): {A}x -> ¬({C}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) sent6: {A}{aa} sent7: ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent8: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})

the analysand is a fire that is not a luger.

({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the analysand does fire but it is not a luger. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the raider is a kind of a fire that does not bond is incorrect. sent2: the fact that something is a fire but it is not a luger is true if the fact that it is a thermojunction is correct. sent3: that the Riff is a kind of a luger is true. sent4: that that the fact that the analysand is a fire but it is not a luger is not false is not right hold if there exists something such that it is a thermojunction. sent5: that the raider is a luger and is not a fire does not hold if there is something such that it is a thermojunction. sent6: the raider is a thermojunction. sent7: the fact that the analysand is a fire and a luger is false. sent8: the fact that the analysand is a kind of a fire and it is a luger is not right if there is something such that it is a kind of a thermojunction. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: something is a thermojunction.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it is a tool it is a city and is not a kind of a Praunus.

(Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: if that the vinegarroon tools hold then it is not a Lysander. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a tool it is a city and a Praunus. sent3: that there is something such that if it tools then it is a city is true. sent4: if the ambulatory is prehensile it is not a Praunus. sent5: if the vinegarroon does tool it is a kind of a city. sent6: there is something such that if it is inboard it is idiomatic and a shaitan. sent7: if the vinegarroon does tool then it is a kind of a city and it is a Praunus. sent8: the vinegarroon is a kind of a city and is not a Praunus if it does tool. sent9: there exists something such that if it is a lint it scrabbles Teresa. sent10: something does scrabble hobnail and is not a leasehold if it does jell ass. sent11: there exists something such that if it is a OIG then it abuses Phalacrocorax and is cubital. sent12: there exists something such that if it tools it is not a Praunus.

sent1: {A}{aa} -> ¬{GS}{aa} sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (Ex): {A}x -> {AA}x sent4: {CB}{io} -> ¬{AB}{io} sent5: {A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa} sent6: (Ex): {GB}x -> ({GD}x & {DM}x) sent7: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent8: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent9: (Ex): {AN}x -> {AU}x sent10: (x): {FQ}x -> ({BI}x & ¬{AT}x) sent11: (Ex): {IQ}x -> ({GL}x & {AO}x) sent12: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬{AB}x

there exists something such that if it does jell ass then it does scrabble hobnail and it is not a kind of a leasehold.

(Ex): {FQ}x -> ({BI}x & ¬{AT}x)

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is a tool it is a city and is not a kind of a Praunus. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the vinegarroon tools hold then it is not a Lysander. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a tool it is a city and a Praunus. sent3: that there is something such that if it tools then it is a city is true. sent4: if the ambulatory is prehensile it is not a Praunus. sent5: if the vinegarroon does tool it is a kind of a city. sent6: there is something such that if it is inboard it is idiomatic and a shaitan. sent7: if the vinegarroon does tool then it is a kind of a city and it is a Praunus. sent8: the vinegarroon is a kind of a city and is not a Praunus if it does tool. sent9: there exists something such that if it is a lint it scrabbles Teresa. sent10: something does scrabble hobnail and is not a leasehold if it does jell ass. sent11: there exists something such that if it is a OIG then it abuses Phalacrocorax and is cubital. sent12: there exists something such that if it tools it is not a Praunus. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the serviceman is not operable but it is a bonfire.

(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a})

sent1: either the serviceman is an accounting or it is not a uplink or both. sent2: if the Angolese is a parade it does tuck Irish. sent3: if the serviceman accounts and/or is not a viewers that it is a bonfire is not false. sent4: the serviceman is not operable if it is not a Bengali. sent5: the serviceman is not a smegma. sent6: the Irish is not a kind of a viewers. sent7: the brass is not a viewers. sent8: the K.E. is not a bonfire. sent9: the serviceman does not abuse unsuitability and is a kind of a philadelphus. sent10: the panel is not operable. sent11: the serviceman accounts and/or it is not a kind of a viewers. sent12: the serviceman is not a heliograph. sent13: the serviceman is a viewers or it is not diluvian or both. sent14: the Kenyan is not a kind of a Bengali. sent15: the serviceman is not a kind of a Bengali.

sent1: ({D}{a} v ¬{HH}{a}) sent2: {BR}{db} -> {BE}{db} sent3: ({D}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) -> {C}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: ¬{Q}{a} sent6: ¬{E}{hu} sent7: ¬{E}{go} sent8: ¬{C}{co} sent9: (¬{CI}{a} & {FS}{a}) sent10: ¬{B}{hi} sent11: ({D}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) sent12: ¬{FE}{a} sent13: ({E}{a} v ¬{FQ}{a}) sent14: ¬{A}{gh} sent15: ¬{A}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the serviceman is not operable but it is a bonfire. ; $context$ = sent1: either the serviceman is an accounting or it is not a uplink or both. sent2: if the Angolese is a parade it does tuck Irish. sent3: if the serviceman accounts and/or is not a viewers that it is a bonfire is not false. sent4: the serviceman is not operable if it is not a Bengali. sent5: the serviceman is not a smegma. sent6: the Irish is not a kind of a viewers. sent7: the brass is not a viewers. sent8: the K.E. is not a bonfire. sent9: the serviceman does not abuse unsuitability and is a kind of a philadelphus. sent10: the panel is not operable. sent11: the serviceman accounts and/or it is not a kind of a viewers. sent12: the serviceman is not a heliograph. sent13: the serviceman is a viewers or it is not diluvian or both. sent14: the Kenyan is not a kind of a Bengali. sent15: the serviceman is not a kind of a Bengali. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent15 -> int1: the serviceman is not operable.; sent3 & sent11 -> int2: the serviceman is a bonfire.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the SNP does scrabble Dachau is not false.

{A}{a}

sent1: something that is gymnosophical is algorithmic. sent2: if there exists something such that the fact that it is cheerful and/or it is a anil does not hold the SNP does not scrabble Dachau. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is cheerful and/or it is not a anil is false the SNP does not scrabble Dachau. sent4: that the SNP is gymnosophical is not incorrect if the exonuclease is not non-exponential. sent5: there is something such that it is a anil. sent6: there is something such that it is cheerful and/or it is not a anil. sent7: the nitrofurantoin does not jell Segway. sent8: the SNP does not rejoice if there exists something such that that it is Palladian and/or it is not a symbology is not true. sent9: there exists something such that that it is cheerful or not a anil or both is incorrect. sent10: if the exonuclease is not a lint the fact that it is an exponential that is a toad-in-the-hole hold. sent11: something is leafy if it is algorithmic.

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

the suspension does not scrabble Dachau.

¬{A}{co}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the SNP does scrabble Dachau is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: something that is gymnosophical is algorithmic. sent2: if there exists something such that the fact that it is cheerful and/or it is a anil does not hold the SNP does not scrabble Dachau. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is cheerful and/or it is not a anil is false the SNP does not scrabble Dachau. sent4: that the SNP is gymnosophical is not incorrect if the exonuclease is not non-exponential. sent5: there is something such that it is a anil. sent6: there is something such that it is cheerful and/or it is not a anil. sent7: the nitrofurantoin does not jell Segway. sent8: the SNP does not rejoice if there exists something such that that it is Palladian and/or it is not a symbology is not true. sent9: there exists something such that that it is cheerful or not a anil or both is incorrect. sent10: if the exonuclease is not a lint the fact that it is an exponential that is a toad-in-the-hole hold. sent11: something is leafy if it is algorithmic. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the dextrin is not a kind of a fascista.

¬{E}{b}

sent1: the habitat is non-Colombian thing that scrabbles registered. sent2: that the dextrin is permeable and not a Shawn is not right if it does jell soldiering. sent3: the candle abuses Reich. sent4: the dextrin is not permeable if the candle scrabbles Mutinus. sent5: if something is both not impermeable and a delinquent then it is not a fascista. sent6: everything abuses Reich. sent7: if the candle does scrabble Mutinus then the dextrin is a kind of impermeable a delinquent. sent8: if something scrabbles Mutinus and does not abuse Reich then it is a fascista. sent9: the dextrin is Sinhala. sent10: if the dextrin does scrabble Mutinus then the candle is not a fascista but it is not impermeable. sent11: the dextrin is not permeable. sent12: the dextrin is not fascista if it is both permeable and a delinquent. sent13: if the candle is not fascista but it does scrabble Mutinus then it is not permeable. sent14: if something that is not permeable is a delinquent then it is not a fascista. sent15: the dextrin gels soldiering if it is a Orleanism. sent16: something that is Sinhala is a Orleanism and/or not a library. sent17: that the slag does not abuse decorator is correct if it is not afebrile and it is fortunate.

sent1: (¬{EU}{df} & {FL}{df}) sent2: {G}{b} -> ¬({D}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) sent3: {A}{a} sent4: {B}{a} -> ¬{D}{b} sent5: (x): ({D}x & {C}x) -> ¬{E}x sent6: (x): {A}x sent7: {B}{a} -> (¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) sent8: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {E}x sent9: {J}{b} sent10: {B}{b} -> (¬{E}{a} & {D}{a}) sent11: ¬{D}{b} sent12: ({D}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent13: (¬{E}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent14: (x): (¬{D}x & {C}x) -> ¬{E}x sent15: {I}{b} -> {G}{b} sent16: (x): {J}x -> ({I}x v ¬{H}x) sent17: (¬{CF}{aa} & {FU}{aa}) -> ¬{AU}{aa}

the dextrin is fascista.

{E}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dextrin is not a kind of a fascista. ; $context$ = sent1: the habitat is non-Colombian thing that scrabbles registered. sent2: that the dextrin is permeable and not a Shawn is not right if it does jell soldiering. sent3: the candle abuses Reich. sent4: the dextrin is not permeable if the candle scrabbles Mutinus. sent5: if something is both not impermeable and a delinquent then it is not a fascista. sent6: everything abuses Reich. sent7: if the candle does scrabble Mutinus then the dextrin is a kind of impermeable a delinquent. sent8: if something scrabbles Mutinus and does not abuse Reich then it is a fascista. sent9: the dextrin is Sinhala. sent10: if the dextrin does scrabble Mutinus then the candle is not a fascista but it is not impermeable. sent11: the dextrin is not permeable. sent12: the dextrin is not fascista if it is both permeable and a delinquent. sent13: if the candle is not fascista but it does scrabble Mutinus then it is not permeable. sent14: if something that is not permeable is a delinquent then it is not a fascista. sent15: the dextrin gels soldiering if it is a Orleanism. sent16: something that is Sinhala is a Orleanism and/or not a library. sent17: that the slag does not abuse decorator is correct if it is not afebrile and it is fortunate. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: the slag does abuse Reich.; sent14 -> int2: if the dextrin is not permeable but it is a kind of a delinquent then it is not a fascista.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the quarterback does not occur.

¬{B}

sent1: the outdoorsness does not occur if the fact that either the Texan or the abusing Ottumwa or both happens is false. sent2: that the couture occurs is caused by that the exchangeableness occurs. sent3: that the constitutional happens is prevented by that both the semaphore and the bigamy occurs. sent4: the socioeconomicness does not occur and the soubrette does not occur if the constitutionalness does not occur. sent5: the exchangeableness and the pelvimetry occurs if the flighting does not occur. sent6: if the metarule happens the semaphore occurs. sent7: both the exchangeableness and the quarterbacking happens. sent8: that the flighting occurs is prevented by that the flighting does not occur and/or that the Gore does not occur. sent9: the flight happens and the Gore occurs. sent10: if the fact that the quarterback but not the pelvimetry happens is not correct the quarterback does not occur. sent11: the non-outdoorsness causes that the flighting does not occur or that the Gore does not occur or both. sent12: if the soubrette does not occur that the Texanness and/or the abusing Ottumwa happens is false. sent13: the metarule occurs if that the gelling Ornithorhynchidae happens is right. sent14: the exchangeableness occurs. sent15: if the fact that the quarterbacking does not occur is not wrong both the gelling annualry and the exchangeableness happens. sent16: the celebrating occurs.

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

both the couture and the catechisticness occurs.

({DM} & {EO})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the quarterback does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the outdoorsness does not occur if the fact that either the Texan or the abusing Ottumwa or both happens is false. sent2: that the couture occurs is caused by that the exchangeableness occurs. sent3: that the constitutional happens is prevented by that both the semaphore and the bigamy occurs. sent4: the socioeconomicness does not occur and the soubrette does not occur if the constitutionalness does not occur. sent5: the exchangeableness and the pelvimetry occurs if the flighting does not occur. sent6: if the metarule happens the semaphore occurs. sent7: both the exchangeableness and the quarterbacking happens. sent8: that the flighting occurs is prevented by that the flighting does not occur and/or that the Gore does not occur. sent9: the flight happens and the Gore occurs. sent10: if the fact that the quarterback but not the pelvimetry happens is not correct the quarterback does not occur. sent11: the non-outdoorsness causes that the flighting does not occur or that the Gore does not occur or both. sent12: if the soubrette does not occur that the Texanness and/or the abusing Ottumwa happens is false. sent13: the metarule occurs if that the gelling Ornithorhynchidae happens is right. sent14: the exchangeableness occurs. sent15: if the fact that the quarterbacking does not occur is not wrong both the gelling annualry and the exchangeableness happens. sent16: the celebrating occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a kind of a vermouth.

(¬{D}{c} & ¬{C}{c})

sent1: if the bister is not a Poecilocapsus the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a vermouth. sent2: if something is not a Poecilocapsus the fact that it is vesicular and it is not a pollinium is incorrect. sent3: the correspondent is not a kind of a minimalist. sent4: if the fact that the correspondent consorts Szilard but it does not breathe is not right then the bister is not a Poecilocapsus. sent5: that the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe does not hold if it is not minimalist.

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

if that the bondwoman is not a Poecilocapsus is not wrong the fact that it is both vesicular and not a pollinium is wrong.

¬{B}{c} -> ¬({EC}{c} & ¬{DU}{c})

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a kind of a vermouth. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bister is not a Poecilocapsus the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a vermouth. sent2: if something is not a Poecilocapsus the fact that it is vesicular and it is not a pollinium is incorrect. sent3: the correspondent is not a kind of a minimalist. sent4: if the fact that the correspondent consorts Szilard but it does not breathe is not right then the bister is not a Poecilocapsus. sent5: that the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe does not hold if it is not minimalist. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the correspondent does consort Szilard and does not breathe is false.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the bister is not a Poecilocapsus.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the elastic happens.

{E}

sent1: if the relevantness does not occur and the exploiting does not occur then the consorting bullfighter does not occur. sent2: that the Parisianness does not occur causes that the relevantness does not occur and the exploiting does not occur. sent3: if the down-bow does not occur the outing does not occur. sent4: that the down-bow does not occur but the origin occurs is triggered by that the challenge happens. sent5: if the allurement occurs that the considering zinfandel happens but the soiling does not occur is wrong. sent6: the warring does not occur or the sentimentalizing does not occur or both. sent7: that the stunting Apia does not occur is prevented by that the telephotography happens. sent8: either that the allurement does not occur or that the considering zinfandel does not occur or both prevents that the unalterableness does not occur. sent9: if the ratification does not occur the unalterableness occurs and the allurement happens. sent10: the allurement occurs or the considering zinfandel does not occur or both. sent11: the ratification does not occur if the linebacker happens. sent12: if the bismuthicness occurs then that the pas occurs is true. sent13: the vegetation occurs. sent14: if the unalterableness occurs then the elasticness happens. sent15: if that the pull-up does not occur and the plagiarizing does not occur is incorrect then the fact that the linebacker happens hold. sent16: if the allurement does not occur the unalterableness happens. sent17: the challenge happens and the commingling happens if the fact that the consorting bullfighter does not occur is not wrong. sent18: the blowout occurs. sent19: if the acceleration happens then the hysterectomy happens. sent20: that the pull-up does not occur and the plagiarizing does not occur is incorrect if the outingness does not occur.

sent1: (¬{P} & ¬{Q}) -> ¬{O} sent2: ¬{R} -> (¬{P} & ¬{Q}) sent3: ¬{K} -> ¬{J} sent4: {M} -> (¬{K} & {L}) sent5: {C} -> ¬({B} & ¬{A}) sent6: (¬{EG} v ¬{EJ}) sent7: {HB} -> {DO} sent8: (¬{C} v ¬{B}) -> {D} sent9: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {C}) sent10: ({C} v ¬{B}) sent11: {G} -> ¬{F} sent12: {IB} -> {IO} sent13: {FO} sent14: {D} -> {E} sent15: ¬(¬{I} & ¬{H}) -> {G} sent16: ¬{C} -> {D} sent17: ¬{O} -> ({M} & {N}) sent18: {CS} sent19: {BF} -> {DA} sent20: ¬{J} -> ¬(¬{I} & ¬{H})

the elastic does not occur.

¬{E}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the elastic happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the relevantness does not occur and the exploiting does not occur then the consorting bullfighter does not occur. sent2: that the Parisianness does not occur causes that the relevantness does not occur and the exploiting does not occur. sent3: if the down-bow does not occur the outing does not occur. sent4: that the down-bow does not occur but the origin occurs is triggered by that the challenge happens. sent5: if the allurement occurs that the considering zinfandel happens but the soiling does not occur is wrong. sent6: the warring does not occur or the sentimentalizing does not occur or both. sent7: that the stunting Apia does not occur is prevented by that the telephotography happens. sent8: either that the allurement does not occur or that the considering zinfandel does not occur or both prevents that the unalterableness does not occur. sent9: if the ratification does not occur the unalterableness occurs and the allurement happens. sent10: the allurement occurs or the considering zinfandel does not occur or both. sent11: the ratification does not occur if the linebacker happens. sent12: if the bismuthicness occurs then that the pas occurs is true. sent13: the vegetation occurs. sent14: if the unalterableness occurs then the elasticness happens. sent15: if that the pull-up does not occur and the plagiarizing does not occur is incorrect then the fact that the linebacker happens hold. sent16: if the allurement does not occur the unalterableness happens. sent17: the challenge happens and the commingling happens if the fact that the consorting bullfighter does not occur is not wrong. sent18: the blowout occurs. sent19: if the acceleration happens then the hysterectomy happens. sent20: that the pull-up does not occur and the plagiarizing does not occur is incorrect if the outingness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the gum occurs.

{C}

sent1: the gum does not occur if that the gum occurs but the considering nympholepsy does not occur is wrong. sent2: the feminizing Copland does not occur and the considering nympholepsy does not occur if the path occurs. sent3: if the feminizing Copland does not occur not the gum but the surveying happens. sent4: the fact that the cachecticness happens is not wrong. sent5: the surveying and the feminizing Copland occurs. sent6: the overthrow happens. sent7: that the gumming happens is triggered by that the feminizing Copland occurs. sent8: the fact that that the gumming does not occur brings about that the surveying happens or the feminizing Copland does not occur or both is true.

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

the gum does not occur.

¬{C}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the gum occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the gum does not occur if that the gum occurs but the considering nympholepsy does not occur is wrong. sent2: the feminizing Copland does not occur and the considering nympholepsy does not occur if the path occurs. sent3: if the feminizing Copland does not occur not the gum but the surveying happens. sent4: the fact that the cachecticness happens is not wrong. sent5: the surveying and the feminizing Copland occurs. sent6: the overthrow happens. sent7: that the gumming happens is triggered by that the feminizing Copland occurs. sent8: the fact that that the gumming does not occur brings about that the surveying happens or the feminizing Copland does not occur or both is true. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the feminizing Copland occurs.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the superfecundation does not occur and the considering Ameiurus does not occur.

(¬{AA} & ¬{AB})

sent1: that the currentness does not occur and the accumulating happens is not right. sent2: the superfecundation does not occur and the considering Ameiurus does not occur if the steamer does not occur. sent3: the fact that the dehiscentness but not the musculoskeletalness happens does not hold. sent4: the fact that the consorting cricketer happens but the participation does not occur does not hold. sent5: that the dispensation does not occur but the considerateness occurs does not hold. sent6: the fact that the feminizing Gehrig does not occur and the sensing does not occur is not right. sent7: if the feminizing Papio does not occur then the dispensation occurs and the Chippendale happens. sent8: if the dispensation occurs the fact that the fact that the aggrandizement does not occur but the steamering happens is incorrect hold. sent9: the fact that the non-blindness and the polypectomy occurs is not correct. sent10: the fact that the cleavage does not occur but the lithography occurs is not correct. sent11: the fact that the exploitation happens and the miniaturization does not occur does not hold. sent12: that the ordinal does not occur and the insubordination does not occur is not correct. sent13: the fact that the superfecundation does not occur and the considering Ameiurus does not occur is incorrect. sent14: if that the aggrandizement does not occur and the steamer occurs is not true the steamer does not occur. sent15: that the unarticulatedness and the noncurrentness occurs is incorrect. sent16: that that the declarativeness and the unostentatiousness happens hold is not true. sent17: the fact that the Nestorianness but not the indissolubleness occurs is wrong.

sent1: ¬(¬{CN} & {DO}) sent2: ¬{A} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent3: ¬({CR} & ¬{HQ}) sent4: ¬({R} & ¬{GU}) sent5: ¬(¬{B} & {EQ}) sent6: ¬(¬{BT} & ¬{BK}) sent7: ¬{E} -> ({B} & {D}) sent8: {B} -> ¬(¬{C} & {A}) sent9: ¬(¬{BQ} & {CO}) sent10: ¬(¬{BE} & {IO}) sent11: ¬({HT} & ¬{GS}) sent12: ¬(¬{DR} & ¬{CC}) sent13: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent14: ¬(¬{C} & {A}) -> ¬{A} sent15: ¬(¬{HO} & ¬{CN}) sent16: ¬({AJ} & ¬{AP}) sent17: ¬({Q} & ¬{HM})

the superfecundation does not occur and the considering Ameiurus does not occur.

(¬{AA} & ¬{AB})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the superfecundation does not occur and the considering Ameiurus does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the currentness does not occur and the accumulating happens is not right. sent2: the superfecundation does not occur and the considering Ameiurus does not occur if the steamer does not occur. sent3: the fact that the dehiscentness but not the musculoskeletalness happens does not hold. sent4: the fact that the consorting cricketer happens but the participation does not occur does not hold. sent5: that the dispensation does not occur but the considerateness occurs does not hold. sent6: the fact that the feminizing Gehrig does not occur and the sensing does not occur is not right. sent7: if the feminizing Papio does not occur then the dispensation occurs and the Chippendale happens. sent8: if the dispensation occurs the fact that the fact that the aggrandizement does not occur but the steamering happens is incorrect hold. sent9: the fact that the non-blindness and the polypectomy occurs is not correct. sent10: the fact that the cleavage does not occur but the lithography occurs is not correct. sent11: the fact that the exploitation happens and the miniaturization does not occur does not hold. sent12: that the ordinal does not occur and the insubordination does not occur is not correct. sent13: the fact that the superfecundation does not occur and the considering Ameiurus does not occur is incorrect. sent14: if that the aggrandizement does not occur and the steamer occurs is not true the steamer does not occur. sent15: that the unarticulatedness and the noncurrentness occurs is incorrect. sent16: that that the declarativeness and the unostentatiousness happens hold is not true. sent17: the fact that the Nestorianness but not the indissolubleness occurs is wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent13 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the cardinalship occurs and the preening occurs is not true.

¬({A} & {B})

sent1: the preening happens. sent2: that the cardinalship occurs and the preening occurs is not right if that the implicationalness does not occur hold. sent3: if the fact that the preening does not occur hold the mitoticness occurs and the cardinalship happens. sent4: that both the implicationalness and the full-timeness happens is brought about by the conditionalness. sent5: that the preening does not occur is brought about by that the implicationalness happens and the consorting remuda occurs. sent6: the unconditionalness does not occur if the whiting does not occur and the sashay does not occur. sent7: the cardinalship occurs.

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

that the cardinalship happens and the preening occurs does not hold.

¬({A} & {B})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the cardinalship occurs and the preening occurs is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the preening happens. sent2: that the cardinalship occurs and the preening occurs is not right if that the implicationalness does not occur hold. sent3: if the fact that the preening does not occur hold the mitoticness occurs and the cardinalship happens. sent4: that both the implicationalness and the full-timeness happens is brought about by the conditionalness. sent5: that the preening does not occur is brought about by that the implicationalness happens and the consorting remuda occurs. sent6: the unconditionalness does not occur if the whiting does not occur and the sashay does not occur. sent7: the cardinalship occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Chickasaw is not therapeutics.

¬{C}{a}

sent1: that something is therapeutics if the fact that it is not a bootleg and it is therapeutics is not true is correct. sent2: the subcontractor is not nebulous if the fact that the minaret is robotic and is not a kind of a thumbtack is not correct. sent3: if something bootlegs then it is non-therapeutics. sent4: something is a kind of therapeutics thing that is a tam if it is not nebulous. sent5: the Chickasaw is etiological and/or does stunt bantering. sent6: if the Chickasaw does bootleg then it is not therapeutics. sent7: if the fact that the subcontractor is therapeutics hold the Chickasaw is not etiological but it is a Florentine. sent8: the Chickasaw is etiological. sent9: if something is a kind of a bootleg and/or it is etiological it is non-therapeutics. sent10: the flight is Florentine if the Chickasaw is not etiological and is a Florentine. sent11: that the Chickasaw is not a kind of a bootleg and is not therapeutics is wrong if it is not etiological.

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

the flight is a kind of a bootleg and/or is a Florentine.

({A}{hm} v {CF}{hm})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Chickasaw is not therapeutics. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is therapeutics if the fact that it is not a bootleg and it is therapeutics is not true is correct. sent2: the subcontractor is not nebulous if the fact that the minaret is robotic and is not a kind of a thumbtack is not correct. sent3: if something bootlegs then it is non-therapeutics. sent4: something is a kind of therapeutics thing that is a tam if it is not nebulous. sent5: the Chickasaw is etiological and/or does stunt bantering. sent6: if the Chickasaw does bootleg then it is not therapeutics. sent7: if the fact that the subcontractor is therapeutics hold the Chickasaw is not etiological but it is a Florentine. sent8: the Chickasaw is etiological. sent9: if something is a kind of a bootleg and/or it is etiological it is non-therapeutics. sent10: the flight is Florentine if the Chickasaw is not etiological and is a Florentine. sent11: that the Chickasaw is not a kind of a bootleg and is not therapeutics is wrong if it is not etiological. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: either the Chickasaw does bootleg or it is etiological or both.; sent9 -> int2: the Chickasaw is not therapeutics if either it is a bootleg or it is etiological or both.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the stunting Klein does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: the leaning occurs. sent2: that the nonfissileness happens and the pubertalness happens causes that the reconstructing does not occur. sent3: the Pound occurs. sent4: if the cupping occurs then that the leaningness but not the State occurs is not correct. sent5: that the combustibleness happens and the bishopry occurs prevents that the feminizing bondwoman occurs. sent6: the secondment occurs and the acroscopicness happens. sent7: that both the stunting elegist and the feminizing Gardiner happens yields that the recombining does not occur. sent8: that the stunting Klein does not occur is triggered by that the rigidness occurs and the State happens. sent9: if the facultativeness and the feminizing polder happens the ebb does not occur. sent10: the consorting polyurethane occurs. sent11: the stunting meerschaum occurs. sent12: that the shaping occurs prevents that the feminizing straitjacket does not occur. sent13: the academicness happens. sent14: the Zephyr occurs. sent15: the lunisolarness occurs if the fact that the intensification occurs is correct. sent16: if the irresistibleness does not occur both the facultativeness and the feminizing Sinology occurs. sent17: the lacteal happens. sent18: the chloroticness happens. sent19: both the State and the leaningness occurs. sent20: the consorting cruelty happens and the baronetage happens. sent21: if the facultativeness happens then the cupping happens.

sent1: {E} sent2: ({II} & {GN}) -> ¬{AR} sent3: {DD} sent4: {F} -> ¬({E} & ¬{C}) sent5: ({IN} & {IE}) -> ¬{HN} sent6: ({BI} & {ES}) sent7: ({IC} & {FA}) -> ¬{GJ} sent8: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent9: ({G} & {AH}) -> ¬{S} sent10: {BS} sent11: {A} sent12: {HD} -> {JE} sent13: {GQ} sent14: {DM} sent15: {BB} -> {AA} sent16: ¬{I} -> ({G} & {H}) sent17: {JC} sent18: {HF} sent19: ({C} & {E}) sent20: ({HI} & {CN}) sent21: {G} -> {F}

the stunting Klein occurs.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the stunting Klein does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the leaning occurs. sent2: that the nonfissileness happens and the pubertalness happens causes that the reconstructing does not occur. sent3: the Pound occurs. sent4: if the cupping occurs then that the leaningness but not the State occurs is not correct. sent5: that the combustibleness happens and the bishopry occurs prevents that the feminizing bondwoman occurs. sent6: the secondment occurs and the acroscopicness happens. sent7: that both the stunting elegist and the feminizing Gardiner happens yields that the recombining does not occur. sent8: that the stunting Klein does not occur is triggered by that the rigidness occurs and the State happens. sent9: if the facultativeness and the feminizing polder happens the ebb does not occur. sent10: the consorting polyurethane occurs. sent11: the stunting meerschaum occurs. sent12: that the shaping occurs prevents that the feminizing straitjacket does not occur. sent13: the academicness happens. sent14: the Zephyr occurs. sent15: the lunisolarness occurs if the fact that the intensification occurs is correct. sent16: if the irresistibleness does not occur both the facultativeness and the feminizing Sinology occurs. sent17: the lacteal happens. sent18: the chloroticness happens. sent19: both the State and the leaningness occurs. sent20: the consorting cruelty happens and the baronetage happens. sent21: if the facultativeness happens then the cupping happens. ; $proof$ =

sent19 -> int1: the fact that the State happens hold.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the tern is not a march and is a kind of a roadworthiness.

(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a})

sent1: something considers hypo if it does consider townie. sent2: there exists something such that it gangs and it is not a kind of a put-put. sent3: the tern is not a kind of a march if that it is cheliceral thing that is not a salutatorian is wrong. sent4: that the tern is cheliceral and it is a salutatorian is wrong. sent5: that the adulteress is not Peloponnesian if the adulteress is a march is not false. sent6: the stomach is not a kind of a Coerebidae if a gang is not a put-put. sent7: the fact that the tern does encourage and/or it is not a kind of a march is false if the pediatrician considers chloroquine. sent8: if the tern encourages then it is a roadworthiness. sent9: the tern is not a copartner. sent10: if the Democrat does consider hypo the pediatrician does consider hypo. sent11: something considers chloroquine if it does consider hypo. sent12: everything does not consort Sternotherus. sent13: everything is not a Coerebidae. sent14: if something is not a Coerebidae and it does not consort Sternotherus then it does not consider townie. sent15: the perigee is not a kind of a roadworthiness if there is something such that that it encourages and/or it is not a kind of a march is not correct. sent16: the tern encourages. sent17: the pediatrician does not encourage if the fact that it does not consider hypo and it does consider chloroquine is not right. sent18: something does not feminize Sternotherus but it is fiscal if it is not a kind of a roadworthiness.

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

the fact that the tern is not a march but it is a roadworthiness does not hold.

¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tern is not a march and is a kind of a roadworthiness. ; $context$ = sent1: something considers hypo if it does consider townie. sent2: there exists something such that it gangs and it is not a kind of a put-put. sent3: the tern is not a kind of a march if that it is cheliceral thing that is not a salutatorian is wrong. sent4: that the tern is cheliceral and it is a salutatorian is wrong. sent5: that the adulteress is not Peloponnesian if the adulteress is a march is not false. sent6: the stomach is not a kind of a Coerebidae if a gang is not a put-put. sent7: the fact that the tern does encourage and/or it is not a kind of a march is false if the pediatrician considers chloroquine. sent8: if the tern encourages then it is a roadworthiness. sent9: the tern is not a copartner. sent10: if the Democrat does consider hypo the pediatrician does consider hypo. sent11: something considers chloroquine if it does consider hypo. sent12: everything does not consort Sternotherus. sent13: everything is not a Coerebidae. sent14: if something is not a Coerebidae and it does not consort Sternotherus then it does not consider townie. sent15: the perigee is not a kind of a roadworthiness if there is something such that that it encourages and/or it is not a kind of a march is not correct. sent16: the tern encourages. sent17: the pediatrician does not encourage if the fact that it does not consider hypo and it does consider chloroquine is not right. sent18: something does not feminize Sternotherus but it is fiscal if it is not a kind of a roadworthiness. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent16 -> int1: the tern is a roadworthiness.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the gal is not anagrammatic and does not stunt sparkler is not right.

¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

sent1: if the reticulocyte is a narrowing then the veterinarian does stunt Devonian. sent2: if the fact that something is side-to-side but it does not stunt chiffonier is not correct then it is not fragrant. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a ATF and it is a kind of a Mama is not right the fact that the alfalfa is not a ATF is correct. sent4: the defamer is not antecubital if there is something such that the fact that it is not a autoregulation and it is antecubital is incorrect. sent5: if the veterinarian stunts Devonian then the daguerreotype stunts Devonian. sent6: the fact that the gal is not anagrammatic and it does not stunt sparkler is not right. sent7: the reticulocyte is a narrowing if the journalist is not a kind of a narrowing and it is not subatomic. sent8: the journalist is not narrowing and it is not subatomic. sent9: the fact that the bearberry is not anagrammatic and it is not a automatism is not right. sent10: the fact that the gal is a kind of non-anagrammatic thing that does stunt sparkler does not hold. sent11: the fact that something is not a autoregulation but antecubital is not true if the fact that it is fragrant is not true. sent12: that the daguerreotype is side-to-side thing that does not stunt chiffonier is not right if it stunts Devonian. sent13: if the defamer is not antecubital then the fact that the garage is a kind of a ATF that is a Mama is not right.

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

the gal is not anagrammatic and does not stunt sparkler.

(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the gal is not anagrammatic and does not stunt sparkler is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the reticulocyte is a narrowing then the veterinarian does stunt Devonian. sent2: if the fact that something is side-to-side but it does not stunt chiffonier is not correct then it is not fragrant. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a ATF and it is a kind of a Mama is not right the fact that the alfalfa is not a ATF is correct. sent4: the defamer is not antecubital if there is something such that the fact that it is not a autoregulation and it is antecubital is incorrect. sent5: if the veterinarian stunts Devonian then the daguerreotype stunts Devonian. sent6: the fact that the gal is not anagrammatic and it does not stunt sparkler is not right. sent7: the reticulocyte is a narrowing if the journalist is not a kind of a narrowing and it is not subatomic. sent8: the journalist is not narrowing and it is not subatomic. sent9: the fact that the bearberry is not anagrammatic and it is not a automatism is not right. sent10: the fact that the gal is a kind of non-anagrammatic thing that does stunt sparkler does not hold. sent11: the fact that something is not a autoregulation but antecubital is not true if the fact that it is fragrant is not true. sent12: that the daguerreotype is side-to-side thing that does not stunt chiffonier is not right if it stunts Devonian. sent13: if the defamer is not antecubital then the fact that the garage is a kind of a ATF that is a Mama is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the indapamide is not precordial is not wrong.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: if the sgraffito feminizes future then it does not consort capacitance and/or it is not private. sent2: something is precordial if it does not cat and/or is not a private. sent3: either the indapamide is not a cat or it is not a private or both if it is dorsal. sent4: the indapamide is dorsal.

sent1: {CI}{gk} -> (¬{BH}{gk} v ¬{AB}{gk}) sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent3: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: {A}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the indapamide is not precordial is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sgraffito feminizes future then it does not consort capacitance and/or it is not private. sent2: something is precordial if it does not cat and/or is not a private. sent3: either the indapamide is not a cat or it is not a private or both if it is dorsal. sent4: the indapamide is dorsal. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: either the indapamide is not a cat or it is not a private or both.; sent2 -> int2: if either the indapamide is not a kind of a cat or it is not private or both it is precordial.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a GB it is not an adaptability and it is a pyrostat is incorrect.

¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x))

sent1: the Eyeish is not an adaptability but it is a pyrostat if it is not a kind of a GB. sent2: that if something does not consider Tampico then it is not a fascicle and it is a kind of a chowchow is true. sent3: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a GB is correct then it is not a kind of an adaptability and it is a pyrostat. sent4: the Eyeish is an adaptability and it ports if it is not a kind of a potted.

sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: (x): ¬{DJ}x -> (¬{I}x & {BM}x) sent3: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: ¬{HS}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {GS}{aa})

there exists something such that if it does not consider Tampico it is not a fascicle and it is a chowchow.

(Ex): ¬{DJ}x -> (¬{I}x & {BM}x)

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a GB it is not an adaptability and it is a pyrostat is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the Eyeish is not an adaptability but it is a pyrostat if it is not a kind of a GB. sent2: that if something does not consider Tampico then it is not a fascicle and it is a kind of a chowchow is true. sent3: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a GB is correct then it is not a kind of an adaptability and it is a pyrostat. sent4: the Eyeish is an adaptability and it ports if it is not a kind of a potted. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the custom-made is biosynthetic then it is not skinless and it does stunt bollock.

{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

sent1: something stunts Luger if the fact that it is a kind of a Cornus is not incorrect. sent2: something is bicameral if it feminizes plagiarism. sent3: something is not skinless but it does stunt bollock if it is biosynthetic. sent4: something is skinless and it stunts bollock if it is biosynthetic. sent5: if the Luger stunts bollock it is chimeric.

sent1: (x): {EN}x -> {EL}x sent2: (x): {EM}x -> {JC}x sent3: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: {AB}{hr} -> {DP}{hr}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = if the custom-made is biosynthetic then it is not skinless and it does stunt bollock. ; $context$ = sent1: something stunts Luger if the fact that it is a kind of a Cornus is not incorrect. sent2: something is bicameral if it feminizes plagiarism. sent3: something is not skinless but it does stunt bollock if it is biosynthetic. sent4: something is skinless and it stunts bollock if it is biosynthetic. sent5: if the Luger stunts bollock it is chimeric. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the caboose is not a effeminacy.

¬{D}{c}

sent1: either the allspice is a Arlington or it is agreeable or both if it is not a Caligula. sent2: the fergusonite is skeletal. sent3: that the fact that the allspice does not feminize Buffalo and is a kind of a horizontality is incorrect is not wrong. sent4: the fact that the allspice is not a Caligula is correct if the fact that it does not feminize Buffalo and is a horizontality is not right. sent5: the fergusonite is a bodega. sent6: the caboose is a kind of a effeminacy if the wheeze is macrobiotics. sent7: if the fergusonite is immediate the wheeze is macrobiotics. sent8: the fergusonite is not non-skeletal but immediate. sent9: if the fergusonite is macrobiotics the wheeze is immediate. sent10: the fergusonite is macrobiotics if the wheeze is immediate. sent11: that something is a effeminacy or immediate or both is wrong if it is not skeletal. sent12: something is skeletal and it is immediate if it is not a effeminacy. sent13: the fact that the caboose is a gravy hold. sent14: the fact that the organelle is immediate is not false. sent15: the caboose is desirous. sent16: the cygnet is not Episcopal if something is a kind of a Arlington and/or is agreeable. sent17: if the fergusonite is both skeletal and not a effeminacy then the caboose is not a effeminacy. sent18: if that the fergusonite is a effeminacy and/or it is immediate does not hold then the fact that the caboose is not a effeminacy is not incorrect.

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

the fetter is immediate and it is minor.

({B}{fs} & {S}{fs})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the caboose is not a effeminacy. ; $context$ = sent1: either the allspice is a Arlington or it is agreeable or both if it is not a Caligula. sent2: the fergusonite is skeletal. sent3: that the fact that the allspice does not feminize Buffalo and is a kind of a horizontality is incorrect is not wrong. sent4: the fact that the allspice is not a Caligula is correct if the fact that it does not feminize Buffalo and is a horizontality is not right. sent5: the fergusonite is a bodega. sent6: the caboose is a kind of a effeminacy if the wheeze is macrobiotics. sent7: if the fergusonite is immediate the wheeze is macrobiotics. sent8: the fergusonite is not non-skeletal but immediate. sent9: if the fergusonite is macrobiotics the wheeze is immediate. sent10: the fergusonite is macrobiotics if the wheeze is immediate. sent11: that something is a effeminacy or immediate or both is wrong if it is not skeletal. sent12: something is skeletal and it is immediate if it is not a effeminacy. sent13: the fact that the caboose is a gravy hold. sent14: the fact that the organelle is immediate is not false. sent15: the caboose is desirous. sent16: the cygnet is not Episcopal if something is a kind of a Arlington and/or is agreeable. sent17: if the fergusonite is both skeletal and not a effeminacy then the caboose is not a effeminacy. sent18: if that the fergusonite is a effeminacy and/or it is immediate does not hold then the fact that the caboose is not a effeminacy is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the fergusonite is immediate.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the wheeze is macrobiotics.; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that both the non-stablingness and the loop occurs is false.

¬(¬{AA} & {AB})

sent1: if the using occurs that the stunting rya does not occur and the consorting Gnosticism happens is incorrect. sent2: the fact that the feminizing WTV does not occur and the vocal happens does not hold. sent3: if the consolidation happens then the fact that not the label but the incompatibleness occurs is not right. sent4: if the parking happens then the fact that the stablingness happens and the looping happens is not correct. sent5: if the consorting Gnosticism happens then the fact that not the Venetianness but the pause occurs does not hold. sent6: if the vandalism happens then that the incompatibleness does not occur but the consorting Gnosticism occurs is not true. sent7: that the stunting probate does not occur results in that the spoiling does not occur and the scrubbing occurs. sent8: the ornithologicalness occurs. sent9: that the spoiling does not occur leads to that not the superposition but the elegiacness occurs. sent10: if the parking does not occur then that the circumvention does not occur and the lobectomy happens does not hold. sent11: that the superposition does not occur causes that the relief occurs and the smash occurs. sent12: that both the non-stablingness and the looping happens is not true if the parking happens. sent13: that the immunohistochemistry occurs and the autogamy occurs is triggered by that the feminizing chinked does not occur. sent14: if the relief happens then the feminizing chinked does not occur. sent15: that the stabling and the loop happens is not right. sent16: the fact that the gyralness does not occur and the explicableness occurs is wrong if the rigging occurs. sent17: the stunting probate does not occur if the fact that not the wholesomeness but the messaging happens is not true. sent18: the parking occurs. sent19: if the autogamy occurs then the parking does not occur and the Freudianness does not occur. sent20: if that the parking or the non-Freudianness or both happens is false then the stabling does not occur. sent21: if the smokelessness does not occur then that both the non-wholesomeness and the messaging occurs is not right.

sent1: {EL} -> ¬(¬{GB} & {HI}) sent2: ¬(¬{HT} & {DF}) sent3: {GO} -> ¬(¬{GQ} & {U}) sent4: {A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent5: {HI} -> ¬(¬{IO} & {GJ}) sent6: {AG} -> ¬(¬{U} & {HI}) sent7: ¬{L} -> (¬{J} & {K}) sent8: {HE} sent9: ¬{J} -> (¬{H} & {I}) sent10: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{BK} & {CF}) sent11: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent12: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent13: ¬{E} -> ({D} & {C}) sent14: {F} -> ¬{E} sent15: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent16: {AM} -> ¬(¬{JB} & {HH}) sent17: ¬(¬{M} & {N}) -> ¬{L} sent18: {A} sent19: {C} -> (¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent20: ¬({A} v ¬{B}) -> ¬{AA} sent21: ¬{O} -> ¬(¬{M} & {N})

both the non-stablingness and the looping occurs.

(¬{AA} & {AB})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that both the non-stablingness and the loop occurs is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the using occurs that the stunting rya does not occur and the consorting Gnosticism happens is incorrect. sent2: the fact that the feminizing WTV does not occur and the vocal happens does not hold. sent3: if the consolidation happens then the fact that not the label but the incompatibleness occurs is not right. sent4: if the parking happens then the fact that the stablingness happens and the looping happens is not correct. sent5: if the consorting Gnosticism happens then the fact that not the Venetianness but the pause occurs does not hold. sent6: if the vandalism happens then that the incompatibleness does not occur but the consorting Gnosticism occurs is not true. sent7: that the stunting probate does not occur results in that the spoiling does not occur and the scrubbing occurs. sent8: the ornithologicalness occurs. sent9: that the spoiling does not occur leads to that not the superposition but the elegiacness occurs. sent10: if the parking does not occur then that the circumvention does not occur and the lobectomy happens does not hold. sent11: that the superposition does not occur causes that the relief occurs and the smash occurs. sent12: that both the non-stablingness and the looping happens is not true if the parking happens. sent13: that the immunohistochemistry occurs and the autogamy occurs is triggered by that the feminizing chinked does not occur. sent14: if the relief happens then the feminizing chinked does not occur. sent15: that the stabling and the loop happens is not right. sent16: the fact that the gyralness does not occur and the explicableness occurs is wrong if the rigging occurs. sent17: the stunting probate does not occur if the fact that not the wholesomeness but the messaging happens is not true. sent18: the parking occurs. sent19: if the autogamy occurs then the parking does not occur and the Freudianness does not occur. sent20: if that the parking or the non-Freudianness or both happens is false then the stabling does not occur. sent21: if the smokelessness does not occur then that both the non-wholesomeness and the messaging occurs is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent18 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Czechoslovakian is not a siskin.

¬{B}{aa}

sent1: something is a kind of a banner and it stunts Gospel if it does not feminize lowland. sent2: if there is something such that it does not murmur then that the Czechoslovakian is porcine and is a kind of an elation is false. sent3: that the Czechoslovakian is journalistic is right. sent4: something is not a murmur and it is not a siskin if it is a banner. sent5: that something is a siskin and does not stunt loaf is wrong if it is not a murmur. sent6: something is not a murmur. sent7: the Czechoslovakian is a siskin if it is a kind of an elation. sent8: that the Czechoslovakian is porcine and it is an elation is not right. sent9: if that something is porcine but it is not an elation is not correct then it is a kind of a siskin. sent10: something feminizes prematureness. sent11: if there exists something such that it is not porcine then that the Czechoslovakian does consort sandal but it is not a Tandy does not hold. sent12: if there is something such that that it is not a gooseberry hold then the fact that the Czechoslovakian is both a entelechy and not consonantal does not hold. sent13: the fact that the Czechoslovakian is tellurian but it is not a kind of a siskin is not correct. sent14: there is something such that that it is mutable is not false. sent15: something that is a kind of an elation is a siskin. sent16: the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not a kind of an elation is not true if there is something such that it is not a murmur.

sent1: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x & {D}x) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: {IA}{aa} sent4: (x): {C}x -> (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{J}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent7: {AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent8: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent10: (Ex): {DP}x sent11: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬({GH}{aa} & ¬{DS}{aa}) sent12: (x): ¬{GK}x -> ¬({JJ}{aa} & ¬{S}{aa}) sent13: ¬({BQ}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) sent14: (Ex): {HA}x sent15: (x): {AB}x -> {B}x sent16: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

the fact that the VLDL is a siskin and does not stunt loaf does not hold.

¬({B}{bj} & ¬{J}{bj})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Czechoslovakian is not a siskin. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a kind of a banner and it stunts Gospel if it does not feminize lowland. sent2: if there is something such that it does not murmur then that the Czechoslovakian is porcine and is a kind of an elation is false. sent3: that the Czechoslovakian is journalistic is right. sent4: something is not a murmur and it is not a siskin if it is a banner. sent5: that something is a siskin and does not stunt loaf is wrong if it is not a murmur. sent6: something is not a murmur. sent7: the Czechoslovakian is a siskin if it is a kind of an elation. sent8: that the Czechoslovakian is porcine and it is an elation is not right. sent9: if that something is porcine but it is not an elation is not correct then it is a kind of a siskin. sent10: something feminizes prematureness. sent11: if there exists something such that it is not porcine then that the Czechoslovakian does consort sandal but it is not a Tandy does not hold. sent12: if there is something such that that it is not a gooseberry hold then the fact that the Czechoslovakian is both a entelechy and not consonantal does not hold. sent13: the fact that the Czechoslovakian is tellurian but it is not a kind of a siskin is not correct. sent14: there is something such that that it is mutable is not false. sent15: something that is a kind of an elation is a siskin. sent16: the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not a kind of an elation is not true if there is something such that it is not a murmur. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> int1: if the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not an elation is incorrect then it is a siskin.; sent6 & sent16 -> int2: the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not an elation is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the unmilitariness happens.

{C}

sent1: the lowercaseness and the feminizing keystroke occurs. sent2: the stunting foothold occurs. sent3: that the radiopaqueness occurs results in that the nonobservance does not occur and the relation does not occur. sent4: that the branching occurs and the consorting narrator occurs is brought about by that the relation does not occur. sent5: the consorting coverage happens and the renovation happens. sent6: the consorting coverage happens. sent7: the northernness does not occur if the consorting spellbinder occurs and the conclusiveness occurs. sent8: that the consorting coverage does not occur and the renovation occurs causes the titration. sent9: the preoccupancy does not occur and the Danish does not occur if the branched occurs. sent10: both the curing and the nobleness happens. sent11: that the insaneness does not occur and the overexertion does not occur is triggered by that the original does not occur. sent12: if the renovation occurs the unmilitariness occurs. sent13: the renovation does not occur and the consorting coverage does not occur if the overexertion does not occur. sent14: if the northernness does not occur and the feminizing khoum does not occur then that the radiopaqueness happens is true. sent15: if the preoccupancy does not occur and the Danish does not occur then the original does not occur. sent16: the stunting scattered occurs. sent17: that the unmilitariness happens is prevented by that the renovation does not occur and the consorting coverage does not occur. sent18: both the nay and the controlling happens. sent19: the fact that the overexertion does not occur and the unmilitariness occurs does not hold if the insaneness does not occur. sent20: the fact that the aeroliticness happens and the relation happens is right.

sent1: ({FK} & {HN}) sent2: {BA} sent3: {M} -> (¬{L} & ¬{K}) sent4: ¬{K} -> ({I} & {J}) sent5: ({A} & {B}) sent6: {A} sent7: ({Q} & {P}) -> ¬{N} sent8: (¬{A} & {B}) -> {AS} sent9: {I} -> (¬{G} & ¬{H}) sent10: ({GH} & {AO}) sent11: ¬{F} -> (¬{E} & ¬{D}) sent12: {B} -> {C} sent13: ¬{D} -> (¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent14: (¬{N} & ¬{O}) -> {M} sent15: (¬{G} & ¬{H}) -> ¬{F} sent16: {CF} sent17: (¬{B} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{C} sent18: ({BL} & {HF}) sent19: ¬{E} -> ¬(¬{D} & {C}) sent20: ({FN} & {K})

the unmilitariness does not occur.

¬{C}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the unmilitariness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the lowercaseness and the feminizing keystroke occurs. sent2: the stunting foothold occurs. sent3: that the radiopaqueness occurs results in that the nonobservance does not occur and the relation does not occur. sent4: that the branching occurs and the consorting narrator occurs is brought about by that the relation does not occur. sent5: the consorting coverage happens and the renovation happens. sent6: the consorting coverage happens. sent7: the northernness does not occur if the consorting spellbinder occurs and the conclusiveness occurs. sent8: that the consorting coverage does not occur and the renovation occurs causes the titration. sent9: the preoccupancy does not occur and the Danish does not occur if the branched occurs. sent10: both the curing and the nobleness happens. sent11: that the insaneness does not occur and the overexertion does not occur is triggered by that the original does not occur. sent12: if the renovation occurs the unmilitariness occurs. sent13: the renovation does not occur and the consorting coverage does not occur if the overexertion does not occur. sent14: if the northernness does not occur and the feminizing khoum does not occur then that the radiopaqueness happens is true. sent15: if the preoccupancy does not occur and the Danish does not occur then the original does not occur. sent16: the stunting scattered occurs. sent17: that the unmilitariness happens is prevented by that the renovation does not occur and the consorting coverage does not occur. sent18: both the nay and the controlling happens. sent19: the fact that the overexertion does not occur and the unmilitariness occurs does not hold if the insaneness does not occur. sent20: the fact that the aeroliticness happens and the relation happens is right. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the renovation happens.; int1 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the harvest-lice is a carbonyl.

{A}{a}

sent1: the fact that something is other and does not consort patella is true if it is prokaryotic. sent2: the fact that the swamp is not an impossible but it is rosaceous does not hold. sent3: the harvest-lice is a carbonyl. sent4: the Nasturtium is carbonyl thing that is not a kind of a grate if there is something such that it is a kind of a downshift. sent5: the sheldrake is a kind of a carbonyl. sent6: the Nasturtium is not prokaryotic and/or is a kind of a downshift. sent7: something is either not a grate or other or both if that it does not consort patella hold. sent8: the harvest-lice is other if there is something such that it does not grate or it is other or both. sent9: if either something is not prokaryotic or it is a downshift or both it does not consort patella. sent10: the bondwoman is a downshift. sent11: that the harvest-lice is not carbonyl if the Nasturtium is a kind of a carbonyl and it is other is not wrong.

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

the harvest-lice is non-carbonyl.

¬{A}{a}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the harvest-lice is a carbonyl. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is other and does not consort patella is true if it is prokaryotic. sent2: the fact that the swamp is not an impossible but it is rosaceous does not hold. sent3: the harvest-lice is a carbonyl. sent4: the Nasturtium is carbonyl thing that is not a kind of a grate if there is something such that it is a kind of a downshift. sent5: the sheldrake is a kind of a carbonyl. sent6: the Nasturtium is not prokaryotic and/or is a kind of a downshift. sent7: something is either not a grate or other or both if that it does not consort patella hold. sent8: the harvest-lice is other if there is something such that it does not grate or it is other or both. sent9: if either something is not prokaryotic or it is a downshift or both it does not consort patella. sent10: the bondwoman is a downshift. sent11: that the harvest-lice is not carbonyl if the Nasturtium is a kind of a carbonyl and it is other is not wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the spaceflight does not occur is true.

¬{B}

sent1: the dilution occurs. sent2: the fact that the dilution does not occur and the spaceflight does not occur is not true if the Tahitianness does not occur. sent3: if the dilution happens the fact that the nonlexicalness happens and the radial occurs is not true. sent4: the consorting tribuneship does not occur. sent5: the spaceflight does not occur if that the nonlexicalness and the non-radialness occurs is not correct. sent6: the spaceflight does not occur if the radial occurs. sent7: that both the nonlexicalness and the radial occurs does not hold. sent8: the resuming occurs.

sent1: {A} sent2: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent3: {A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent4: ¬{GD} sent5: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent6: {AB} -> ¬{B} sent7: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent8: {HQ}

the fact that the spaceflight occurs is not false.

{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the spaceflight does not occur is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the dilution occurs. sent2: the fact that the dilution does not occur and the spaceflight does not occur is not true if the Tahitianness does not occur. sent3: if the dilution happens the fact that the nonlexicalness happens and the radial occurs is not true. sent4: the consorting tribuneship does not occur. sent5: the spaceflight does not occur if that the nonlexicalness and the non-radialness occurs is not correct. sent6: the spaceflight does not occur if the radial occurs. sent7: that both the nonlexicalness and the radial occurs does not hold. sent8: the resuming occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is not a range and it is innumerate is not wrong is not true.

(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: the fact that the thyrotropin considers billfish and is unobjectionable does not hold. sent2: something does not range but it is innumerate. sent3: the fact that that the thyrotropin is quartzose and it is not non-innumerate is true does not hold. sent4: the Iowan is not quartzose. sent5: the fact that the thyrotropin is not a range but it is innumerate is false if the moor is not quartzose. sent6: the fact that the moor does not range is right. sent7: the fact that the thyrotropin does range and it is innumerate is incorrect if the moor is not quartzose. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a hematinic and remains does not hold. sent9: there is something such that that that it does range and is innumerate is correct is incorrect. sent10: that the thyrotropin is innumerate and is quartzose is not true. sent11: the moor is not quartzose.

sent1: ¬({HR}{b} & {DG}{b}) sent2: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: ¬({A}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent4: ¬{A}{ao} sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent6: ¬{AA}{a} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{IO}x & {IJ}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: ¬({AB}{b} & {A}{b}) sent11: ¬{A}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is not a range and it is innumerate is not wrong is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the thyrotropin considers billfish and is unobjectionable does not hold. sent2: something does not range but it is innumerate. sent3: the fact that that the thyrotropin is quartzose and it is not non-innumerate is true does not hold. sent4: the Iowan is not quartzose. sent5: the fact that the thyrotropin is not a range but it is innumerate is false if the moor is not quartzose. sent6: the fact that the moor does not range is right. sent7: the fact that the thyrotropin does range and it is innumerate is incorrect if the moor is not quartzose. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a hematinic and remains does not hold. sent9: there is something such that that that it does range and is innumerate is correct is incorrect. sent10: that the thyrotropin is innumerate and is quartzose is not true. sent11: the moor is not quartzose. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent11 -> int1: that the thyrotropin is not a kind of a range but it is innumerate does not hold.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the nosewheel hoofs.

{C}{b}

sent1: if something does not stunt pickpocket and it is not a drupelet the nosewheel does not hoof. sent2: if the niece consorts quibble then the cloud does consorts quibble. sent3: the cloud is not a drupelet. sent4: The pickpocket does not stunt cloud. sent5: something that caprioles and is not neurophysiological is a lusterware. sent6: the fact that the nosewheel does not stunt pickpocket is true. sent7: something that stunts pickpocket does hoof. sent8: the cloud does not stunt pickpocket. sent9: if the cloud consorts quibble then the nosewheel is a kind of a capriole and is not neurophysiological. sent10: there is something such that it is not adjective. sent11: something is a kind of a drupelet if it is a kind of a lusterware.

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

the nosewheel is a hoofing.

{C}{b}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nosewheel hoofs. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not stunt pickpocket and it is not a drupelet the nosewheel does not hoof. sent2: if the niece consorts quibble then the cloud does consorts quibble. sent3: the cloud is not a drupelet. sent4: The pickpocket does not stunt cloud. sent5: something that caprioles and is not neurophysiological is a lusterware. sent6: the fact that the nosewheel does not stunt pickpocket is true. sent7: something that stunts pickpocket does hoof. sent8: the cloud does not stunt pickpocket. sent9: if the cloud consorts quibble then the nosewheel is a kind of a capriole and is not neurophysiological. sent10: there is something such that it is not adjective. sent11: something is a kind of a drupelet if it is a kind of a lusterware. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent3 -> int1: the cloud does not stunt pickpocket and is not a drupelet.; int1 -> int2: something does not stunt pickpocket and it is not a kind of a drupelet.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the aphaniticness happens is not false.

{D}

sent1: the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect if the sacking occurs. sent2: the launch is caused by that the casualty happens. sent3: if that the mousetrap happens hold then the Norman occurs. sent4: if the indentation occurs then the aphaniticness happens. sent5: the nonionicness occurs. sent6: if the earlessness occurs then the Swiss happens. sent7: the indentation occurs if the schematization occurs. sent8: the canine prevents that the refund does not occur. sent9: the sacking occurs. sent10: if the lithographicness does not occur then that the aphaniticness occurs and the indentation occurs does not hold. sent11: the stunting stepper occurs.

sent1: {A} -> {B} sent2: {IS} -> {ES} sent3: {I} -> {DG} sent4: {C} -> {D} sent5: {AK} sent6: {DB} -> {IU} sent7: {B} -> {C} sent8: {AN} -> {GM} sent9: {A} sent10: ¬{E} -> ¬({D} & {C}) sent11: {AA}

the immunocompetentness happens.

{FC}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the aphaniticness happens is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect if the sacking occurs. sent2: the launch is caused by that the casualty happens. sent3: if that the mousetrap happens hold then the Norman occurs. sent4: if the indentation occurs then the aphaniticness happens. sent5: the nonionicness occurs. sent6: if the earlessness occurs then the Swiss happens. sent7: the indentation occurs if the schematization occurs. sent8: the canine prevents that the refund does not occur. sent9: the sacking occurs. sent10: if the lithographicness does not occur then that the aphaniticness occurs and the indentation occurs does not hold. sent11: the stunting stepper occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent9 -> int1: the schematization happens.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the indentation occurs.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there exists something such that if it does not feminize annum and it does not feminize spellbinder then it does archaize does not hold.

¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x)

sent1: if the mesohippus does not feminize annum and does feminize spellbinder then it does archaize. sent2: if something that is not ecclesiastical does not stunt Epistle then it fornicates. sent3: if something feminizes annum but it does not feminize spellbinder then it archaizes. sent4: if something does not feminize annum and feminizes spellbinder it archaizes. sent5: there exists something such that if it does feminize annum and it does not feminize spellbinder it archaizes. sent6: if something does not feminize annum and it does not feminize spellbinder then it does archaize. sent7: there exists something such that if it does not feminize annum and it feminizes spellbinder it archaizes.

sent1: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent2: (x): (¬{BS}x & ¬{N}x) -> {IJ}x sent3: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent6: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent7: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it does not feminize annum and it does not feminize spellbinder then it does archaize does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the mesohippus does not feminize annum and does feminize spellbinder then it does archaize. sent2: if something that is not ecclesiastical does not stunt Epistle then it fornicates. sent3: if something feminizes annum but it does not feminize spellbinder then it archaizes. sent4: if something does not feminize annum and feminizes spellbinder it archaizes. sent5: there exists something such that if it does feminize annum and it does not feminize spellbinder it archaizes. sent6: if something does not feminize annum and it does not feminize spellbinder then it does archaize. sent7: there exists something such that if it does not feminize annum and it feminizes spellbinder it archaizes. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: if the fact that the mesohippus does not feminize annum and does not feminize spellbinder is not false it does archaize.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the zamia is not a nymphet but it is uveal is not correct.

¬(¬{C}{a} & {B}{a})

sent1: the zamia is a details but it is not a Martian. sent2: the Devon is a kind of a details. sent3: if the zamia stunts algometer then that it is not uveal is not right. sent4: the zamia stunts algometer. sent5: The algometer stunts zamia. sent6: if the zamia does detail but it is not a Martian it is not a nymphet. sent7: that something does not extrapolate and/or considers restharrow does not hold if it does not disguise. sent8: the zamia does deny if it is uveal. sent9: if the zamia does not stunt algometer then that the dad is not a kind of a Martian hold. sent10: the zamia is not a kind of a details if that that the stoma does not extrapolate or it does consider restharrow or both hold is incorrect. sent11: something is a kind of a nymphet and it is uveal if it is not a details.

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

the dad is not Martian.

¬{D}{fr}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the zamia is not a nymphet but it is uveal is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the zamia is a details but it is not a Martian. sent2: the Devon is a kind of a details. sent3: if the zamia stunts algometer then that it is not uveal is not right. sent4: the zamia stunts algometer. sent5: The algometer stunts zamia. sent6: if the zamia does detail but it is not a Martian it is not a nymphet. sent7: that something does not extrapolate and/or considers restharrow does not hold if it does not disguise. sent8: the zamia does deny if it is uveal. sent9: if the zamia does not stunt algometer then that the dad is not a kind of a Martian hold. sent10: the zamia is not a kind of a details if that that the stoma does not extrapolate or it does consider restharrow or both hold is incorrect. sent11: something is a kind of a nymphet and it is uveal if it is not a details. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the zamia is uveal.; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: the zamia is not a kind of a nymphet.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the effecter does logroll is not false.

{E}{c}

sent1: there is something such that it is a fission. sent2: if that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not true the Montrachet stunt getaway. sent3: if the fact that something is a Islam but it does not stunt plexor is not correct it stunt plexor. sent4: if something that does not pray is a worthy the Timothy is not a canter. sent5: there exists something such that it does not pray and is a kind of a worthy. sent6: something does not logroll if it stunts plexor or does not logroll or both. sent7: if the Montrachet stunts getaway then the fact that the effecter is a Islam and does not stunt plexor is wrong. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Islam then the Montrachet stunts plexor and/or does stunt getaway. sent9: that the effecter logrolls is not incorrect if the convolution is a ginseng. sent10: the effecter is a ginseng. sent11: there exists something such that it stunts plexor. sent12: if the Montrachet does logroll the effecter stunts getaway. sent13: the fact that the Montrachet either stunts plexor or does logroll or both is not false. sent14: the convolution stunts getaway. sent15: the convolution logrolls if the effecter is a ginseng. sent16: if the Montrachet is a kind of a ginseng then the convolution does stunt getaway. sent17: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Islam. sent18: if the Montrachet does stunt plexor the convolution is a ginseng. sent19: if there is something such that it does not stunt plexor then the effecter does logroll and/or it stunts getaway. sent20: if that the posthouse is a ginseng is true then the fact that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not correct. sent21: there is something such that it is a Islam. sent22: if the fact that the Montrachet does stunt getaway is not false then the convolution is a ginseng.

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

the effecter does not logroll.

¬{E}{c}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the effecter does logroll is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is a fission. sent2: if that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not true the Montrachet stunt getaway. sent3: if the fact that something is a Islam but it does not stunt plexor is not correct it stunt plexor. sent4: if something that does not pray is a worthy the Timothy is not a canter. sent5: there exists something such that it does not pray and is a kind of a worthy. sent6: something does not logroll if it stunts plexor or does not logroll or both. sent7: if the Montrachet stunts getaway then the fact that the effecter is a Islam and does not stunt plexor is wrong. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Islam then the Montrachet stunts plexor and/or does stunt getaway. sent9: that the effecter logrolls is not incorrect if the convolution is a ginseng. sent10: the effecter is a ginseng. sent11: there exists something such that it stunts plexor. sent12: if the Montrachet does logroll the effecter stunts getaway. sent13: the fact that the Montrachet either stunts plexor or does logroll or both is not false. sent14: the convolution stunts getaway. sent15: the convolution logrolls if the effecter is a ginseng. sent16: if the Montrachet is a kind of a ginseng then the convolution does stunt getaway. sent17: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Islam. sent18: if the Montrachet does stunt plexor the convolution is a ginseng. sent19: if there is something such that it does not stunt plexor then the effecter does logroll and/or it stunts getaway. sent20: if that the posthouse is a ginseng is true then the fact that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not correct. sent21: there is something such that it is a Islam. sent22: if the fact that the Montrachet does stunt getaway is not false then the convolution is a ginseng. ; $proof$ =

sent17 & sent8 -> int1: either the Montrachet does stunt plexor or it does stunt getaway or both.; int1 & sent18 & sent22 -> int2: the convolution is a ginseng.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the subduer is a whirl.

{C}{b}

sent1: if something does stunt Islam the fact that it is not a Okinawa and it does consort miscalculation is not true. sent2: the Kiowa does deviate if it is a thrower. sent3: the paste is a kind of a whirl. sent4: that the Kiowa is a thrower is correct. sent5: the finagler does not whirl. sent6: the Kiowa is categorematic. sent7: that the finagler does consort miscalculation is not wrong if it is a Okinawa. sent8: the subduer is a whirl if it is a Okinawa. sent9: if something does feminize oddness it stunts Islam. sent10: the subduer is a whirl if it does consort miscalculation. sent11: the subduer does not whirl if the finagler does consort miscalculation. sent12: the subduer does feminize oddness if that the finagler does not consort polygraph but it does feminize oddness does not hold. sent13: if the finagler does whirl then the subduer does whirl. sent14: something is a strabismus if it is categorematic. sent15: the finagler is a Okinawa. sent16: the leporide whirls. sent17: if the finagler does whirl then it is a Okinawa. sent18: that the subduer is not a Okinawa is not wrong. sent19: the fact that something does not consort polygraph and feminizes oddness is not right if it is photovoltaic. sent20: the finagler is photovoltaic and it does intern if the mother is not mini.

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

the subduer does whirl.

{C}{b}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the subduer is a whirl. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does stunt Islam the fact that it is not a Okinawa and it does consort miscalculation is not true. sent2: the Kiowa does deviate if it is a thrower. sent3: the paste is a kind of a whirl. sent4: that the Kiowa is a thrower is correct. sent5: the finagler does not whirl. sent6: the Kiowa is categorematic. sent7: that the finagler does consort miscalculation is not wrong if it is a Okinawa. sent8: the subduer is a whirl if it is a Okinawa. sent9: if something does feminize oddness it stunts Islam. sent10: the subduer is a whirl if it does consort miscalculation. sent11: the subduer does not whirl if the finagler does consort miscalculation. sent12: the subduer does feminize oddness if that the finagler does not consort polygraph but it does feminize oddness does not hold. sent13: if the finagler does whirl then the subduer does whirl. sent14: something is a strabismus if it is categorematic. sent15: the finagler is a Okinawa. sent16: the leporide whirls. sent17: if the finagler does whirl then it is a Okinawa. sent18: that the subduer is not a Okinawa is not wrong. sent19: the fact that something does not consort polygraph and feminizes oddness is not right if it is photovoltaic. sent20: the finagler is photovoltaic and it does intern if the mother is not mini. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent15 -> int1: the finagler does consort miscalculation.; int1 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the anthropolatry occurs.

{A}

sent1: that both the flag and the bobsledding occurs is wrong if the attainment does not occur. sent2: the depression but not the anthropolatry happens if the behalf occurs. sent3: the anthropolatry occurs and the depression occurs. sent4: the eagerness happens. sent5: if the fact that the feminizing manumission occurs hold then the limitation occurs. sent6: if the feminizing Haywood does not occur then the discus happens and/or the prosthodonticsness occurs. sent7: the feminizing Loiseleuria does not occur and the feminizing manumission occurs. sent8: if the feminizing bantering happens the poeticsness occurs. sent9: both the napoleon and the injury happens if the consorting Vuillard does not occur. sent10: either the depression or the anthropolatry or both happens if the behalf does not occur. sent11: the eagerness prevents the non-aquiferousness. sent12: if the gustatoriness occurs then the attainment does not occur and the feminizing flavorsomeness does not occur. sent13: the gustatoriness occurs if the napoleon occurs. sent14: the depression occurs. sent15: the feminizing Haywood does not occur if that both the flagging and the bobsledding occurs does not hold. sent16: the excitableness prevents that the consorting Vuillard happens. sent17: that the bilabialness does not occur is prevented by that the limitation happens. sent18: if the poeticsness happens and the aquiferousness occurs then the unexcitableness does not occur. sent19: the bilabial leads to that not the feather but the feminizing bantering happens.

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

the anthropolatry does not occur.

¬{A}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the anthropolatry occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that both the flag and the bobsledding occurs is wrong if the attainment does not occur. sent2: the depression but not the anthropolatry happens if the behalf occurs. sent3: the anthropolatry occurs and the depression occurs. sent4: the eagerness happens. sent5: if the fact that the feminizing manumission occurs hold then the limitation occurs. sent6: if the feminizing Haywood does not occur then the discus happens and/or the prosthodonticsness occurs. sent7: the feminizing Loiseleuria does not occur and the feminizing manumission occurs. sent8: if the feminizing bantering happens the poeticsness occurs. sent9: both the napoleon and the injury happens if the consorting Vuillard does not occur. sent10: either the depression or the anthropolatry or both happens if the behalf does not occur. sent11: the eagerness prevents the non-aquiferousness. sent12: if the gustatoriness occurs then the attainment does not occur and the feminizing flavorsomeness does not occur. sent13: the gustatoriness occurs if the napoleon occurs. sent14: the depression occurs. sent15: the feminizing Haywood does not occur if that both the flagging and the bobsledding occurs does not hold. sent16: the excitableness prevents that the consorting Vuillard happens. sent17: that the bilabialness does not occur is prevented by that the limitation happens. sent18: if the poeticsness happens and the aquiferousness occurs then the unexcitableness does not occur. sent19: the bilabial leads to that not the feather but the feminizing bantering happens. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the archil is a hypertensive.

{C}{a}

sent1: if the monastery is not a thinker that it is a plenty and is not a Milvus is wrong. sent2: that the refinery is not photosynthetic hold. sent3: the monastery is not a thinker if there exists something such that that it is not a Day and it is not a kind of a foundation is false. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is optimistic and it is not developmental does not hold. sent5: if the fact that the monastery is a plenty but it is not a Milvus is not right the langoustine is a Milvus. sent6: the omelet is a hypertensive and it is a kind of a eutrophication. sent7: the omelet is a eutrophication and it consorts refinery. sent8: something is not calculous if it is a Arp and nonalcoholic. sent9: the omelet is a hypertensive. sent10: something is a eutrophication and does not consort refinery if it is not calculous. sent11: the archil consorts refinery. sent12: something does consort refinery and it is a hypertensive. sent13: the tie is a kind of a hypertensive and it is a Day. sent14: if the garbageman is a eutrophication the rioter is a hypertensive. sent15: there is something such that it is optimistic. sent16: if the extinguisher is a hypertensive the archil is not a kind of a hypertensive. sent17: the garbageman is a Arp if the langoustine is a Milvus. sent18: that that something is not a kind of a Day and it is not a foundation is true is not true if it is not photosynthetic. sent19: that the extinguisher is a hypertensive hold if the rioter is a hypertensive.

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

the archil is not a hypertensive.

¬{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the archil is a hypertensive. ; $context$ = sent1: if the monastery is not a thinker that it is a plenty and is not a Milvus is wrong. sent2: that the refinery is not photosynthetic hold. sent3: the monastery is not a thinker if there exists something such that that it is not a Day and it is not a kind of a foundation is false. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is optimistic and it is not developmental does not hold. sent5: if the fact that the monastery is a plenty but it is not a Milvus is not right the langoustine is a Milvus. sent6: the omelet is a hypertensive and it is a kind of a eutrophication. sent7: the omelet is a eutrophication and it consorts refinery. sent8: something is not calculous if it is a Arp and nonalcoholic. sent9: the omelet is a hypertensive. sent10: something is a eutrophication and does not consort refinery if it is not calculous. sent11: the archil consorts refinery. sent12: something does consort refinery and it is a hypertensive. sent13: the tie is a kind of a hypertensive and it is a Day. sent14: if the garbageman is a eutrophication the rioter is a hypertensive. sent15: there is something such that it is optimistic. sent16: if the extinguisher is a hypertensive the archil is not a kind of a hypertensive. sent17: the garbageman is a Arp if the langoustine is a Milvus. sent18: that that something is not a kind of a Day and it is not a foundation is true is not true if it is not photosynthetic. sent19: that the extinguisher is a hypertensive hold if the rioter is a hypertensive. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: something is a kind of a eutrophication that does consort refinery.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the Munchener does not exclaim.

¬{D}{c}

sent1: that the gut is rheologic is correct if the haircut is happy. sent2: the gut is joyless if it is albinal and/or it is not happy. sent3: if the haircut is joyless the gut is thankless. sent4: the fact that something is both not non-rheologic and joyless does not hold if it is not thankless. sent5: the haircut is thankless but it is not rheologic if the gut is joyless. sent6: the lithographer does exclaim. sent7: the Munchener does exclaim if the haircut is thankless and is rheologic. sent8: something does not exclaim if the fact that it is both not rheologic and not joyous does not hold. sent9: the haircut is non-rheologic. sent10: something is not thankless and/or is unsold if it is a apothecium. sent11: if that the gut is joyless hold then the haircut is not rheologic. sent12: either the Munchener does exclaim or it is not happy or both. sent13: either the haircut is rheologic or it is not happy or both. sent14: if there is something such that it is thankless the gut is a apothecium and/or is thankless. sent15: the gut is either albinal or not happy or both. sent16: the gut is rheologic or it is not happy or both. sent17: if the haircut is rheologic but it does not exclaim then the fact that the Munchener is happy hold. sent18: the gut is not non-albinal or happy or both. sent19: if the Munchener is happy but it is not thankless the haircut exclaims. sent20: if the haircut is both thankless and not rheologic then the Munchener exclaims. sent21: if the gut is not happy then it is joyless. sent22: the fact that the haircut is a apothecium is not false. sent23: the haircut does exclaim if it is thankless.

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

the Munchener does not exclaim.

¬{D}{c}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Munchener does not exclaim. ; $context$ = sent1: that the gut is rheologic is correct if the haircut is happy. sent2: the gut is joyless if it is albinal and/or it is not happy. sent3: if the haircut is joyless the gut is thankless. sent4: the fact that something is both not non-rheologic and joyless does not hold if it is not thankless. sent5: the haircut is thankless but it is not rheologic if the gut is joyless. sent6: the lithographer does exclaim. sent7: the Munchener does exclaim if the haircut is thankless and is rheologic. sent8: something does not exclaim if the fact that it is both not rheologic and not joyous does not hold. sent9: the haircut is non-rheologic. sent10: something is not thankless and/or is unsold if it is a apothecium. sent11: if that the gut is joyless hold then the haircut is not rheologic. sent12: either the Munchener does exclaim or it is not happy or both. sent13: either the haircut is rheologic or it is not happy or both. sent14: if there is something such that it is thankless the gut is a apothecium and/or is thankless. sent15: the gut is either albinal or not happy or both. sent16: the gut is rheologic or it is not happy or both. sent17: if the haircut is rheologic but it does not exclaim then the fact that the Munchener is happy hold. sent18: the gut is not non-albinal or happy or both. sent19: if the Munchener is happy but it is not thankless the haircut exclaims. sent20: if the haircut is both thankless and not rheologic then the Munchener exclaims. sent21: if the gut is not happy then it is joyless. sent22: the fact that the haircut is a apothecium is not false. sent23: the haircut does exclaim if it is thankless. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent15 -> int1: the gut is joyless.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the haircut is thankless but it is not rheologic.; sent20 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the spectrophotometer is both not spartan and not the arsenide if the spectrophotometer is not disciplinary is wrong.

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

sent1: if something is not disciplinary it is not spartan and it is not an arsenide. sent2: if something is not a kind of an arrow it does not feminize chebab and is a mercantilism. sent3: something is not a Musial but it does feminize nitrochloromethane if it is not mental. sent4: a non-disciplinary thing is not spartan. sent5: something is not a pragmatics and it is not myalgic if it is not continental.

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: (x): ¬{IP}x -> (¬{JJ}x & {HF}x) sent3: (x): ¬{CJ}x -> (¬{AM}x & {IU}x) sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent5: (x): ¬{DC}x -> (¬{CS}x & ¬{EO}x)

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the spectrophotometer is both not spartan and not the arsenide if the spectrophotometer is not disciplinary is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not disciplinary it is not spartan and it is not an arsenide. sent2: if something is not a kind of an arrow it does not feminize chebab and is a mercantilism. sent3: something is not a Musial but it does feminize nitrochloromethane if it is not mental. sent4: a non-disciplinary thing is not spartan. sent5: something is not a pragmatics and it is not myalgic if it is not continental. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the hail does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: the purging happens. sent2: the consorting goblet does not occur if not the Hebrideanness but the amputation occurs. sent3: the hail occurs if the hail occurs or the commination does not occur or both. sent4: if the consorting goblet does not occur the centrifugalness happens and/or the commination happens. sent5: that the diffusion happens and the purge does not occur does not hold. sent6: that the diffusion does not occur but the purging happens is false. sent7: if the fact that the stunting pudding-face does not occur and the consorting stomacher does not occur is not true then the prancing does not occur. sent8: the nonappearance does not occur if the fact that the diffusion occurs and the purge does not occur is not correct. sent9: if that the diffusion does not occur and the purging does not occur does not hold the hail does not occur. sent10: if the hailing occurs then the fact that the diffusion but not the purge occurs is not right. sent11: that both the diffusion and the purge happens is brought about by that the correlationalness does not occur.

sent1: {B} sent2: (¬{I} & {H}) -> ¬{G} sent3: ({C} v ¬{E}) -> {C} sent4: ¬{G} -> ({F} v {E}) sent5: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) sent6: ¬(¬{A} & {B}) sent7: ¬(¬{EE} & ¬{JK}) -> ¬{EI} sent8: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{BP} sent9: ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{C} sent10: {C} -> ¬({A} & ¬{B}) sent11: ¬{D} -> ({A} & {B})

the hailing occurs.

{C}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hail does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the purging happens. sent2: the consorting goblet does not occur if not the Hebrideanness but the amputation occurs. sent3: the hail occurs if the hail occurs or the commination does not occur or both. sent4: if the consorting goblet does not occur the centrifugalness happens and/or the commination happens. sent5: that the diffusion happens and the purge does not occur does not hold. sent6: that the diffusion does not occur but the purging happens is false. sent7: if the fact that the stunting pudding-face does not occur and the consorting stomacher does not occur is not true then the prancing does not occur. sent8: the nonappearance does not occur if the fact that the diffusion occurs and the purge does not occur is not correct. sent9: if that the diffusion does not occur and the purging does not occur does not hold the hail does not occur. sent10: if the hailing occurs then the fact that the diffusion but not the purge occurs is not right. sent11: that both the diffusion and the purge happens is brought about by that the correlationalness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the diffusion does not occur and the purging does not occur.; assump1 -> int1: the purging does not occur.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the diffusion does not occur and the purging does not occur does not hold.; int3 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the rotor does not feminize gauss and it is not a kind of a purge.

(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b})

sent1: the archespore does not purge. sent2: the rotor is not longing. sent3: the L-plate is a desert and nutritional. sent4: the symposiast is not a platyrrhine if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of platyrrhine thing that is azotemic is incorrect. sent5: the steakhouse is not a organelle. sent6: if the lomustine does not derive and does not feminize keystroke the forehead is a seigneur. sent7: something that is not a kind of a putterer does not derive and does not feminize keystroke. sent8: the lomustine is not a putterer if something is a hamper. sent9: the rotor does not feminize gauss if the archespore is not longing. sent10: the fact that the archespore is not a put and does consort trousseau does not hold if the forehead is not pyrochemical. sent11: if that the ropewalk stunts nutritiousness is right that the spokesman does hamper hold. sent12: if that something does stunt Chironomus and does not revenge is wrong then it stunts nutritiousness. sent13: the archespore is not longing. sent14: the fact that the ropewalk stunts Chironomus but it does not revenge is not right if the L-plate is a desert. sent15: if something does not consort trousseau that it is not longing and it is a put is incorrect. sent16: if the forehead is a seigneur and it does consort trousseau then the archespore does not consort trousseau. sent17: the rotor does not feminize gauss and is not a purge if the fact that the archespore is longing is wrong. sent18: the forehead consorts trousseau and is pyrochemical if the fact that the symposiast is not a platyrrhine is right. sent19: if that the archespore is not longing but it puts is wrong the rotor is not longing. sent20: if something is not a organelle the fact that it is both platyrrhine and azotemic is not true.

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

that the rotor does not feminize gauss and it does not purge does not hold.

¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the rotor does not feminize gauss and it is not a kind of a purge. ; $context$ = sent1: the archespore does not purge. sent2: the rotor is not longing. sent3: the L-plate is a desert and nutritional. sent4: the symposiast is not a platyrrhine if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of platyrrhine thing that is azotemic is incorrect. sent5: the steakhouse is not a organelle. sent6: if the lomustine does not derive and does not feminize keystroke the forehead is a seigneur. sent7: something that is not a kind of a putterer does not derive and does not feminize keystroke. sent8: the lomustine is not a putterer if something is a hamper. sent9: the rotor does not feminize gauss if the archespore is not longing. sent10: the fact that the archespore is not a put and does consort trousseau does not hold if the forehead is not pyrochemical. sent11: if that the ropewalk stunts nutritiousness is right that the spokesman does hamper hold. sent12: if that something does stunt Chironomus and does not revenge is wrong then it stunts nutritiousness. sent13: the archespore is not longing. sent14: the fact that the ropewalk stunts Chironomus but it does not revenge is not right if the L-plate is a desert. sent15: if something does not consort trousseau that it is not longing and it is a put is incorrect. sent16: if the forehead is a seigneur and it does consort trousseau then the archespore does not consort trousseau. sent17: the rotor does not feminize gauss and is not a purge if the fact that the archespore is longing is wrong. sent18: the forehead consorts trousseau and is pyrochemical if the fact that the symposiast is not a platyrrhine is right. sent19: if that the archespore is not longing but it puts is wrong the rotor is not longing. sent20: if something is not a organelle the fact that it is both platyrrhine and azotemic is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent17 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Laos does not consort Voltaren.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: the domino consorts Voltaren. sent2: if the fact that the love-in-winter is not a Sitophylus or it is a night-line or both does not hold then the Tree is not Gauguinesque. sent3: if the Tree does consort Voltaren then the fact that the cursor consort Voltaren hold. sent4: the Laos does consort Voltaren if that the Tree is Luxembourgian is not false. sent5: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a whittler then the Laos is not Luxembourgian but it is epistemic. sent6: the moor is Luxembourgian. sent7: the Tree is Luxembourgian. sent8: if something is microcephalic then the fact that it is not a kind of a Sitophylus and/or is a night-line is not correct. sent9: something does not consort Voltaren if it is not Luxembourgian and it is epistemic.

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

the Laos does not consort Voltaren.

¬{B}{b}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Laos does not consort Voltaren. ; $context$ = sent1: the domino consorts Voltaren. sent2: if the fact that the love-in-winter is not a Sitophylus or it is a night-line or both does not hold then the Tree is not Gauguinesque. sent3: if the Tree does consort Voltaren then the fact that the cursor consort Voltaren hold. sent4: the Laos does consort Voltaren if that the Tree is Luxembourgian is not false. sent5: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a whittler then the Laos is not Luxembourgian but it is epistemic. sent6: the moor is Luxembourgian. sent7: the Tree is Luxembourgian. sent8: if something is microcephalic then the fact that it is not a kind of a Sitophylus and/or is a night-line is not correct. sent9: something does not consort Voltaren if it is not Luxembourgian and it is epistemic. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not an infinitesimal.

(Ex): ¬{AA}x

sent1: the vessel is irreverent if the dissociation is irreverent and not a mustelid. sent2: the cardigan does not consort inherence but it is a quest. sent3: the understudy does not fibrillate and is a self-insurance if the psychrometer is not a kind of a slum. sent4: the shortstop does not consort Majorana but it is a Dolichonyx. sent5: the shortstop is both not an infinitesimal and a quest if the lacing stunts freewheeling. sent6: if the shortstop is a kind of an infinitesimal the lacing does not stunt freewheeling and does quest. sent7: if the impact does not consider Kreisler the understudy does not stunt fermion. sent8: if the vessel is irreverent the fact that it does consort nudism hold. sent9: there exists something such that it is a kind of an infinitesimal. sent10: the understudy does not stunt fermion if the impact does not stunt fermion. sent11: if something stunts freewheeling it is not proportionate and it quests. sent12: something does not stunt freewheeling. sent13: the lacing is a kind of a quest if the shortstop stunts freewheeling. sent14: the lacing does not stunt freewheeling if there is something such that it does not stunt fermion and does not fibrillate. sent15: there exists something such that it stunts shortstop. sent16: if the shortstop stunts freewheeling the lacing is not a kind of an infinitesimal and is a quest. sent17: the lacing is a quest. sent18: The freewheeling stunts shortstop. sent19: the lacing is not a Uzbekistan. sent20: the dissociation is irreverent but it is not a mustelid. sent21: if the vessel does consort nudism then the impact does not stunt fermion and/or it does not consider Kreisler. sent22: the psychrometer is not a slum but it is vulpine.

sent1: ({J}{g} & ¬{L}{g}) -> {J}{f} sent2: (¬{DC}{fe} & {AB}{fe}) sent3: ¬{F}{d} -> (¬{D}{c} & {E}{c}) sent4: (¬{BB}{a} & {EE}{a}) sent5: {A}{b} -> (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent6: {AA}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent7: ¬{G}{e} -> ¬{C}{c} sent8: {J}{f} -> {I}{f} sent9: (Ex): {AA}x sent10: ¬{C}{e} -> ¬{C}{c} sent11: (x): {A}x -> (¬{DE}x & {AB}x) sent12: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent13: {A}{a} -> {AB}{b} sent14: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{A}{b} sent15: (Ex): {GF}x sent16: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent17: {AB}{b} sent18: {AC}{aa} sent19: ¬{HB}{b} sent20: ({J}{g} & ¬{L}{g}) sent21: {I}{f} -> (¬{C}{e} v ¬{G}{e}) sent22: (¬{F}{d} & {H}{d})

the psycholinguist is not proportionate and is a kind of a quest.

(¬{DE}{ai} & {AB}{ai})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it is not an infinitesimal. ; $context$ = sent1: the vessel is irreverent if the dissociation is irreverent and not a mustelid. sent2: the cardigan does not consort inherence but it is a quest. sent3: the understudy does not fibrillate and is a self-insurance if the psychrometer is not a kind of a slum. sent4: the shortstop does not consort Majorana but it is a Dolichonyx. sent5: the shortstop is both not an infinitesimal and a quest if the lacing stunts freewheeling. sent6: if the shortstop is a kind of an infinitesimal the lacing does not stunt freewheeling and does quest. sent7: if the impact does not consider Kreisler the understudy does not stunt fermion. sent8: if the vessel is irreverent the fact that it does consort nudism hold. sent9: there exists something such that it is a kind of an infinitesimal. sent10: the understudy does not stunt fermion if the impact does not stunt fermion. sent11: if something stunts freewheeling it is not proportionate and it quests. sent12: something does not stunt freewheeling. sent13: the lacing is a kind of a quest if the shortstop stunts freewheeling. sent14: the lacing does not stunt freewheeling if there is something such that it does not stunt fermion and does not fibrillate. sent15: there exists something such that it stunts shortstop. sent16: if the shortstop stunts freewheeling the lacing is not a kind of an infinitesimal and is a quest. sent17: the lacing is a quest. sent18: The freewheeling stunts shortstop. sent19: the lacing is not a Uzbekistan. sent20: the dissociation is irreverent but it is not a mustelid. sent21: if the vessel does consort nudism then the impact does not stunt fermion and/or it does not consider Kreisler. sent22: the psychrometer is not a slum but it is vulpine. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the impression does smut and is not reverent is not right.

¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

sent1: that something is a smut but it is not reverent is incorrect if the fact that it is a kind of a velveteen is correct. sent2: the respirator does not feminize bantering if there is something such that that it is a catalectic and it is a musicality does not hold. sent3: if something does feminize bantering then the fact that it is a kind of a velveteen hold. sent4: if the impression is not a kind of a velveteen then it is not reverent. sent5: that the impression is not reverent hold. sent6: the impression is not a velveteen. sent7: if something is not a velveteen and/or it is not reverent it is not reverent. sent8: if something does not feminize bantering either it is not a velveteen or it is not reverent or both. sent9: that the impression is not a kind of a Libocedrus and it is not a kind of an emphysema is not correct if it is not a vasopressor. sent10: the impression stunts bloodstain but it is not a Lippizan. sent11: the Pastor is not a smut. sent12: the Atlas is a velveteen. sent13: if that the impression is not a Libocedrus and is not an emphysema is false that it is not a kind of a musicality hold. sent14: the impression does smut but it is irreverent if it is not a velveteen. sent15: if something is not a musicality then it feminizes bantering and is catalectic.

sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: (x): ¬({C}x & {D}x) -> ¬{B}{fb} sent3: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AB}{a} sent5: ¬{AB}{a} sent6: ¬{A}{a} sent7: (x): (¬{A}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent8: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{A}x v ¬{AB}x) sent9: ¬{G}{a} -> ¬(¬{E}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) sent10: ({AL}{a} & ¬{CQ}{a}) sent11: ¬{AA}{ca} sent12: {A}{fm} sent13: ¬(¬{E}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent14: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent15: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & {C}x)

the fact that the impression is a smut but not reverent is wrong.

¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the impression does smut and is not reverent is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is a smut but it is not reverent is incorrect if the fact that it is a kind of a velveteen is correct. sent2: the respirator does not feminize bantering if there is something such that that it is a catalectic and it is a musicality does not hold. sent3: if something does feminize bantering then the fact that it is a kind of a velveteen hold. sent4: if the impression is not a kind of a velveteen then it is not reverent. sent5: that the impression is not reverent hold. sent6: the impression is not a velveteen. sent7: if something is not a velveteen and/or it is not reverent it is not reverent. sent8: if something does not feminize bantering either it is not a velveteen or it is not reverent or both. sent9: that the impression is not a kind of a Libocedrus and it is not a kind of an emphysema is not correct if it is not a vasopressor. sent10: the impression stunts bloodstain but it is not a Lippizan. sent11: the Pastor is not a smut. sent12: the Atlas is a velveteen. sent13: if that the impression is not a Libocedrus and is not an emphysema is false that it is not a kind of a musicality hold. sent14: the impression does smut but it is irreverent if it is not a velveteen. sent15: if something is not a musicality then it feminizes bantering and is catalectic. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the stunting tailback does not occur.

¬{B}

sent1: if the fact that the culmination does not occur is correct then the jeremiad but not the subscription occurs. sent2: that the Mongol does not occur is correct if the fact that the consorting epicarp does not occur but the citifying occurs is wrong. sent3: the unreasonableness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the grassfire does not occur but the culmination occurs is incorrect if the raising occurs. sent5: that both the stunting tailback and the spillover occurs is brought about by that the stunting harvest-lice does not occur. sent6: if that the stunting tailback occurs and/or the spillover happens is not true then the stunting cyclooxygenase does not occur. sent7: if the fact that the discriminateness does not occur and the ticking occurs is not right then the bloodlessness does not occur. sent8: the spillover does not occur. sent9: the culmination does not occur if the fact that the fact that not the grassfire but the culmination occurs is true does not hold. sent10: if that not the naturopathy but the penetrableness happens is not correct then the stunting tailback does not occur. sent11: that both the forbearing and the astronomicness occurs is not correct. sent12: the non-neuterness causes that not the rebirth but the Thoreauvianness occurs. sent13: that the jeremiad but not the subscription occurs prevents the stunting harvest-lice. sent14: if the rebirth does not occur the raise and the gustatoriness happens. sent15: the abnormality does not occur. sent16: the stunting tailback is prevented by the naturopathy.

sent1: ¬{F} -> ({E} & ¬{D}) sent2: ¬(¬{IF} & {FD}) -> ¬{BT} sent3: ¬{Q} sent4: {G} -> ¬(¬{H} & {F}) sent5: ¬{C} -> ({B} & {A}) sent6: ¬({B} v {A}) -> ¬{GQ} sent7: ¬(¬{HO} & {DM}) -> ¬{BB} sent8: ¬{A} sent9: ¬(¬{H} & {F}) -> ¬{F} sent10: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent11: ¬({GD} & {DT}) sent12: ¬{L} -> (¬{J} & {K}) sent13: ({E} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} sent14: ¬{J} -> ({G} & {I}) sent15: ¬{DO} sent16: {AA} -> ¬{B}

the stunting tailback occurs.

{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the stunting tailback does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the culmination does not occur is correct then the jeremiad but not the subscription occurs. sent2: that the Mongol does not occur is correct if the fact that the consorting epicarp does not occur but the citifying occurs is wrong. sent3: the unreasonableness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the grassfire does not occur but the culmination occurs is incorrect if the raising occurs. sent5: that both the stunting tailback and the spillover occurs is brought about by that the stunting harvest-lice does not occur. sent6: if that the stunting tailback occurs and/or the spillover happens is not true then the stunting cyclooxygenase does not occur. sent7: if the fact that the discriminateness does not occur and the ticking occurs is not right then the bloodlessness does not occur. sent8: the spillover does not occur. sent9: the culmination does not occur if the fact that the fact that not the grassfire but the culmination occurs is true does not hold. sent10: if that not the naturopathy but the penetrableness happens is not correct then the stunting tailback does not occur. sent11: that both the forbearing and the astronomicness occurs is not correct. sent12: the non-neuterness causes that not the rebirth but the Thoreauvianness occurs. sent13: that the jeremiad but not the subscription occurs prevents the stunting harvest-lice. sent14: if the rebirth does not occur the raise and the gustatoriness happens. sent15: the abnormality does not occur. sent16: the stunting tailback is prevented by the naturopathy. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the granter is authorial and is coccygeal.

({E}{c} & {D}{c})

sent1: the granter is a Rhodosphaera and it is coccygeal if it is not a sacking. sent2: if the fiberboard is not a kind of a Senegal it either is a Rhodosphaera or is incommutable or both. sent3: if the fact that the enthusiast is not a Gould and is a kind of a sacking is not correct it consorts EXEC. sent4: if the enthusiast consorts EXEC the minoxidil does not consorts EXEC and does not consort spermatocyte. sent5: the fiberboard is not a Senegal. sent6: if something is not a Rhodosphaera then it is authorial and it is coccygeal. sent7: the minoxidil is not a Gould and does not consort EXEC. sent8: there is something such that it does not consider fiberboard and it is not a kind of a ninety. sent9: the granter is not a Rhodosphaera if the minoxidil does not consort EXEC and it does not consort spermatocyte.

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

that the granter is authorial and it is coccygeal is not right.

¬({E}{c} & {D}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the granter is authorial and is coccygeal. ; $context$ = sent1: the granter is a Rhodosphaera and it is coccygeal if it is not a sacking. sent2: if the fiberboard is not a kind of a Senegal it either is a Rhodosphaera or is incommutable or both. sent3: if the fact that the enthusiast is not a Gould and is a kind of a sacking is not correct it consorts EXEC. sent4: if the enthusiast consorts EXEC the minoxidil does not consorts EXEC and does not consort spermatocyte. sent5: the fiberboard is not a Senegal. sent6: if something is not a Rhodosphaera then it is authorial and it is coccygeal. sent7: the minoxidil is not a Gould and does not consort EXEC. sent8: there is something such that it does not consider fiberboard and it is not a kind of a ninety. sent9: the granter is not a Rhodosphaera if the minoxidil does not consort EXEC and it does not consort spermatocyte. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: if the granter is not a Rhodosphaera it is authorial and is coccygeal.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the Newtonian is not an evolution.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: there exists something such that it is christian. sent2: the slippage is not an evolution. sent3: if something is christian it is an evolution and it does not feminize allspice. sent4: if the baluster is cecal then the goethite does not feminize gauss and/or is not a mariticide. sent5: something is christian and is a reductionism. sent6: if something is cleistogamous that it freelances and it is not a reductionism is not right. sent7: if the archdeaconry does not feminize Apollo the fact that the acorn is both lymphatic and not a Porcellio is not correct. sent8: if the subcontinent is not christian and/or is a catarrhine then the Newtonian is christian. sent9: that the archdeaconry is a famine and is a kind of a DISA does not hold. sent10: if that the archdeaconry is a famine that is a DISA is not correct then it does not feminize Apollo. sent11: if the goethite either does not feminize gauss or is not a kind of a mariticide or both then the amperage does feminize gauss. sent12: there is something such that it is a reductionism. sent13: the Newtonian feminizes allspice if a christian thing is a kind of a reductionism. sent14: if that the allspice is freelance thing that is not a reductionism does not hold the subcontinent is not christian. sent15: the allspice is cleistogamous if the amperage does feminize gauss. sent16: something feminizes allspice and it is an evolution. sent17: that the Newtonian does not feminize allspice is not wrong if it is an evolution.

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

the Newtonian is an evolution.

{A}{a}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Newtonian is not an evolution. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is christian. sent2: the slippage is not an evolution. sent3: if something is christian it is an evolution and it does not feminize allspice. sent4: if the baluster is cecal then the goethite does not feminize gauss and/or is not a mariticide. sent5: something is christian and is a reductionism. sent6: if something is cleistogamous that it freelances and it is not a reductionism is not right. sent7: if the archdeaconry does not feminize Apollo the fact that the acorn is both lymphatic and not a Porcellio is not correct. sent8: if the subcontinent is not christian and/or is a catarrhine then the Newtonian is christian. sent9: that the archdeaconry is a famine and is a kind of a DISA does not hold. sent10: if that the archdeaconry is a famine that is a DISA is not correct then it does not feminize Apollo. sent11: if the goethite either does not feminize gauss or is not a kind of a mariticide or both then the amperage does feminize gauss. sent12: there is something such that it is a reductionism. sent13: the Newtonian feminizes allspice if a christian thing is a kind of a reductionism. sent14: if that the allspice is freelance thing that is not a reductionism does not hold the subcontinent is not christian. sent15: the allspice is cleistogamous if the amperage does feminize gauss. sent16: something feminizes allspice and it is an evolution. sent17: that the Newtonian does not feminize allspice is not wrong if it is an evolution. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Newtonian is an evolution.; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the Newtonian does not feminize allspice is not false.; sent5 & sent13 -> int2: that the Newtonian feminizes allspice is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that the fact that it is not a exosphere and/or is a handline is not right.

(Ex): ¬(¬{A}x v {B}x)

sent1: something stunts cephaloglycin and it is appropriative if the fact that it does not stunt ten-spot is right. sent2: the annotator is a kind of a exosphere if the Lesbian is a kind of a handline. sent3: that the Lesbian is not a kind of a glowworm and is not cryptanalytic is not correct. sent4: that the annotator is not humic but it is a kind of a glowworm is not right. sent5: there is something such that it is not absent and not Lao. sent6: that the Lesbian is a glowworm that is not cryptanalytic is not true. sent7: there exists something such that that it either is a kind of a scatter or is vertebral or both does not hold. sent8: the colonel is cryptanalytic if the Lesbian is a exosphere. sent9: the bride is not a kind of a crowd or it feminizes interleaf or both. sent10: the fact that the Lesbian is not a kind of a glowworm but it is cryptanalytic does not hold. sent11: if there is something such that it is not a crowd or feminizes interleaf or both then the radiopharmaceutical is not a kind of a crowd. sent12: that the falangist is not a glowworm and it is not undulatory is not right. sent13: if the fact that the Lesbian is not a glowworm and it is not cryptanalytic does not hold then it is a handline. sent14: if something is not vertebral then it is both a exosphere and a handline. sent15: that the fact that the joss is non-humic thing that is not receptive is incorrect hold. sent16: that the Lesbian is non-tibial but it is a kind of a handline does not hold. sent17: if the fact that that the Lesbian is both not a system and not a bracken is not right is true it is a glowworm. sent18: the radiopharmaceutical does feminize Witwatersrand if a non-absent thing is not Lao. sent19: the annotator is a exosphere if the fact that it is not a handline and is not cryptanalytic does not hold. sent20: the annotator does not stunt ten-spot if the radiopharmaceutical feminizes Witwatersrand but it is not a crowd. sent21: there is something such that it is a exosphere. sent22: if the Lesbian is a handline then the fact that the annotator is not a exosphere and/or is a handline is incorrect.

sent1: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({D}x & {E}x) sent2: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: ¬(¬{BK}{b} & {AA}{b}) sent5: (Ex): (¬{I}x & ¬{K}x) sent6: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent7: (Ex): ¬({BE}x v {C}x) sent8: {A}{a} -> {AB}{ir} sent9: (¬{H}{d} v {J}{d}) sent10: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent11: (x): (¬{H}x v {J}x) -> ¬{H}{c} sent12: ¬(¬{AA}{aj} & ¬{ID}{aj}) sent13: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent14: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent15: ¬(¬{BK}{fg} & ¬{IJ}{fg}) sent16: ¬(¬{FO}{a} & {B}{a}) sent17: ¬(¬{AS}{a} & ¬{HI}{a}) -> {AA}{a} sent18: (x): (¬{I}x & ¬{K}x) -> {G}{c} sent19: ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> {A}{b} sent20: ({G}{c} & ¬{H}{c}) -> ¬{F}{b} sent21: (Ex): {A}x sent22: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} v {B}{b})

the colonel is cryptanalytic.

{AB}{ir}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that the fact that it is not a exosphere and/or is a handline is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: something stunts cephaloglycin and it is appropriative if the fact that it does not stunt ten-spot is right. sent2: the annotator is a kind of a exosphere if the Lesbian is a kind of a handline. sent3: that the Lesbian is not a kind of a glowworm and is not cryptanalytic is not correct. sent4: that the annotator is not humic but it is a kind of a glowworm is not right. sent5: there is something such that it is not absent and not Lao. sent6: that the Lesbian is a glowworm that is not cryptanalytic is not true. sent7: there exists something such that that it either is a kind of a scatter or is vertebral or both does not hold. sent8: the colonel is cryptanalytic if the Lesbian is a exosphere. sent9: the bride is not a kind of a crowd or it feminizes interleaf or both. sent10: the fact that the Lesbian is not a kind of a glowworm but it is cryptanalytic does not hold. sent11: if there is something such that it is not a crowd or feminizes interleaf or both then the radiopharmaceutical is not a kind of a crowd. sent12: that the falangist is not a glowworm and it is not undulatory is not right. sent13: if the fact that the Lesbian is not a glowworm and it is not cryptanalytic does not hold then it is a handline. sent14: if something is not vertebral then it is both a exosphere and a handline. sent15: that the fact that the joss is non-humic thing that is not receptive is incorrect hold. sent16: that the Lesbian is non-tibial but it is a kind of a handline does not hold. sent17: if the fact that that the Lesbian is both not a system and not a bracken is not right is true it is a glowworm. sent18: the radiopharmaceutical does feminize Witwatersrand if a non-absent thing is not Lao. sent19: the annotator is a exosphere if the fact that it is not a handline and is not cryptanalytic does not hold. sent20: the annotator does not stunt ten-spot if the radiopharmaceutical feminizes Witwatersrand but it is not a crowd. sent21: there is something such that it is a exosphere. sent22: if the Lesbian is a handline then the fact that the annotator is not a exosphere and/or is a handline is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent3 -> int1: the Lesbian is a handline.; sent22 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the annotator is not a exosphere and/or it is a kind of a handline is not right.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the puerpera does not guggle.

¬{C}{c}

sent1: the haunch is abranchiate but it is not a kind of a pyrrhic. sent2: there exists something such that it is interplanetary thing that volatilizes. sent3: there is something such that it does volatilize. sent4: the fact that the macaw is not interplanetary hold. sent5: the haunch is abranchiate. sent6: if the haunch does volatilize then the macaw is not interplanetary but it volatilize. sent7: the macaw is not abranchiate if there is something such that it does not volatilize and is a pyrrhic. sent8: the puerpera does not guggle if something is not interplanetary but it does volatilize. sent9: if the haunch does volatilize then the fact that the macaw is not interplanetary is not incorrect. sent10: the haunch is enforceable. sent11: if the fact that the haunch is interplanetary is correct then the puerpera guggles. sent12: there are non-interplanetary things.

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

the puerpera guggles.

{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the puerpera does not guggle. ; $context$ = sent1: the haunch is abranchiate but it is not a kind of a pyrrhic. sent2: there exists something such that it is interplanetary thing that volatilizes. sent3: there is something such that it does volatilize. sent4: the fact that the macaw is not interplanetary hold. sent5: the haunch is abranchiate. sent6: if the haunch does volatilize then the macaw is not interplanetary but it volatilize. sent7: the macaw is not abranchiate if there is something such that it does not volatilize and is a pyrrhic. sent8: the puerpera does not guggle if something is not interplanetary but it does volatilize. sent9: if the haunch does volatilize then the fact that the macaw is not interplanetary is not incorrect. sent10: the haunch is enforceable. sent11: if the fact that the haunch is interplanetary is correct then the puerpera guggles. sent12: there are non-interplanetary things. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the heartthrob is non-atonic.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: the calpac consorts Klein if the ministrant is a burthen. sent2: the calpac is a lobby that stunts buster. sent3: if something that does stunt buster does consort Klein the heartthrob is not atonic.

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the heartthrob is non-atonic. ; $context$ = sent1: the calpac consorts Klein if the ministrant is a burthen. sent2: the calpac is a lobby that stunts buster. sent3: if something that does stunt buster does consort Klein the heartthrob is not atonic. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the calpac stunts buster.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there exists something such that if that it is a cotton and is not tonal does not hold it does stunt esker does not hold.

¬((Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x)

sent1: the jobber stunts esker if the fact that it is a cotton that is not tonal is incorrect.

sent1: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if that it is a cotton and is not tonal does not hold it does stunt esker does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the jobber stunts esker if the fact that it is a cotton that is not tonal is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the lashing occurs and the fading occurs.

({AB} & {B})

sent1: if the sewing happens the fact that not the feminizing pickpocket but the dipterousness occurs is not correct. sent2: if the chlamydialness occurs the residual occurs. sent3: the non-chlamydialness triggers that the skunk does not occur but the lash occurs. sent4: if the fumble does not occur both the oligarchicness and the fade occurs. sent5: if the fact that the feminizing pickpocket does not occur and the dipterousness occurs is not right that the gentling does not occur hold. sent6: both the non-ontologicalness and the demur occurs. sent7: the non-digitalness prevents that the fumbling does not occur. sent8: the non-baboonishness and the credibleness happens. sent9: the fact that the fumble and the digitalness occurs is not right if the gentling does not occur. sent10: if the digitalness does not occur then the fading and the fumbling occurs. sent11: the chlamydialness does not occur. sent12: the digitalness does not occur.

sent1: {I} -> ¬(¬{G} & {F}) sent2: {A} -> {FO} sent3: ¬{A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent4: ¬{C} -> ({HJ} & {B}) sent5: ¬(¬{G} & {F}) -> ¬{E} sent6: (¬{FB} & {BN}) sent7: ¬{D} -> {C} sent8: (¬{BQ} & {FC}) sent9: ¬{E} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent10: ¬{D} -> ({B} & {C}) sent11: ¬{A} sent12: ¬{D}

the residualness and the oligarchicness happens.

({FO} & {HJ})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the lashing occurs and the fading occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sewing happens the fact that not the feminizing pickpocket but the dipterousness occurs is not correct. sent2: if the chlamydialness occurs the residual occurs. sent3: the non-chlamydialness triggers that the skunk does not occur but the lash occurs. sent4: if the fumble does not occur both the oligarchicness and the fade occurs. sent5: if the fact that the feminizing pickpocket does not occur and the dipterousness occurs is not right that the gentling does not occur hold. sent6: both the non-ontologicalness and the demur occurs. sent7: the non-digitalness prevents that the fumbling does not occur. sent8: the non-baboonishness and the credibleness happens. sent9: the fact that the fumble and the digitalness occurs is not right if the gentling does not occur. sent10: if the digitalness does not occur then the fading and the fumbling occurs. sent11: the chlamydialness does not occur. sent12: the digitalness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent11 -> int1: the skunk does not occur and the lash occurs.; int1 -> int2: the lash occurs.; sent10 & sent12 -> int3: the fading and the fumble occurs.; int3 -> int4: the fact that the fade happens is not false.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that either the figuration happens or the stunting Satureja does not occur or both does not hold.

¬({A} v ¬{B})

sent1: if the stunting Peabody does not occur and the increasing does not occur then the stunting Satureja does not occur. sent2: that the increase occurs triggers that the stunting Peabody does not occur. sent3: if the consorting Tyrolean occurs then the stunting Peabody does not occur and the increase does not occur. sent4: if the stunting Satureja does not occur the stunting Peabody occurs. sent5: if the figuration happens then the stunting Peabody occurs.

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

either the figuration occurs or the stunting Satureja does not occur or both.

({A} v ¬{B})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that either the figuration happens or the stunting Satureja does not occur or both does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the stunting Peabody does not occur and the increasing does not occur then the stunting Satureja does not occur. sent2: that the increase occurs triggers that the stunting Peabody does not occur. sent3: if the consorting Tyrolean occurs then the stunting Peabody does not occur and the increase does not occur. sent4: if the stunting Satureja does not occur the stunting Peabody occurs. sent5: if the figuration happens then the stunting Peabody occurs. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that either the figuration happens or the stunting Satureja does not occur or both.; assump1 & sent5 & sent4 -> int1: the stunting Peabody occurs.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

both the portrayal and the stunting self-reproach happens.

({C} & {D})

sent1: the stunting Ugric does not occur but the stunting self-reproach occurs. sent2: that both the attempt and the unhealthiness happens is true. sent3: the selection occurs if the riparianness occurs. sent4: the twenty-one occurs and/or the going-over occurs. sent5: if the twenty-one happens then the portrayal occurs. sent6: that the portrayal occurs is caused by that the going-over happens. sent7: if the twenty-one does not occur the fact that the portrayal happens and the stunting self-reproach happens is not correct. sent8: the stunting Ugric does not occur.

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

that the portrayal occurs and the stunting self-reproach happens is wrong.

¬({C} & {D})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the portrayal and the stunting self-reproach happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the stunting Ugric does not occur but the stunting self-reproach occurs. sent2: that both the attempt and the unhealthiness happens is true. sent3: the selection occurs if the riparianness occurs. sent4: the twenty-one occurs and/or the going-over occurs. sent5: if the twenty-one happens then the portrayal occurs. sent6: that the portrayal occurs is caused by that the going-over happens. sent7: if the twenty-one does not occur the fact that the portrayal happens and the stunting self-reproach happens is not correct. sent8: the stunting Ugric does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent5 & sent6 -> int1: the portrayal happens.; sent1 -> int2: the stunting self-reproach happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the shamanistness does not occur.

¬{B}

sent1: if the Tasmanianness happens and the considering totipotency does not occur then the faro does not occur. sent2: the fact that the jack-o'-lantern does not occur and the cotillion does not occur is not right if the faro does not occur. sent3: the jack-o'-lantern happens. sent4: the shamanistness happens if the jack-o'-lantern occurs. sent5: the lyric occurs if the geophysicalness occurs.

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

the shamanistness does not occur.

¬{B}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the shamanistness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Tasmanianness happens and the considering totipotency does not occur then the faro does not occur. sent2: the fact that the jack-o'-lantern does not occur and the cotillion does not occur is not right if the faro does not occur. sent3: the jack-o'-lantern happens. sent4: the shamanistness happens if the jack-o'-lantern occurs. sent5: the lyric occurs if the geophysicalness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the vagary does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: that the democratization does not occur is correct. sent2: the belemniticness happens. sent3: the brainwave happens. sent4: the tough happens and the Jeffersonianness occurs. sent5: that the vagary occurs is prevented by that the depreciation occurs and the brainwave occurs. sent6: the depreciation happens. sent7: the fact that the candlepins does not occur does not hold.

sent1: ¬{ES} sent2: {CH} sent3: {B} sent4: ({DN} & {EK}) sent5: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent6: {A} sent7: {AE}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the vagary does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the democratization does not occur is correct. sent2: the belemniticness happens. sent3: the brainwave happens. sent4: the tough happens and the Jeffersonianness occurs. sent5: that the vagary occurs is prevented by that the depreciation occurs and the brainwave occurs. sent6: the depreciation happens. sent7: the fact that the candlepins does not occur does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent3 -> int1: both the depreciation and the brainwave happens.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the tither is not a kind of a Jacobs.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: there is something such that it is not exaugural. sent2: the albite does not consort halon if that the tither is a Jacobs and it is Stravinskyan does not hold. sent3: something consorts halon but it is not a Jacobs. sent4: there is something such that it is not a fellow. sent5: the tither is a kind of a Polynesian that is not a volatility. sent6: the tither is phonetic but it is not a quince. sent7: if the areola is a kind of anestrous thing that is not a pogrom the Democrat is not a kind of a pogrom. sent8: there exists something such that it is a misdeal. sent9: there is something such that it does front and it is not a Jacobs. sent10: the halon does consort halon but it does not front. sent11: that the tither is a Jacobs and is Stravinskyan is false if that the Democrat is not a kind of a pogrom is true. sent12: if there exists something such that it is a Jacobs that is not a front then the halon does not consort halon. sent13: something is not a Jacobs. sent14: something does not consort Democrat. sent15: if something that does consort halon does not front then the tither is not a Jacobs. sent16: the tither is a kind of a front but it is not a volatility. sent17: something does consort halon and it is a Jacobs. sent18: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Carib. sent19: something is a Jacobs that does consort halon.

sent1: (Ex): ¬{AR}x sent2: ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{hp} sent3: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{A}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{F}x sent5: ({IU}{a} & ¬{IK}{a}) sent6: ({EC}{a} & ¬{IN}{a}) sent7: ({E}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent8: (Ex): {CB}x sent9: (Ex): ({AB}x & ¬{A}x) sent10: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent11: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent12: (x): ({A}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent13: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent14: (Ex): ¬{FJ}x sent15: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent16: ({AB}{a} & ¬{IK}{a}) sent17: (Ex): ({AA}x & {A}x) sent18: (Ex): ¬{BT}x sent19: (Ex): ({A}x & {AA}x)

the albite does not consort halon.

¬{AA}{hp}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tither is not a kind of a Jacobs. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is not exaugural. sent2: the albite does not consort halon if that the tither is a Jacobs and it is Stravinskyan does not hold. sent3: something consorts halon but it is not a Jacobs. sent4: there is something such that it is not a fellow. sent5: the tither is a kind of a Polynesian that is not a volatility. sent6: the tither is phonetic but it is not a quince. sent7: if the areola is a kind of anestrous thing that is not a pogrom the Democrat is not a kind of a pogrom. sent8: there exists something such that it is a misdeal. sent9: there is something such that it does front and it is not a Jacobs. sent10: the halon does consort halon but it does not front. sent11: that the tither is a Jacobs and is Stravinskyan is false if that the Democrat is not a kind of a pogrom is true. sent12: if there exists something such that it is a Jacobs that is not a front then the halon does not consort halon. sent13: something is not a Jacobs. sent14: something does not consort Democrat. sent15: if something that does consort halon does not front then the tither is not a Jacobs. sent16: the tither is a kind of a front but it is not a volatility. sent17: something does consort halon and it is a Jacobs. sent18: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Carib. sent19: something is a Jacobs that does consort halon. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: something does consort halon but it is not a front.; int1 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the crape is not a kind of a Sinology.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: that something is non-belemnitic thing that is sportive does not hold if the fact that it is thermionics is not false. sent2: if the fact that the crape is not non-alkaline and/or it is a kind of a Arno is not correct the commuter is not a Sinology. sent3: the reticule is not sportive if the fact that the mammal is not belemnitic but it is sportive is not true. sent4: the mango is not detachable and/or it is sportive if the crape is non-belemnitic. sent5: that the commuter is a Arno or a Sinology or both is not right. sent6: everything is not a Arno. sent7: if that that the commuter is a Sinology and/or is a kind of a Arno does not hold is not incorrect then the crape is not alkaline. sent8: the fact that the commuter is not a kind of a Arno is correct. sent9: there is nothing such that either it is incomplete or it feminizes nepotism or both. sent10: there is nothing that is either a permutation or a milk or both. sent11: there is nothing such that it either is a kind of a Arno or is alkaline or both. sent12: if that the commuter is a Arno or it is alkaline or both is not correct the crape is not a kind of a Sinology. sent13: something is not a kind of a Sinology if it is not detachable or it is sportive or both.

sent1: (x): {E}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) sent2: ¬({AB}{a} v {AA}{a}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent3: ¬(¬{D}{d} & {C}{d}) -> ¬{C}{c} sent4: ¬{D}{a} -> (¬{B}{cu} v {C}{cu}) sent5: ¬({AA}{aa} v {A}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬{AA}x sent7: ¬({A}{aa} v {AA}{aa}) -> ¬{AB}{a} sent8: ¬{AA}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬({AG}x v {CI}x) sent10: (x): ¬({EN}x v {BR}x) sent11: (x): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) sent12: ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent13: (x): (¬{B}x v {C}x) -> ¬{A}x

the crape is a Sinology.

{A}{a}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the crape is not a kind of a Sinology. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is non-belemnitic thing that is sportive does not hold if the fact that it is thermionics is not false. sent2: if the fact that the crape is not non-alkaline and/or it is a kind of a Arno is not correct the commuter is not a Sinology. sent3: the reticule is not sportive if the fact that the mammal is not belemnitic but it is sportive is not true. sent4: the mango is not detachable and/or it is sportive if the crape is non-belemnitic. sent5: that the commuter is a Arno or a Sinology or both is not right. sent6: everything is not a Arno. sent7: if that that the commuter is a Sinology and/or is a kind of a Arno does not hold is not incorrect then the crape is not alkaline. sent8: the fact that the commuter is not a kind of a Arno is correct. sent9: there is nothing such that either it is incomplete or it feminizes nepotism or both. sent10: there is nothing that is either a permutation or a milk or both. sent11: there is nothing such that it either is a kind of a Arno or is alkaline or both. sent12: if that the commuter is a Arno or it is alkaline or both is not correct the crape is not a kind of a Sinology. sent13: something is not a kind of a Sinology if it is not detachable or it is sportive or both. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> int1: that the commuter is a Arno and/or it is alkaline is false.; sent12 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the blister is a undershrub.

{C}{b}

sent1: if the fact that something is not a Mali and it is not a kind of a river is not true it is a kind of a wonder. sent2: the ex-spouse is not taxable. sent3: something completes and it does feminize emphysema if it is not taxable. sent4: if the eclair is a kind of a Togolese that the blister is a kind of a Mali and is not a river is not right. sent5: that the blister is both not a Mali and a river is not true if the eclair is Togolese. sent6: the eclair is a Mali. sent7: the nova is Togolese. sent8: something lapidifies if it is a kind of a picofarad. sent9: the blister completes. sent10: that the blister is a kind of a Mali but it is not a river is wrong. sent11: the eclair is a Togolese. sent12: that the fact that the blister is both not a Mali and not a river is wrong is right if the eclair is Togolese. sent13: something is not a kind of a undershrub if it is Togolese and it is not a wonder. sent14: that the blister is not a Mali but it is a river is incorrect. sent15: if there exists something such that it feminizes emphysema the fact that the pudge does not feminizes emphysema and it does not lapidify is not correct. sent16: if that the pudge does not feminize emphysema and does not lapidify is wrong that the eclair is not a local hold.

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

the blister is not a kind of a undershrub.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the blister is a undershrub. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is not a Mali and it is not a kind of a river is not true it is a kind of a wonder. sent2: the ex-spouse is not taxable. sent3: something completes and it does feminize emphysema if it is not taxable. sent4: if the eclair is a kind of a Togolese that the blister is a kind of a Mali and is not a river is not right. sent5: that the blister is both not a Mali and a river is not true if the eclair is Togolese. sent6: the eclair is a Mali. sent7: the nova is Togolese. sent8: something lapidifies if it is a kind of a picofarad. sent9: the blister completes. sent10: that the blister is a kind of a Mali but it is not a river is wrong. sent11: the eclair is a Togolese. sent12: that the fact that the blister is both not a Mali and not a river is wrong is right if the eclair is Togolese. sent13: something is not a kind of a undershrub if it is Togolese and it is not a wonder. sent14: that the blister is not a Mali but it is a river is incorrect. sent15: if there exists something such that it feminizes emphysema the fact that the pudge does not feminizes emphysema and it does not lapidify is not correct. sent16: if that the pudge does not feminize emphysema and does not lapidify is wrong that the eclair is not a local hold. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent11 -> int1: that that the blister is not a Mali and is not a river hold is wrong.; sent1 -> int2: that the blister does wonder is true if that it is not a Mali and not a river is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the blister wonders.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if it is not a kind of a brinkmanship then the fact that that it does not feminize lasher and is not gymnosophical is true is false.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: if that the ketosteroid belays is not false then that it is not a kind of a brinkmanship and it is not orthopedic is incorrect. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a Dolichonyx then that it is not a Becket and does not gazump does not hold. sent3: if something is not a brinkmanship then that it is not a kind of a cogitation and is not a database is not correct. sent4: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a straight-arm hold then it is not a heading and not phonetic. sent5: if the applique is not a brinkmanship it does not feminize lasher and it is not gymnosophical. sent6: if something is not a hammock then that it is both not a Petrogale and not salivary does not hold. sent7: the fact that the fact that something does not feminize lasher and is gymnosophical is false if it is not a brinkmanship is not false. sent8: if something is a brinkmanship that it does not feminize lasher and is not gymnosophical is incorrect. sent9: if something is not a brinkmanship then that that it does feminize lasher and it is not gymnosophical is correct is wrong. sent10: the fact that the applique does feminize fencing and is not chordal is false if it does not feminize lasher. sent11: there is something such that if it is not a brinkmanship then that it does not feminize lasher and it is gymnosophical does not hold. sent12: something does not feminize lasher and it is not gymnosophical if that it is not a brinkmanship is not incorrect. sent13: there is something such that if it is not a digression it does not stunt Allegheny and does not consort GAO.

sent1: {GC}{db} -> ¬(¬{A}{db} & ¬{IK}{db}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{AE}x -> ¬(¬{EI}x & ¬{HK}x) sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{JF}x & ¬{IL}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{HO}x -> (¬{HP}x & ¬{FF}x) sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬{EP}x -> ¬(¬{AM}x & ¬{DJ}x) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent10: ¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬({JE}{aa} & ¬{DG}{aa}) sent11: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent12: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent13: (Ex): ¬{GS}x -> (¬{IC}x & ¬{EC}x)

if the fact that the Kichai is not a brinkmanship is not incorrect the fact that it is not a cogitation and it is not a database is not right.

¬{A}{hs} -> ¬(¬{JF}{hs} & ¬{IL}{hs})

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a kind of a brinkmanship then the fact that that it does not feminize lasher and is not gymnosophical is true is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the ketosteroid belays is not false then that it is not a kind of a brinkmanship and it is not orthopedic is incorrect. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a Dolichonyx then that it is not a Becket and does not gazump does not hold. sent3: if something is not a brinkmanship then that it is not a kind of a cogitation and is not a database is not correct. sent4: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a straight-arm hold then it is not a heading and not phonetic. sent5: if the applique is not a brinkmanship it does not feminize lasher and it is not gymnosophical. sent6: if something is not a hammock then that it is both not a Petrogale and not salivary does not hold. sent7: the fact that the fact that something does not feminize lasher and is gymnosophical is false if it is not a brinkmanship is not false. sent8: if something is a brinkmanship that it does not feminize lasher and is not gymnosophical is incorrect. sent9: if something is not a brinkmanship then that that it does feminize lasher and it is not gymnosophical is correct is wrong. sent10: the fact that the applique does feminize fencing and is not chordal is false if it does not feminize lasher. sent11: there is something such that if it is not a brinkmanship then that it does not feminize lasher and it is gymnosophical does not hold. sent12: something does not feminize lasher and it is not gymnosophical if that it is not a brinkmanship is not incorrect. sent13: there is something such that if it is not a digression it does not stunt Allegheny and does not consort GAO. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the pyx is not conventional.

¬{C}{c}

sent1: the fact that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is wrong. sent2: the backswimmer is a aggravator if the hookah consorts khoum. sent3: something is conventional if it is systematics. sent4: the hookah is not a Numidian if the fact that the fact that it is not a dekaliter and is Numidian is true is not true. sent5: if the fact that the pyx is not a aggravator and is not systematics is not right the backswimmer is conventional. sent6: if the backswimmer is a aggravator the pyx is systematics. sent7: there exists something such that it is a dekaliter. sent8: the fact that the hookah feminizes anthropometry and it consorts Goma is not false if it is not a Numidian. sent9: something is a aggravator if that it consorts Goma is correct. sent10: the fact that the pyx is not purposeful but it is systematics is not true. sent11: that the hookah does consort khoum but it is not purposeful is not true. sent12: if that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is not correct then the backswimmer is a kind of a aggravator. sent13: something is a kind of an infamy if it is a psychosexuality. sent14: the pyx is a aggravator.

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

the pyx is not conventional.

¬{C}{c}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pyx is not conventional. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is wrong. sent2: the backswimmer is a aggravator if the hookah consorts khoum. sent3: something is conventional if it is systematics. sent4: the hookah is not a Numidian if the fact that the fact that it is not a dekaliter and is Numidian is true is not true. sent5: if the fact that the pyx is not a aggravator and is not systematics is not right the backswimmer is conventional. sent6: if the backswimmer is a aggravator the pyx is systematics. sent7: there exists something such that it is a dekaliter. sent8: the fact that the hookah feminizes anthropometry and it consorts Goma is not false if it is not a Numidian. sent9: something is a aggravator if that it consorts Goma is correct. sent10: the fact that the pyx is not purposeful but it is systematics is not true. sent11: that the hookah does consort khoum but it is not purposeful is not true. sent12: if that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is not correct then the backswimmer is a kind of a aggravator. sent13: something is a kind of an infamy if it is a psychosexuality. sent14: the pyx is a aggravator. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent1 -> int1: the backswimmer is a aggravator.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the pyx is systematics.; sent3 -> int3: the pyx is conventional if it is not non-systematics.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the flagellant is a kind of nautical thing that is not flinty is not true.

¬({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

sent1: that the flagellant is nautical and it is flinty does not hold if the Cyril is not nautical. sent2: something is not a kind of a backband if it is a kind of a Anhingidae. sent3: the fact that the Cyril is not denotative is not incorrect if a flinty thing is not a kind of a snakebite. sent4: something does wash and it is argumentative. sent5: the Cyril is not flinty. sent6: the fact that the Cyril does consort bitmap and is recessionary is wrong if it is not a backband. sent7: if the butte does feminize Saladin that the Cyril is a kind of a Anhingidae hold. sent8: the flagellant is not algorithmic if there is something such that it is a kind of matriarchal thing that is not a wash. sent9: if the Cyril is not nautical then that the flagellant is nautical but it is not flinty is not true. sent10: something that is not recessionary is outdoors and does stunt Islam. sent11: the butte feminizes Saladin. sent12: the fact that the flagellant is nautical and flinty is false. sent13: there exists something such that it is a wash that is unargumentative. sent14: something is nautical but it is non-flinty. sent15: there exists something such that it does wash. sent16: if a wash is not argumentative then the Cyril is not nautical. sent17: if something is outdoors then it is both nautical and non-flinty. sent18: the fact that the Cyril is nautical but it is not flinty is incorrect if the flagellant is not nautical.

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

the flagellant is nautical and not flinty.

({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the flagellant is a kind of nautical thing that is not flinty is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: that the flagellant is nautical and it is flinty does not hold if the Cyril is not nautical. sent2: something is not a kind of a backband if it is a kind of a Anhingidae. sent3: the fact that the Cyril is not denotative is not incorrect if a flinty thing is not a kind of a snakebite. sent4: something does wash and it is argumentative. sent5: the Cyril is not flinty. sent6: the fact that the Cyril does consort bitmap and is recessionary is wrong if it is not a backband. sent7: if the butte does feminize Saladin that the Cyril is a kind of a Anhingidae hold. sent8: the flagellant is not algorithmic if there is something such that it is a kind of matriarchal thing that is not a wash. sent9: if the Cyril is not nautical then that the flagellant is nautical but it is not flinty is not true. sent10: something that is not recessionary is outdoors and does stunt Islam. sent11: the butte feminizes Saladin. sent12: the fact that the flagellant is nautical and flinty is false. sent13: there exists something such that it is a wash that is unargumentative. sent14: something is nautical but it is non-flinty. sent15: there exists something such that it does wash. sent16: if a wash is not argumentative then the Cyril is not nautical. sent17: if something is outdoors then it is both nautical and non-flinty. sent18: the fact that the Cyril is nautical but it is not flinty is incorrect if the flagellant is not nautical. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent16 -> int1: the Cyril is not nautical.; sent9 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the alderman is a scallop.

{B}{b}

sent1: either the alderman is nonarboreal or it does scallop or both. sent2: the porcupinefish is not nonarboreal and/or renders. sent3: the laver feminizes flashing if the flat is a knawel. sent4: the spironolactone is not a priority and does not feminize flashing if the motorcycle does not feminize sociologist. sent5: if something does not feminize sociologist and/or is a knawel it does not feminize sociologist. sent6: the alderman is not disjunct or a scallop or both. sent7: if either the porcupinefish is not nonarboreal or it does render or both the alderman scallops. sent8: the spironolactone is not a priority if the motorcycle is not a priority or it does not feminize sociologist or both. sent9: the alderman is not a scallop or it is a rendering or both. sent10: the fact that the witness is nonarboreal hold. sent11: the porcupinefish does not scallop and/or it does render. sent12: the motorcycle is not a priority and/or it does not feminize sociologist if the laver feminizes flashing. sent13: the alderman is not a scallop if the porcupinefish feminizes townie. sent14: the porcupinefish is nonarboreal and/or it does render. sent15: the alderman does not render or is a scallop or both. sent16: the alderman is nonarboreal if the porcupinefish does not scallop or it is a rendering or both. sent17: the alderman is a scallop if the porcupinefish is not nonarboreal.

sent1: ({AA}{b} v {B}{b}) sent2: (¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent3: {F}{f} -> {D}{e} sent4: ¬{E}{d} -> (¬{C}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent5: (x): (¬{E}x v {F}x) -> ¬{E}x sent6: (¬{EP}{b} v {B}{b}) sent7: (¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent8: (¬{C}{d} v ¬{E}{d}) -> ¬{C}{c} sent9: (¬{B}{b} v {AB}{b}) sent10: {AA}{ja} sent11: (¬{B}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent12: {D}{e} -> (¬{C}{d} v ¬{E}{d}) sent13: {A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent14: ({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent15: (¬{AB}{b} v {B}{b}) sent16: (¬{B}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> {AA}{b} sent17: ¬{AA}{a} -> {B}{b}

the alderman is not a kind of a scallop.

¬{B}{b}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the alderman is a scallop. ; $context$ = sent1: either the alderman is nonarboreal or it does scallop or both. sent2: the porcupinefish is not nonarboreal and/or renders. sent3: the laver feminizes flashing if the flat is a knawel. sent4: the spironolactone is not a priority and does not feminize flashing if the motorcycle does not feminize sociologist. sent5: if something does not feminize sociologist and/or is a knawel it does not feminize sociologist. sent6: the alderman is not disjunct or a scallop or both. sent7: if either the porcupinefish is not nonarboreal or it does render or both the alderman scallops. sent8: the spironolactone is not a priority if the motorcycle is not a priority or it does not feminize sociologist or both. sent9: the alderman is not a scallop or it is a rendering or both. sent10: the fact that the witness is nonarboreal hold. sent11: the porcupinefish does not scallop and/or it does render. sent12: the motorcycle is not a priority and/or it does not feminize sociologist if the laver feminizes flashing. sent13: the alderman is not a scallop if the porcupinefish feminizes townie. sent14: the porcupinefish is nonarboreal and/or it does render. sent15: the alderman does not render or is a scallop or both. sent16: the alderman is nonarboreal if the porcupinefish does not scallop or it is a rendering or both. sent17: the alderman is a scallop if the porcupinefish is not nonarboreal. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the selvage is Nordic.

{A}{a}

sent1: the hull is not a kind of a Hyaenidae if there is something such that it is bifilar and/or does not test. sent2: the Nasturtium is not Nordic. sent3: that the fact that the selvage is Nordic is not wrong is incorrect if there exists something such that it is a lincomycin. sent4: the fact that the Nasturtium is a lincomycin that is Nordic is not correct. sent5: if the PTO is not insignificant then the businesswoman is lactogenic and is ecological. sent6: there exists something such that that it stunts Nasturtium and is Nordic is wrong. sent7: that the selvage is not a lincomycin is right if there exists something such that that it stunts Nasturtium and it is not Nordic is not right. sent8: the PTO is not insignificant. sent9: the fact that the Nasturtium is a lincomycin but it is not Nordic is not true. sent10: there exists nothing such that it is a Oklahoma and is prewar. sent11: that the Nasturtium stunts Nasturtium and is a lincomycin is false. sent12: if the hull is not a spermatocyte and is not disintegrative the selvage is not many. sent13: there is nothing that does stunt Nasturtium and is not a lincomycin. sent14: the salp is bifilar or does not test or both. sent15: if there exists something such that that it stunts Nasturtium and it is not a lincomycin is not correct the selvage is not Nordic. sent16: the fact that the selvage is not a lincomycin is true. sent17: if the hull is not a Hyaenidae then it is not a spermatocyte and it is not disintegrative. sent18: the Nasturtium is not rigid.

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

the seamount is not Nordic.

¬{A}{jh}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the selvage is Nordic. ; $context$ = sent1: the hull is not a kind of a Hyaenidae if there is something such that it is bifilar and/or does not test. sent2: the Nasturtium is not Nordic. sent3: that the fact that the selvage is Nordic is not wrong is incorrect if there exists something such that it is a lincomycin. sent4: the fact that the Nasturtium is a lincomycin that is Nordic is not correct. sent5: if the PTO is not insignificant then the businesswoman is lactogenic and is ecological. sent6: there exists something such that that it stunts Nasturtium and is Nordic is wrong. sent7: that the selvage is not a lincomycin is right if there exists something such that that it stunts Nasturtium and it is not Nordic is not right. sent8: the PTO is not insignificant. sent9: the fact that the Nasturtium is a lincomycin but it is not Nordic is not true. sent10: there exists nothing such that it is a Oklahoma and is prewar. sent11: that the Nasturtium stunts Nasturtium and is a lincomycin is false. sent12: if the hull is not a spermatocyte and is not disintegrative the selvage is not many. sent13: there is nothing that does stunt Nasturtium and is not a lincomycin. sent14: the salp is bifilar or does not test or both. sent15: if there exists something such that that it stunts Nasturtium and it is not a lincomycin is not correct the selvage is not Nordic. sent16: the fact that the selvage is not a lincomycin is true. sent17: if the hull is not a Hyaenidae then it is not a spermatocyte and it is not disintegrative. sent18: the Nasturtium is not rigid. ; $proof$ =

sent13 -> int1: that the Nasturtium stunts Nasturtium but it is not a lincomycin is incorrect.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it stunts Nasturtium and it is not a lincomycin is not right.; int2 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the caveat happens and the stunting straitjacket happens.

({A} & {B})

sent1: the feminizing tetranychid happens. sent2: the consorting custom-made occurs. sent3: the spiccato and the caveat happens if the fact that the stunting straitjacket does not occur is correct. sent4: the considering holotype does not occur if the fact that both the considering holotype and the retorting occurs does not hold. sent5: the stunting straitjacket occurs. sent6: the airdrop happens. sent7: the presidency occurs. sent8: the fastness occurs. sent9: the caveat occurs. sent10: the considering holotype is triggered by that the squelching does not occur. sent11: the displaying happens. sent12: if that the consorting jiggermast occurs is not incorrect then the squelching does not occur but the retort occurs. sent13: the fact that that both the considering holotype and the retort occurs is true is incorrect if the squelch does not occur. sent14: the sparking happens. sent15: the three-dimensionalness occurs. sent16: the illegitimateness happens and the cryptanalyticness occurs. sent17: if the considering holotype occurs the stunting straitjacket does not occur. sent18: if the fact that the fogbank does not occur is true then the explicating occurs and the quackery happens. sent19: the stunting wheeze happens and the detox happens. sent20: if the explicating happens the squelching does not occur and the consorting jiggermast does not occur.

sent1: {EN} sent2: {EP} sent3: ¬{B} -> ({JD} & {A}) sent4: ¬({C} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent5: {B} sent6: {JG} sent7: {BF} sent8: {GC} sent9: {A} sent10: ¬{D} -> {C} sent11: {CO} sent12: {F} -> (¬{D} & {E}) sent13: ¬{D} -> ¬({C} & {E}) sent14: {HF} sent15: {HK} sent16: ({GE} & {GJ}) sent17: {C} -> ¬{B} sent18: ¬{I} -> ({G} & {H}) sent19: ({JE} & {IS}) sent20: {G} -> (¬{D} & ¬{F})

the spiccato happens.

{JD}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the caveat happens and the stunting straitjacket happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the feminizing tetranychid happens. sent2: the consorting custom-made occurs. sent3: the spiccato and the caveat happens if the fact that the stunting straitjacket does not occur is correct. sent4: the considering holotype does not occur if the fact that both the considering holotype and the retorting occurs does not hold. sent5: the stunting straitjacket occurs. sent6: the airdrop happens. sent7: the presidency occurs. sent8: the fastness occurs. sent9: the caveat occurs. sent10: the considering holotype is triggered by that the squelching does not occur. sent11: the displaying happens. sent12: if that the consorting jiggermast occurs is not incorrect then the squelching does not occur but the retort occurs. sent13: the fact that that both the considering holotype and the retort occurs is true is incorrect if the squelch does not occur. sent14: the sparking happens. sent15: the three-dimensionalness occurs. sent16: the illegitimateness happens and the cryptanalyticness occurs. sent17: if the considering holotype occurs the stunting straitjacket does not occur. sent18: if the fact that the fogbank does not occur is true then the explicating occurs and the quackery happens. sent19: the stunting wheeze happens and the detox happens. sent20: if the explicating happens the squelching does not occur and the consorting jiggermast does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Uzi is an out.

{B}{a}

sent1: if something is non-run-on then it is out. sent2: if there is something such that it is non-pantheist thing that is a rudder then the Uzi is not run-on. sent3: if something is not lacrimatory the fact that it is run-on or it is operatic or both is wrong.

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

the Uzi is not an out.

¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Uzi is an out. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is non-run-on then it is out. sent2: if there is something such that it is non-pantheist thing that is a rudder then the Uzi is not run-on. sent3: if something is not lacrimatory the fact that it is run-on or it is operatic or both is wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the Uzi does out if the fact that it is not run-on is not false.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the flibbertigibbet does not feminize slander is not wrong.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: the flibbertigibbet does feminize slander and it is a kind of a dare if it is not a VCR. sent2: the Warren dares. sent3: the czarina is a VCR and a septum. sent4: the pussycat dares. sent5: the pussycat is a kind of a VCR. sent6: that the flibbertigibbet is a VCR is not wrong. sent7: the flibbertigibbet is a dare. sent8: the bullnose is a kind of a dare and does consider bombardment. sent9: the pussycat feminizes slander. sent10: the napalm is a dare.

sent1: ¬{B}{b} -> ({C}{b} & {A}{b}) sent2: {A}{t} sent3: ({B}{dg} & {HN}{dg}) sent4: {A}{a} sent5: {B}{a} sent6: {B}{b} sent7: {A}{b} sent8: ({A}{df} & {IM}{df}) sent9: {C}{a} sent10: {A}{hh}

the flibbertigibbet does feminize slander.

{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the flibbertigibbet does not feminize slander is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the flibbertigibbet does feminize slander and it is a kind of a dare if it is not a VCR. sent2: the Warren dares. sent3: the czarina is a VCR and a septum. sent4: the pussycat dares. sent5: the pussycat is a kind of a VCR. sent6: that the flibbertigibbet is a VCR is not wrong. sent7: the flibbertigibbet is a dare. sent8: the bullnose is a kind of a dare and does consider bombardment. sent9: the pussycat feminizes slander. sent10: the napalm is a dare. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the pussycat is both a dare and a VCR.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the flooring does not feminize sparkler.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: the flooring is ductless and it feminizes sparkler. sent2: something feminizes sparkler if it is not ductless. sent3: the flooring is ductless.

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

the iodothyronine feminizes sparkler.

{B}{im}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the flooring does not feminize sparkler. ; $context$ = sent1: the flooring is ductless and it feminizes sparkler. sent2: something feminizes sparkler if it is not ductless. sent3: the flooring is ductless. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the clitoridectomy does not occur is correct.

¬{B}

sent1: the low-techness happens. sent2: that not the inactivity but the clitoridectomy occurs is wrong if the quincentennialness does not occur. sent3: the bolographicness happens. sent4: if the inactivity occurs then the clitoridectomy does not occur and the low-techness does not occur. sent5: the fact that both the medicolegalness and the considering Canadian occurs is correct. sent6: the officiation happens and the consorting moo occurs. sent7: the considerateness occurs. sent8: the devastation occurs. sent9: the non-latheryness triggers that the phylogeneticness occurs and the dissolution happens. sent10: the clitoridectomy does not occur if the fact that the inactivity does not occur but the clitoridectomy occurs is not true. sent11: the fact that the March occurs is right. sent12: that the fact that both the Coleridgianness and the mastery occurs does not hold is true if the March does not occur. sent13: the latheriness does not occur if that the stopover does not occur and the latheriness happens does not hold. sent14: the low-techness and the clitoridectomy occurs. sent15: that the clitoridectomy does not occur triggers that both the aposiopeticness and the low-techness occurs. sent16: the suggesting occurs. sent17: the fact that the stopover does not occur and the latheriness happens is not right if the feminizing azurite does not occur. sent18: the quincentennialness does not occur if the fact that the Coleridgianness occurs and the mastery occurs is not true.

sent1: {A} sent2: ¬{E} -> ¬(¬{C} & {B}) sent3: {IT} sent4: {C} -> (¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent5: ({HN} & {EI}) sent6: ({JG} & {JH}) sent7: {DQ} sent8: {GH} sent9: ¬{F} -> ({JJ} & {D}) sent10: ¬(¬{C} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent11: {K} sent12: ¬{K} -> ¬({H} & {G}) sent13: ¬(¬{I} & {F}) -> ¬{F} sent14: ({A} & {B}) sent15: ¬{B} -> ({CR} & {A}) sent16: {AQ} sent17: ¬{J} -> ¬(¬{I} & {F}) sent18: ¬({H} & {G}) -> ¬{E}

the aposiopeticness and the phylogeneticness happens.

({CR} & {JJ})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the clitoridectomy does not occur is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the low-techness happens. sent2: that not the inactivity but the clitoridectomy occurs is wrong if the quincentennialness does not occur. sent3: the bolographicness happens. sent4: if the inactivity occurs then the clitoridectomy does not occur and the low-techness does not occur. sent5: the fact that both the medicolegalness and the considering Canadian occurs is correct. sent6: the officiation happens and the consorting moo occurs. sent7: the considerateness occurs. sent8: the devastation occurs. sent9: the non-latheryness triggers that the phylogeneticness occurs and the dissolution happens. sent10: the clitoridectomy does not occur if the fact that the inactivity does not occur but the clitoridectomy occurs is not true. sent11: the fact that the March occurs is right. sent12: that the fact that both the Coleridgianness and the mastery occurs does not hold is true if the March does not occur. sent13: the latheriness does not occur if that the stopover does not occur and the latheriness happens does not hold. sent14: the low-techness and the clitoridectomy occurs. sent15: that the clitoridectomy does not occur triggers that both the aposiopeticness and the low-techness occurs. sent16: the suggesting occurs. sent17: the fact that the stopover does not occur and the latheriness happens is not right if the feminizing azurite does not occur. sent18: the quincentennialness does not occur if the fact that the Coleridgianness occurs and the mastery occurs is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the applique does not feminize applique.

¬{E}{a}

sent1: there exists something such that it is a glorification. sent2: that the applique does stunt GNP if the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient is not wrong. sent3: the applique feminizes applique if it does stunt GNP. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a glorification the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient. sent5: if something does consort bur then it is a ELISA. sent6: the applique is not mutafacient.

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

the applique is a ELISA if it does consort bur.

{DA}{a} -> {GG}{a}

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the applique does not feminize applique. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is a glorification. sent2: that the applique does stunt GNP if the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient is not wrong. sent3: the applique feminizes applique if it does stunt GNP. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a glorification the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient. sent5: if something does consort bur then it is a ELISA. sent6: the applique is not mutafacient. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the applique does consort Trema but it is not mutafacient.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the applique stunts GNP.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the chap does not feminize rubbing.

¬{E}{b}

sent1: that the chap does not feminize rubbing is not incorrect if the asteroid is both a ninon and Kafkaesque. sent2: something is a sunscreen but it is not a Spartan. sent3: that the dideoxyinosine is a sunscreen and it is a Spartan is false. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a sunscreen that is not a Spartan is wrong the asteroid is Kafkaesque. sent5: that the dideoxyinosine is a sunscreen that is not a kind of a Spartan is incorrect. sent6: the asteroid is collapsible a proprietress. sent7: the asteroid is a proprietress. sent8: if something is not a ninon then that it is not collapsible and it is not a proprietress does not hold.

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

the chap does feminize rubbing.

{E}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the chap does not feminize rubbing. ; $context$ = sent1: that the chap does not feminize rubbing is not incorrect if the asteroid is both a ninon and Kafkaesque. sent2: something is a sunscreen but it is not a Spartan. sent3: that the dideoxyinosine is a sunscreen and it is a Spartan is false. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a sunscreen that is not a Spartan is wrong the asteroid is Kafkaesque. sent5: that the dideoxyinosine is a sunscreen that is not a kind of a Spartan is incorrect. sent6: the asteroid is collapsible a proprietress. sent7: the asteroid is a proprietress. sent8: if something is not a ninon then that it is not collapsible and it is not a proprietress does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: the asteroid is collapsible.; sent5 -> int2: there is something such that that it is a sunscreen and is not a Spartan does not hold.; int2 & sent4 -> int3: the asteroid is not non-Kafkaesque.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the kainite is a kind of a fascicle.

{A}{a}

sent1: there is something such that the fact that it is a hole-in-the-wall and is not a monte is wrong. sent2: that the kainite is non-diurnal thing that is not a Caprella does not hold if the grader is not a kind of a fascicle. sent3: something is not a fascicle if that it either does not differ or is Dionysian or both is wrong. sent4: if something is not an occident then that it is avian and does differ is false. sent5: that the lovage is not a fascicle but it is a hole-in-the-wall is false. sent6: there exists nothing that is both not a hole-in-the-wall and not a fascicle. sent7: the kainite is not a monte if there exists something such that that it is both not a hole-in-the-wall and not a fascicle is false. sent8: there exists nothing such that it is not a fascicle and it is not a hole-in-the-wall. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it is not a hole-in-the-wall and it is a monte is wrong. sent10: there exists nothing that is a monte and not a fascicle. sent11: there exists nothing such that it is not a hole-in-the-wall and it is not a monte. sent12: if something that is not an occident is not a cytosine it is not avian. sent13: if that the grader is not a keyed and not a cytosine is incorrect then the fact that it is not a kind of an occident is correct. sent14: if that something is not a fascicle and is non-Dionysian is not correct then it is a fascicle. sent15: if something is not avian the fact that it does not differ and/or is Dionysian is not correct. sent16: the kainite is not a kind of a fascicle if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a hole-in-the-wall and is not a monte is not true. sent17: if something does not differ then that it is not a fascicle and it is not Dionysian is wrong. sent18: the fact that the lovage is a kind of a hole-in-the-wall but it is not a monte is not correct. sent19: that the fact that the grader does not key and it is not a kind of a cytosine is not true is not incorrect if it is non-invertible. sent20: there is nothing such that it is both not a scent and credible.

sent1: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬(¬{CT}{a} & ¬{JF}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{C}x v {B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent4: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({D}x & {C}x) sent5: ¬(¬{A}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{A}x) sent7: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{AB}{a} sent8: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{AA}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: (x): ¬({AB}x & ¬{A}x) sent11: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent12: (x): (¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{D}x sent13: ¬(¬{G}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent14: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}x sent15: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x v {B}x) sent16: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent17: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent18: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent19: {H}{b} -> ¬(¬{G}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) sent20: (x): ¬(¬{K}x & {IB}x)

that the kainite is a fascicle is not wrong.

{A}{a}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the kainite is a kind of a fascicle. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that the fact that it is a hole-in-the-wall and is not a monte is wrong. sent2: that the kainite is non-diurnal thing that is not a Caprella does not hold if the grader is not a kind of a fascicle. sent3: something is not a fascicle if that it either does not differ or is Dionysian or both is wrong. sent4: if something is not an occident then that it is avian and does differ is false. sent5: that the lovage is not a fascicle but it is a hole-in-the-wall is false. sent6: there exists nothing that is both not a hole-in-the-wall and not a fascicle. sent7: the kainite is not a monte if there exists something such that that it is both not a hole-in-the-wall and not a fascicle is false. sent8: there exists nothing such that it is not a fascicle and it is not a hole-in-the-wall. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it is not a hole-in-the-wall and it is a monte is wrong. sent10: there exists nothing that is a monte and not a fascicle. sent11: there exists nothing such that it is not a hole-in-the-wall and it is not a monte. sent12: if something that is not an occident is not a cytosine it is not avian. sent13: if that the grader is not a keyed and not a cytosine is incorrect then the fact that it is not a kind of an occident is correct. sent14: if that something is not a fascicle and is non-Dionysian is not correct then it is a fascicle. sent15: if something is not avian the fact that it does not differ and/or is Dionysian is not correct. sent16: the kainite is not a kind of a fascicle if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a hole-in-the-wall and is not a monte is not true. sent17: if something does not differ then that it is not a fascicle and it is not Dionysian is wrong. sent18: the fact that the lovage is a kind of a hole-in-the-wall but it is not a monte is not correct. sent19: that the fact that the grader does not key and it is not a kind of a cytosine is not true is not incorrect if it is non-invertible. sent20: there is nothing such that it is both not a scent and credible. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> int1: that the lovage is not a kind of a hole-in-the-wall and it is not a monte does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a hole-in-the-wall and it is not a kind of a monte is not true.; int2 & sent16 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the non-Carthusianness and the non-over-the-counterness occurs is incorrect.

¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB})

sent1: if the aphoristicness occurs that the expatiation does not occur and the redistribution does not occur does not hold. sent2: the fact that the Carthusian happens but the over-the-counterness does not occur is not right. sent3: if the Baptisticness occurs the fact that the outburst happens is right. sent4: the duty does not occur if the fact that the decathlon does not occur and the extension does not occur is wrong. sent5: the fact that the consorting Cyril does not occur and the consorting vertex does not occur is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the fact that the whipping does not occur and the feminizing Nasturtium does not occur does not hold is not incorrect. sent7: the Carthusianness does not occur if that the aphoristicness and the Carthusianness happens is not true. sent8: if the duty does not occur the aphoristicness and the dialectics occurs. sent9: that the non-Carthusianness and the non-over-the-counterness happens is incorrect. sent10: that the decathlon does not occur and the extension does not occur does not hold if the outburst occurs. sent11: the fact that the non-Carthusianness and the over-the-counterness happens does not hold.

sent1: {A} -> ¬(¬{BD} & ¬{EN}) sent2: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent3: {G} -> {F} sent4: ¬(¬{E} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} sent5: ¬(¬{JI} & ¬{CH}) sent6: ¬(¬{DC} & ¬{AS}) sent7: ¬({A} & {AA}) -> ¬{AA} sent8: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent9: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent10: {F} -> ¬(¬{E} & ¬{D}) sent11: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB})

the non-Carthusianness and the non-over-the-counterness occurs.

(¬{AA} & ¬{AB})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the non-Carthusianness and the non-over-the-counterness occurs is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the aphoristicness occurs that the expatiation does not occur and the redistribution does not occur does not hold. sent2: the fact that the Carthusian happens but the over-the-counterness does not occur is not right. sent3: if the Baptisticness occurs the fact that the outburst happens is right. sent4: the duty does not occur if the fact that the decathlon does not occur and the extension does not occur is wrong. sent5: the fact that the consorting Cyril does not occur and the consorting vertex does not occur is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the fact that the whipping does not occur and the feminizing Nasturtium does not occur does not hold is not incorrect. sent7: the Carthusianness does not occur if that the aphoristicness and the Carthusianness happens is not true. sent8: if the duty does not occur the aphoristicness and the dialectics occurs. sent9: that the non-Carthusianness and the non-over-the-counterness happens is incorrect. sent10: that the decathlon does not occur and the extension does not occur does not hold if the outburst occurs. sent11: the fact that the non-Carthusianness and the over-the-counterness happens does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the whisk does stunt jackfruit.

{B}{a}

sent1: the screen is a billyo and it is a nailbrush if there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent2: that the homebrew is not the absolute if that the homebrew is auroral and it does consort screen does not hold is not wrong. sent3: the fact that the wretch does not feminize mill but it is triclinic does not hold. sent4: the whisk does stunt jackfruit if that the homebrew does not diet but it is no-go does not hold. sent5: if something does consort screen but it is not an absolute then it does not stunt jackfruit. sent6: the fact that the fact that the whisk is not absolute but bellyless does not hold is right. sent7: that something is a diet and it is no-go is not right if it is not an absolute. sent8: if the homebrew does not consort screen it is not absolute. sent9: the fact that the Europeanization is both not syncretic and no-go is not correct. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent11: the fact that the homebrew is a diet that is no-go does not hold if the fact that it is not absolute is not wrong. sent12: a billyo is non-auroral a sulfamethoxazole. sent13: if the fact that the whisk consorts screen and it stunts jackfruit does not hold then it is not an absolute. sent14: the homebrew is lengthwise. sent15: if something is not absolute that it is not a diet and it is no-go does not hold. sent16: the whisk stunts jackfruit if the homebrew does diet. sent17: that the doula is a humming that consorts screen does not hold. sent18: that the homebrew is a diet and is no-go does not hold. sent19: the fact that the homebrew is auroral and does consort screen is not right.

sent1: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({F}{b} & {G}{b}) sent2: ¬({D}{aa} & {C}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent3: ¬(¬{DP}{fs} & {HJ}{fs}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): ({C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{B}x sent6: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {AG}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: ¬{C}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent9: ¬(¬{BU}{ca} & {AB}{ca}) sent10: (Ex): ¬{H}x sent11: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent12: (x): {F}x -> (¬{D}x & {E}x) sent13: ¬({C}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent14: {EG}{aa} sent15: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent16: {AA}{aa} -> {B}{a} sent17: ¬({ID}{bk} & {C}{bk}) sent18: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent19: ¬({D}{aa} & {C}{aa})

that the whisk does not stunt jackfruit hold.

¬{B}{a}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the whisk does stunt jackfruit. ; $context$ = sent1: the screen is a billyo and it is a nailbrush if there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent2: that the homebrew is not the absolute if that the homebrew is auroral and it does consort screen does not hold is not wrong. sent3: the fact that the wretch does not feminize mill but it is triclinic does not hold. sent4: the whisk does stunt jackfruit if that the homebrew does not diet but it is no-go does not hold. sent5: if something does consort screen but it is not an absolute then it does not stunt jackfruit. sent6: the fact that the fact that the whisk is not absolute but bellyless does not hold is right. sent7: that something is a diet and it is no-go is not right if it is not an absolute. sent8: if the homebrew does not consort screen it is not absolute. sent9: the fact that the Europeanization is both not syncretic and no-go is not correct. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent11: the fact that the homebrew is a diet that is no-go does not hold if the fact that it is not absolute is not wrong. sent12: a billyo is non-auroral a sulfamethoxazole. sent13: if the fact that the whisk consorts screen and it stunts jackfruit does not hold then it is not an absolute. sent14: the homebrew is lengthwise. sent15: if something is not absolute that it is not a diet and it is no-go does not hold. sent16: the whisk stunts jackfruit if the homebrew does diet. sent17: that the doula is a humming that consorts screen does not hold. sent18: that the homebrew is a diet and is no-go does not hold. sent19: the fact that the homebrew is auroral and does consort screen is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent15 -> int1: the fact that the homebrew is not a kind of a diet but it is no-go is wrong if the fact that it is not a kind of an absolute is not incorrect.; sent2 & sent19 -> int2: the homebrew is non-absolute.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the homebrew does not diet but it is no-go is false.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the armet stunts chloroplast.

{C}{b}

sent1: if the clinic does consort wrestling then the armet stunts chloroplast. sent2: the chloroplast stunts armet if the businesswoman does consider tachymeter. sent3: everything is meager. sent4: if the tureen is not meager that the clinic does not consort NY and/or consorts wrestling is not false. sent5: the clinic stunts chloroplast and does consort NY. sent6: the clinic does stunt chloroplast. sent7: the businesswoman either does consider tachymeter or does feminize blueberry or both. sent8: if the evacuee is not existential then the tureen is not meager. sent9: the clinic consorts NY. sent10: the abdominal consorts wrestling and is a phoronid. sent11: if something is non-asterismal thing that is noncrucial it is not existential. sent12: the armet is untruthful and it is a jesting. sent13: if the fact that the fact that something does not stunt armet but it is a Nelumbonaceae is true is not true it is a narrow. sent14: that the armet consorts NY hold. sent15: that the clinic is hemiparasitic and a Truth is not false. sent16: the clinic does consort NY and does stunt chloroplast. sent17: if the necker is mortal then the evacuee is not asterismal and is not crucial. sent18: the chloroplast does stunt armet if the businesswoman feminizes blueberry. sent19: the dragonhead is subclavian and it is an angelfish. sent20: a narrow thing is mortal.

sent1: {A}{a} -> {C}{b} sent2: {L}{g} -> {K}{f} sent3: (x): {D}x sent4: ¬{D}{c} -> (¬{B}{a} v {A}{a}) sent5: ({C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent6: {C}{a} sent7: ({L}{g} v {M}{g}) sent8: ¬{E}{d} -> ¬{D}{c} sent9: {B}{a} sent10: ({A}{ba} & {HF}{ba}) sent11: (x): (¬{G}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{E}x sent12: ({IA}{b} & {CK}{b}) sent13: (x): ¬(¬{K}x & {J}x) -> {I}x sent14: {B}{b} sent15: ({BN}{a} & {JB}{a}) sent16: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent17: {H}{e} -> (¬{G}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) sent18: {M}{g} -> {K}{f} sent19: ({DU}{j} & {HJ}{j}) sent20: (x): {I}x -> {H}x

the armet does not stunt chloroplast.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the armet stunts chloroplast. ; $context$ = sent1: if the clinic does consort wrestling then the armet stunts chloroplast. sent2: the chloroplast stunts armet if the businesswoman does consider tachymeter. sent3: everything is meager. sent4: if the tureen is not meager that the clinic does not consort NY and/or consorts wrestling is not false. sent5: the clinic stunts chloroplast and does consort NY. sent6: the clinic does stunt chloroplast. sent7: the businesswoman either does consider tachymeter or does feminize blueberry or both. sent8: if the evacuee is not existential then the tureen is not meager. sent9: the clinic consorts NY. sent10: the abdominal consorts wrestling and is a phoronid. sent11: if something is non-asterismal thing that is noncrucial it is not existential. sent12: the armet is untruthful and it is a jesting. sent13: if the fact that the fact that something does not stunt armet but it is a Nelumbonaceae is true is not true it is a narrow. sent14: that the armet consorts NY hold. sent15: that the clinic is hemiparasitic and a Truth is not false. sent16: the clinic does consort NY and does stunt chloroplast. sent17: if the necker is mortal then the evacuee is not asterismal and is not crucial. sent18: the chloroplast does stunt armet if the businesswoman feminizes blueberry. sent19: the dragonhead is subclavian and it is an angelfish. sent20: a narrow thing is mortal. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the nun is Gibraltarian.

{B}{b}

sent1: the nun is not a heroic. sent2: that the LAN is not pyroligneous and it is not a heroic is false if it is not fishy. sent3: if the LAN is a kind of Gibraltarian thing that does not consider knife-handle then the nun is not a Gibraltarian. sent4: that that the milord is not fishy and does not consort sailboat is true is wrong. sent5: the LAN is not fishy.

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

the nun is not a kind of a Gibraltarian.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nun is Gibraltarian. ; $context$ = sent1: the nun is not a heroic. sent2: that the LAN is not pyroligneous and it is not a heroic is false if it is not fishy. sent3: if the LAN is a kind of Gibraltarian thing that does not consider knife-handle then the nun is not a Gibraltarian. sent4: that that the milord is not fishy and does not consort sailboat is true is wrong. sent5: the LAN is not fishy. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent5 -> int1: that the LAN is not pyroligneous and it is not a heroic is not right.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the stonecrop stunts gauss is not wrong.

{C}{a}

sent1: if that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy and it does not stunt goosander is not right it does not stunt gauss. sent2: the gyrfalcon does not stunt goosander if the stonecrop does not stunt goosander and stunts gauss. sent3: The Eddy stunts stonecrop. sent4: if the stonecrop stunts goosander then it does not stunt gauss. sent5: the mistflower does not stunt Eddy. sent6: something is not a circumflex or does not consort Libocedrus or both. sent7: the gyrfalcon is not invitational if there is something such that the fact that it does not stunt Eddy is right. sent8: the stonecrop is anorectal. sent9: the stonecrop does not stunt goosander and it is not a kind of a surveyor if it is anorectal. sent10: the stonecrop stunts Eddy. sent11: the fact that something is not a kind of a Ajuga but it is anorectal is wrong if it is not a kind of a reductionism. sent12: if something is not a circumflex or does not consort Libocedrus or both then that the quadraphony is not a kind of a reductionism is not incorrect. sent13: something does not stunt Eddy if the fact that it is not a kind of a soar and it stunts arsenide does not hold. sent14: that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy and stunts goosander is wrong. sent15: the tomtit is a surveyor if the squirter is enzymatic but it does not stunt bootleg. sent16: if something stunts bootleg the fact that the fencing is not a soar but it does stunt arsenide is not true. sent17: the stonecrop does not stunt goosander. sent18: if the fencing does not stunt goosander the stonecrop stunts gauss and does stunt Eddy. sent19: the tomtit stunts bootleg and it is enzymatic. sent20: the fencing does not stunt goosander if the tomtit does not stunt arsenide and does not soar. sent21: something is enzymatic but it does not stunt bootleg if it is not anorectal. sent22: something does not stunt arsenide and it does not soar if it is a surveyor.

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

the stonecrop does stunt gauss.

{C}{a}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the stonecrop stunts gauss is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy and it does not stunt goosander is not right it does not stunt gauss. sent2: the gyrfalcon does not stunt goosander if the stonecrop does not stunt goosander and stunts gauss. sent3: The Eddy stunts stonecrop. sent4: if the stonecrop stunts goosander then it does not stunt gauss. sent5: the mistflower does not stunt Eddy. sent6: something is not a circumflex or does not consort Libocedrus or both. sent7: the gyrfalcon is not invitational if there is something such that the fact that it does not stunt Eddy is right. sent8: the stonecrop is anorectal. sent9: the stonecrop does not stunt goosander and it is not a kind of a surveyor if it is anorectal. sent10: the stonecrop stunts Eddy. sent11: the fact that something is not a kind of a Ajuga but it is anorectal is wrong if it is not a kind of a reductionism. sent12: if something is not a circumflex or does not consort Libocedrus or both then that the quadraphony is not a kind of a reductionism is not incorrect. sent13: something does not stunt Eddy if the fact that it is not a kind of a soar and it stunts arsenide does not hold. sent14: that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy and stunts goosander is wrong. sent15: the tomtit is a surveyor if the squirter is enzymatic but it does not stunt bootleg. sent16: if something stunts bootleg the fact that the fencing is not a soar but it does stunt arsenide is not true. sent17: the stonecrop does not stunt goosander. sent18: if the fencing does not stunt goosander the stonecrop stunts gauss and does stunt Eddy. sent19: the tomtit stunts bootleg and it is enzymatic. sent20: the fencing does not stunt goosander if the tomtit does not stunt arsenide and does not soar. sent21: something is enzymatic but it does not stunt bootleg if it is not anorectal. sent22: something does not stunt arsenide and it does not soar if it is a surveyor. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy and does not stunt goosander.; assump1 -> int1: that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy is correct.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy and it does not stunt goosander does not hold.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the chela does not stunt comfrey.

¬{AB}{b}

sent1: if the legs does not stunt comfrey then the chela does feminize legs. sent2: the chela is ontogenetic and feminizes legs. sent3: the fact that the legs does stunt comfrey is not false if the chela does not feminize legs. sent4: the ovenbird stunts comfrey. sent5: the legs is a Xerox if the fact that the chela does not feminize legs is correct. sent6: the otoscope does blunt and is a kind of a Xerox. sent7: the legs is a kind of a Xerox. sent8: the legs stunts comfrey. sent9: the legs does not feminize legs. sent10: the legs is a astrolabe. sent11: the legs stunts comfrey and does feminize legs if the chela is not a Xerox. sent12: the chela is a Xerox and stunts comfrey if the legs does not feminize legs. sent13: the legs does not consider go-kart. sent14: the chela is alimentative and does stunt mill. sent15: The legs does not feminize legs. sent16: the rarity is not a Xerox.

sent1: ¬{AB}{a} -> {A}{b} sent2: ({AR}{b} & {A}{b}) sent3: ¬{A}{b} -> {AB}{a} sent4: {AB}{cu} sent5: ¬{A}{b} -> {AA}{a} sent6: ({CH}{hc} & {AA}{hc}) sent7: {AA}{a} sent8: {AB}{a} sent9: ¬{A}{a} sent10: {DN}{a} sent11: ¬{AA}{b} -> ({AB}{a} & {A}{a}) sent12: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent13: ¬{GD}{a} sent14: ({AL}{b} & {CJ}{b}) sent15: ¬{AC}{aa} sent16: ¬{AA}{ce}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the chela does not stunt comfrey. ; $context$ = sent1: if the legs does not stunt comfrey then the chela does feminize legs. sent2: the chela is ontogenetic and feminizes legs. sent3: the fact that the legs does stunt comfrey is not false if the chela does not feminize legs. sent4: the ovenbird stunts comfrey. sent5: the legs is a Xerox if the fact that the chela does not feminize legs is correct. sent6: the otoscope does blunt and is a kind of a Xerox. sent7: the legs is a kind of a Xerox. sent8: the legs stunts comfrey. sent9: the legs does not feminize legs. sent10: the legs is a astrolabe. sent11: the legs stunts comfrey and does feminize legs if the chela is not a Xerox. sent12: the chela is a Xerox and stunts comfrey if the legs does not feminize legs. sent13: the legs does not consider go-kart. sent14: the chela is alimentative and does stunt mill. sent15: The legs does not feminize legs. sent16: the rarity is not a Xerox. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent9 -> int1: the chela is a Xerox and stunts comfrey.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the teller does not consider girasol.

¬{B}{aa}

sent1: if something considers NASA then it is not mechanical. sent2: there is nothing that is not a Hecht and is recreational. sent3: the Wiffle is not a kind of a carry if the fact that it is non-polychromatic and it is a anaphase is wrong. sent4: if the fact that something is not a kind of a Hecht but it is recreational is not right it is not recreational. sent5: the fact that the teller is conjugal and it does warm does not hold. sent6: that the teller is both not a carry and warmed is not correct. sent7: the teller does not feminize tripod. sent8: if the fact that the redbrush is not a Kiswahili is right then the fact that the teller does not consort bullfighter and is a kind of a Katsuwonidae is incorrect. sent9: the fact that the teller does not carry and does consider triode does not hold. sent10: the fact that the teller is Biedermeier and it is a kind of a Reaper does not hold. sent11: the teller is not a browser. sent12: if something is a Haeckel it does not stunt Californian. sent13: the stockfish is not a carry. sent14: that the spot is warmed and it is a rendezvous does not hold. sent15: if the fact that the teller is not a enervation but it feminizes growl does not hold then it is not warmed. sent16: if the redbrush is a Kiswahili then the teller does consider girasol. sent17: if the fact that the teller does not warm is not false it does not consider girasol. sent18: if the teller unwinds it is not a carry. sent19: something is not a sulfisoxazole if it is a Excellency. sent20: if something is not warmed it does not consider girasol.

sent1: (x): {BG}x -> ¬{DN}x sent2: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {E}x) sent3: ¬(¬{CL}{iq} & {ET}{iq}) -> ¬{AA}{iq} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {E}x) -> ¬{E}x sent5: ¬({GB}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent7: ¬{BP}{aa} sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{HQ}{aa} & {AF}{aa}) sent9: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {GG}{aa}) sent10: ¬({BS}{aa} & {HD}{aa}) sent11: ¬{N}{aa} sent12: (x): {FQ}x -> ¬{CN}x sent13: ¬{AA}{jk} sent14: ¬({AB}{el} & {BD}{el}) sent15: ¬(¬{HA}{aa} & {BH}{aa}) -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent16: {A}{a} -> {B}{aa} sent17: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent18: {IK}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent19: (x): {GJ}x -> ¬{EH}x sent20: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{B}x

the teller does consider girasol.

{B}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the teller does not consider girasol. ; $context$ = sent1: if something considers NASA then it is not mechanical. sent2: there is nothing that is not a Hecht and is recreational. sent3: the Wiffle is not a kind of a carry if the fact that it is non-polychromatic and it is a anaphase is wrong. sent4: if the fact that something is not a kind of a Hecht but it is recreational is not right it is not recreational. sent5: the fact that the teller is conjugal and it does warm does not hold. sent6: that the teller is both not a carry and warmed is not correct. sent7: the teller does not feminize tripod. sent8: if the fact that the redbrush is not a Kiswahili is right then the fact that the teller does not consort bullfighter and is a kind of a Katsuwonidae is incorrect. sent9: the fact that the teller does not carry and does consider triode does not hold. sent10: the fact that the teller is Biedermeier and it is a kind of a Reaper does not hold. sent11: the teller is not a browser. sent12: if something is a Haeckel it does not stunt Californian. sent13: the stockfish is not a carry. sent14: that the spot is warmed and it is a rendezvous does not hold. sent15: if the fact that the teller is not a enervation but it feminizes growl does not hold then it is not warmed. sent16: if the redbrush is a Kiswahili then the teller does consider girasol. sent17: if the fact that the teller does not warm is not false it does not consider girasol. sent18: if the teller unwinds it is not a carry. sent19: something is not a sulfisoxazole if it is a Excellency. sent20: if something is not warmed it does not consider girasol. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the determining does not occur.

¬{B}

sent1: that the victualling and the yawing happens is brought about by the non-evergreenness. sent2: the stunting tyramine happens. sent3: that the feint happens and the dovetail occurs is brought about by that the feminizing porkchop does not occur. sent4: the fact that the evolutionariness does not occur and the stunting tyramine does not occur is false if the caduceanness does not occur. sent5: the stunting tyramine causes that the determining occurs. sent6: that the evergreen does not occur and the victualling does not occur triggers that the yawing does not occur. sent7: the caduceanness does not occur if the yawing does not occur. sent8: the tribalization does not occur and the saccadicness does not occur if the dovetailing occurs. sent9: the feminizing porkchop does not occur if both the suspension and the Churchillianness occurs. sent10: the stunting perambulation occurs. sent11: if the fact that the saccadicness does not occur is not incorrect then the evergreenness does not occur and the victualling does not occur. sent12: if the combing occurs the consorting Leontocebus occurs. sent13: if the fact that the evolutionariness does not occur and the caduceanness happens is not true then the determining does not occur. sent14: that the part-timeness does not occur yields that the suspension and the reopening happens. sent15: the part-timeness does not occur.

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

the determining does not occur.

¬{B}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the determining does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the victualling and the yawing happens is brought about by the non-evergreenness. sent2: the stunting tyramine happens. sent3: that the feint happens and the dovetail occurs is brought about by that the feminizing porkchop does not occur. sent4: the fact that the evolutionariness does not occur and the stunting tyramine does not occur is false if the caduceanness does not occur. sent5: the stunting tyramine causes that the determining occurs. sent6: that the evergreen does not occur and the victualling does not occur triggers that the yawing does not occur. sent7: the caduceanness does not occur if the yawing does not occur. sent8: the tribalization does not occur and the saccadicness does not occur if the dovetailing occurs. sent9: the feminizing porkchop does not occur if both the suspension and the Churchillianness occurs. sent10: the stunting perambulation occurs. sent11: if the fact that the saccadicness does not occur is not incorrect then the evergreenness does not occur and the victualling does not occur. sent12: if the combing occurs the consorting Leontocebus occurs. sent13: if the fact that the evolutionariness does not occur and the caduceanness happens is not true then the determining does not occur. sent14: that the part-timeness does not occur yields that the suspension and the reopening happens. sent15: the part-timeness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the stem is not non-freelance.

{C}{a}

sent1: if there is something such that it does not reheat the stem does consider wheeled. sent2: the stem does consider wheeled. sent3: everything is not probabilistic. sent4: there exists something such that it reheats. sent5: if there exists something such that it does not reheat then the stem considers wheeled and it freelances. sent6: the parterre freelances.

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

the stem is not freelance.

¬{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the stem is not non-freelance. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that it does not reheat the stem does consider wheeled. sent2: the stem does consider wheeled. sent3: everything is not probabilistic. sent4: there exists something such that it reheats. sent5: if there exists something such that it does not reheat then the stem considers wheeled and it freelances. sent6: the parterre freelances. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the pentastomid is not a toe-in.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: the pentastomid is not a toe-in if the Teton frames. sent2: the fact that the Teton is a toe-in and it is a Desmodontidae is not true if it is not a kind of a frame. sent3: the Teton is a girasol if there is something such that that it is not a girasol and it does not kick is false. sent4: if that the fact that that the Teton considers zinfandel and is not a frame hold is not true is correct then the pentastomid is not a kind of a toe-in. sent5: the Teton is not a Desmodontidae. sent6: if the Teton is not a Desmodontidae that it considers zinfandel and it is not a kind of a frame is not correct.

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

the pentastomid is a toe-in.

{B}{b}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pentastomid is not a toe-in. ; $context$ = sent1: the pentastomid is not a toe-in if the Teton frames. sent2: the fact that the Teton is a toe-in and it is a Desmodontidae is not true if it is not a kind of a frame. sent3: the Teton is a girasol if there is something such that that it is not a girasol and it does not kick is false. sent4: if that the fact that that the Teton considers zinfandel and is not a frame hold is not true is correct then the pentastomid is not a kind of a toe-in. sent5: the Teton is not a Desmodontidae. sent6: if the Teton is not a Desmodontidae that it considers zinfandel and it is not a kind of a frame is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent5 -> int1: the fact that the Teton considers zinfandel and does not frame does not hold.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the gate is a Chabad.

{A}{a}

sent1: the gate is a Chabad if the fact that the gammon is polyvalent or is not a Mayan or both is not correct. sent2: if that the gammon is polyvalent and/or not a Chabad is not right the gate is a Mayan. sent3: there is nothing such that it does stunt Caucasian or is not a misfit or both. sent4: there is nothing that either is a horse-cart or does not consort banneret or both. sent5: there is nothing such that it is polyvalent and/or it is not a kind of a Mayan. sent6: the fact that the bunter is a kind of a Chabad or does not consort dichloromethane or both is not true. sent7: that the toupee does stunt dekaliter and/or it is not a expunction is wrong. sent8: the gammon is a kind of a Mayan. sent9: if that the gammon is either polyvalent or a Mayan or both is not true the fact that the gate is a Chabad is right. sent10: that the fact that the gammon is a kind of a Chabad and/or it is not a kind of a Mayan is right is not correct. sent11: if the fact that the bunter feminizes Pectinibranchia but it is not reductionist is incorrect then that the gate is not a Chabad hold. sent12: everything is a kind of a Mayan.

sent1: ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {A}{a} sent2: ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{A}{aa}) -> {AB}{a} sent3: (x): ¬({AR}x v ¬{HU}x) sent4: (x): ¬({E}x v ¬{BB}x) sent5: (x): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent6: ¬({A}{b} v ¬{II}{b}) sent7: ¬({HM}{ad} v ¬{FB}{ad}) sent8: {AB}{aa} sent9: ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {A}{a} sent10: ¬({A}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent11: ¬({B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent12: (x): {AB}x

the gate is not a Chabad.

¬{A}{a}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the gate is a Chabad. ; $context$ = sent1: the gate is a Chabad if the fact that the gammon is polyvalent or is not a Mayan or both is not correct. sent2: if that the gammon is polyvalent and/or not a Chabad is not right the gate is a Mayan. sent3: there is nothing such that it does stunt Caucasian or is not a misfit or both. sent4: there is nothing that either is a horse-cart or does not consort banneret or both. sent5: there is nothing such that it is polyvalent and/or it is not a kind of a Mayan. sent6: the fact that the bunter is a kind of a Chabad or does not consort dichloromethane or both is not true. sent7: that the toupee does stunt dekaliter and/or it is not a expunction is wrong. sent8: the gammon is a kind of a Mayan. sent9: if that the gammon is either polyvalent or a Mayan or both is not true the fact that the gate is a Chabad is right. sent10: that the fact that the gammon is a kind of a Chabad and/or it is not a kind of a Mayan is right is not correct. sent11: if the fact that the bunter feminizes Pectinibranchia but it is not reductionist is incorrect then that the gate is not a Chabad hold. sent12: everything is a kind of a Mayan. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the fact that the gammon is polyvalent and/or it is not a Mayan does not hold.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the sunglasses is not a blowout is true.

¬{E}{b}

sent1: the sunglasses is noncaloric and partitive. sent2: the pudge is uveal. sent3: if something consorts screen and is uveal the aerie is a Meir. sent4: if the aerie does consort screen the sunglasses is a blowout. sent5: the aerie is not a theology if there exists something such that it is not a stroma and/or it is a blowout. sent6: if the aerie is not uveal then the sunglasses is a blowout and it does consort screen. sent7: if the aerie is a theology the sunglasses is not a kind of a blowout. sent8: the pudge is uveal or it is a theology or both. sent9: the sunglasses is uveal or a blowout or both. sent10: the pudge does consort screen and it is uveal. sent11: there exists something such that it consorts screen. sent12: if something is not a kind of a Meir and is not uveal then the tither does not consort screen. sent13: there are uveal things. sent14: the Vernier does consort nympholepsy and is blastomeric. sent15: something is not uveal if that it is a Meir and uveal does not hold. sent16: everything is not a stroma. sent17: everything is not a theology. sent18: the screen is not uveal.

sent1: ({JD}{b} & {CE}{b}) sent2: {B}{aa} sent3: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} sent4: {A}{a} -> {E}{b} sent5: (x): (¬{F}x v {E}x) -> ¬{D}{a} sent6: ¬{B}{a} -> ({E}{b} & {A}{b}) sent7: {D}{a} -> ¬{E}{b} sent8: ({B}{aa} v {D}{aa}) sent9: ({B}{b} v {E}{b}) sent10: ({A}{aa} & {B}{aa}) sent11: (Ex): {A}x sent12: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{A}{eh} sent13: (Ex): {B}x sent14: ({FA}{eq} & {IM}{eq}) sent15: (x): ¬({C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{B}x sent16: (x): ¬{F}x sent17: (x): ¬{D}x sent18: ¬{B}{ae}

the tither does not consort screen.

¬{A}{eh}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the sunglasses is not a blowout is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the sunglasses is noncaloric and partitive. sent2: the pudge is uveal. sent3: if something consorts screen and is uveal the aerie is a Meir. sent4: if the aerie does consort screen the sunglasses is a blowout. sent5: the aerie is not a theology if there exists something such that it is not a stroma and/or it is a blowout. sent6: if the aerie is not uveal then the sunglasses is a blowout and it does consort screen. sent7: if the aerie is a theology the sunglasses is not a kind of a blowout. sent8: the pudge is uveal or it is a theology or both. sent9: the sunglasses is uveal or a blowout or both. sent10: the pudge does consort screen and it is uveal. sent11: there exists something such that it consorts screen. sent12: if something is not a kind of a Meir and is not uveal then the tither does not consort screen. sent13: there are uveal things. sent14: the Vernier does consort nympholepsy and is blastomeric. sent15: something is not uveal if that it is a Meir and uveal does not hold. sent16: everything is not a stroma. sent17: everything is not a theology. sent18: the screen is not uveal. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the fact that something consorts screen and it is uveal is not wrong.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the aerie is a Meir.; int2 -> int3: the aerie is a theology or it is a Meir or both.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the vambrace is not a neurosurgery or not a bunchberry or both.

(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})

sent1: the ewe is mitotic. sent2: the vambrace is a neurosurgery and/or it is not a bunchberry. sent3: the vambrace is a neurosurgery. sent4: if the man-eater is mitotic the vambrace is mitotic. sent5: if the fact that the fact that something is not mitotic or does load gyroscope or both is not wrong is not correct then the fact that it is not a kind of a bunchberry is not incorrect. sent6: the fact that the vambrace does not access thrash or does not disharmonize or both is false. sent7: the ewe is not synchronous but it does isolate daraf. sent8: the man-eater is not mitotic if the vambrace is either not a neurosurgery or not a bunchberry or both. sent9: if the ewe is mitotic then the man-eater is mitotic. sent10: if the vambrace is mitotic then the ewe is mitotic. sent11: the man-eater is not mitotic if the vambrace is not a neurosurgery.

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

the vambrace is not a neurosurgery or it is not a kind of a bunchberry or both.

(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the vambrace is not a neurosurgery or not a bunchberry or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the ewe is mitotic. sent2: the vambrace is a neurosurgery and/or it is not a bunchberry. sent3: the vambrace is a neurosurgery. sent4: if the man-eater is mitotic the vambrace is mitotic. sent5: if the fact that the fact that something is not mitotic or does load gyroscope or both is not wrong is not correct then the fact that it is not a kind of a bunchberry is not incorrect. sent6: the fact that the vambrace does not access thrash or does not disharmonize or both is false. sent7: the ewe is not synchronous but it does isolate daraf. sent8: the man-eater is not mitotic if the vambrace is either not a neurosurgery or not a bunchberry or both. sent9: if the ewe is mitotic then the man-eater is mitotic. sent10: if the vambrace is mitotic then the ewe is mitotic. sent11: the man-eater is not mitotic if the vambrace is not a neurosurgery. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the vambrace is not a neurosurgery and/or it is not a bunchberry.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the man-eater is not mitotic.; sent9 & sent1 -> int2: the man-eater is mitotic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the nonreciprocalness does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: if the fact that the joyfulness does not occur is not incorrect that the nonreciprocalness does not occur and the constricting does not occur does not hold. sent2: if the stabling does not occur the fact that the battue but not the incidence happens does not hold. sent3: the fact that the fact that the destructibleness and the non-etiologicalness happens is wrong is not incorrect if the battue does not occur. sent4: the ideographicness happens and the uneasiness occurs if the opening does not occur. sent5: the non-nonreciprocalness is brought about by the constricting and/or that the joyfulness happens. sent6: the subversion happens or the stomping occurs or both. sent7: the Glaswegianness occurs. sent8: that the destructibleness does not occur triggers that the da'wah happens and the stocking does not occur. sent9: if the dogtrot does not occur the fact that the atomisticness and the isolating lawman happens is not right. sent10: if that the battue occurs and the incidence does not occur is incorrect then the battue does not occur. sent11: if the ideographicness happens the dogtrot does not occur and the extraterritorialness does not occur. sent12: the nonreciprocalness does not occur if the constricting occurs. sent13: the joyfulness does not occur if that the stocking does not occur hold. sent14: the joyfulness happens. sent15: the non-stablingness and the non-Gibraltarianness occurs if the chopper does not occur. sent16: the destructibleness does not occur if that the destructibleness and the non-etiologicalness occurs is false. sent17: the isolating lawman does not occur if that the atomisticness and the isolating lawman happens does not hold. sent18: the nonreciprocalness happens if that the nonreciprocalness does not occur and the constricting does not occur is not correct. sent19: if the isolating lawman does not occur the chopper does not occur and the choreographicness does not occur.

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

the nonreciprocalness happens.

{C}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nonreciprocalness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the joyfulness does not occur is not incorrect that the nonreciprocalness does not occur and the constricting does not occur does not hold. sent2: if the stabling does not occur the fact that the battue but not the incidence happens does not hold. sent3: the fact that the fact that the destructibleness and the non-etiologicalness happens is wrong is not incorrect if the battue does not occur. sent4: the ideographicness happens and the uneasiness occurs if the opening does not occur. sent5: the non-nonreciprocalness is brought about by the constricting and/or that the joyfulness happens. sent6: the subversion happens or the stomping occurs or both. sent7: the Glaswegianness occurs. sent8: that the destructibleness does not occur triggers that the da'wah happens and the stocking does not occur. sent9: if the dogtrot does not occur the fact that the atomisticness and the isolating lawman happens is not right. sent10: if that the battue occurs and the incidence does not occur is incorrect then the battue does not occur. sent11: if the ideographicness happens the dogtrot does not occur and the extraterritorialness does not occur. sent12: the nonreciprocalness does not occur if the constricting occurs. sent13: the joyfulness does not occur if that the stocking does not occur hold. sent14: the joyfulness happens. sent15: the non-stablingness and the non-Gibraltarianness occurs if the chopper does not occur. sent16: the destructibleness does not occur if that the destructibleness and the non-etiologicalness occurs is false. sent17: the isolating lawman does not occur if that the atomisticness and the isolating lawman happens does not hold. sent18: the nonreciprocalness happens if that the nonreciprocalness does not occur and the constricting does not occur is not correct. sent19: if the isolating lawman does not occur the chopper does not occur and the choreographicness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent14 -> int1: the fact that the constricting happens and/or the joyfulness happens hold.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that that something is a Alhazen and it is gymnospermous is not wrong is not true.

¬((Ex): ({A}x & {B}x))

sent1: the hydrocarbon is gymnospermous. sent2: if there is something such that it is not axillary the chloropicrin does not access chloropicrin. sent3: if the liman is not a shoreline the diploid is both not a antifeminist and mucinous. sent4: the chloropicrin is a Alhazen. sent5: something is gymnospermous if it is not a Alhazen and is satiate. sent6: the fact that that something isolates parapsychology and is percussive is right is false if it does not access chloropicrin. sent7: if the sandpiper is not a antifeminist it is a kind of a Bradley and it is a former. sent8: something is a Alhazen. sent9: something is spicate thing that is prenuptial. sent10: the Brazil is respiratory but not non-gymnospermous. sent11: there exists something such that it is a bongo. sent12: there is something such that it is radiopaque and is a kind of a margin. sent13: the fact that something is a whiff and it exudes hold. sent14: the sandpiper is not a antifeminist if the diploid is not a antifeminist but mucinous. sent15: the chloropicrin is gymnospermous. sent16: the couple is not cheerful. sent17: the amorphophallus satiates if the sandpiper is former. sent18: if that something is not a Alhazen and it is not satiate is not right it is a kind of a Alhazen. sent19: something is gymnospermous. sent20: if the couple is not cheerful then it is not axillary. sent21: if there is something such that the fact that it isolates parapsychology and it is percussive is not right the amorphophallus is not a Alhazen.

sent1: {B}{em} sent2: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬{F}{a} sent3: ¬{M}{e} -> (¬{J}{d} & {L}{d}) sent4: {A}{a} sent5: (x): (¬{A}x & {C}x) -> {B}x sent6: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({E}x & {D}x) sent7: ¬{J}{c} -> ({I}{c} & {H}{c}) sent8: (Ex): {A}x sent9: (Ex): ({DL}x & {DB}x) sent10: ({CR}{fn} & {B}{fn}) sent11: (Ex): {GI}x sent12: (Ex): ({CP}x & {FA}x) sent13: (Ex): ({DP}x & {DF}x) sent14: (¬{J}{d} & {L}{d}) -> ¬{J}{c} sent15: {B}{a} sent16: ¬{K}{b} sent17: {H}{c} -> {C}{fm} sent18: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{C}x) -> {A}x sent19: (Ex): {B}x sent20: ¬{K}{b} -> ¬{G}{b} sent21: (x): ¬({E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{A}{fm}

the couple is gymnospermous.

{B}{b}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that that something is a Alhazen and it is gymnospermous is not wrong is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the hydrocarbon is gymnospermous. sent2: if there is something such that it is not axillary the chloropicrin does not access chloropicrin. sent3: if the liman is not a shoreline the diploid is both not a antifeminist and mucinous. sent4: the chloropicrin is a Alhazen. sent5: something is gymnospermous if it is not a Alhazen and is satiate. sent6: the fact that that something isolates parapsychology and is percussive is right is false if it does not access chloropicrin. sent7: if the sandpiper is not a antifeminist it is a kind of a Bradley and it is a former. sent8: something is a Alhazen. sent9: something is spicate thing that is prenuptial. sent10: the Brazil is respiratory but not non-gymnospermous. sent11: there exists something such that it is a bongo. sent12: there is something such that it is radiopaque and is a kind of a margin. sent13: the fact that something is a whiff and it exudes hold. sent14: the sandpiper is not a antifeminist if the diploid is not a antifeminist but mucinous. sent15: the chloropicrin is gymnospermous. sent16: the couple is not cheerful. sent17: the amorphophallus satiates if the sandpiper is former. sent18: if that something is not a Alhazen and it is not satiate is not right it is a kind of a Alhazen. sent19: something is gymnospermous. sent20: if the couple is not cheerful then it is not axillary. sent21: if there is something such that the fact that it isolates parapsychology and it is percussive is not right the amorphophallus is not a Alhazen. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent15 -> int1: the chloropicrin is a kind of a Alhazen and is gymnospermous.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the poppet is a dastard but it is not a Tibetan.

({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

sent1: the poppet does circumnavigate JV. sent2: that the poppet is a dastard and is a Tibetan does not hold if it does circumnavigate JV. sent3: that that the stitch is a kind of a workroom and does not circumnavigate JV is incorrect is not incorrect. sent4: if the fact that the poppet is a plumbism is true the fact that it is both a dastard and not incorporeal is wrong. sent5: if the poppet circumnavigates JV that it does access spritsail and is not a smoothbark is false. sent6: the spritsail does circumnavigate JV. sent7: the poppet is a Catalan. sent8: the fact that the poppet is a dastard and it is a Tibetan does not hold. sent9: if the poppet is basal the fact that that it is a Abkhaz and it is not a Tibetan is correct is not correct. sent10: if something does muckrake then that it is both a sociobiologist and not an assay does not hold. sent11: The JV does circumnavigate poppet. sent12: if something does circumnavigate JV the fact that it is a kind of a dastard that is a kind of a Tibetan is wrong. sent13: that something is both semiotics and not pyrochemical is not correct if it isolates BR. sent14: the fact that the poppet is both a tobacco and not a lip-gloss is false. sent15: the fact that the fact that the poppet is malodorous thing that does not circumnavigate JV does not hold hold. sent16: that something is a dastard but it is not a kind of a Tibetan is not right if it circumnavigates JV.

sent1: {A}{aa} sent2: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: ¬({EP}{bc} & ¬{A}{bc}) sent4: {JB}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{IG}{aa}) sent5: {A}{aa} -> ¬({HU}{aa} & ¬{GR}{aa}) sent6: {A}{ds} sent7: {BO}{aa} sent8: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: {CQ}{aa} -> ¬({CP}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent10: (x): {IN}x -> ¬({K}x & ¬{IQ}x) sent11: {AD}{ab} sent12: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent13: (x): {BN}x -> ¬({IT}x & ¬{AC}x) sent14: ¬({BI}{aa} & ¬{D}{aa}) sent15: ¬({G}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent16: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the poppet is a dastard but it is not a Tibetan. ; $context$ = sent1: the poppet does circumnavigate JV. sent2: that the poppet is a dastard and is a Tibetan does not hold if it does circumnavigate JV. sent3: that that the stitch is a kind of a workroom and does not circumnavigate JV is incorrect is not incorrect. sent4: if the fact that the poppet is a plumbism is true the fact that it is both a dastard and not incorporeal is wrong. sent5: if the poppet circumnavigates JV that it does access spritsail and is not a smoothbark is false. sent6: the spritsail does circumnavigate JV. sent7: the poppet is a Catalan. sent8: the fact that the poppet is a dastard and it is a Tibetan does not hold. sent9: if the poppet is basal the fact that that it is a Abkhaz and it is not a Tibetan is correct is not correct. sent10: if something does muckrake then that it is both a sociobiologist and not an assay does not hold. sent11: The JV does circumnavigate poppet. sent12: if something does circumnavigate JV the fact that it is a kind of a dastard that is a kind of a Tibetan is wrong. sent13: that something is both semiotics and not pyrochemical is not correct if it isolates BR. sent14: the fact that the poppet is both a tobacco and not a lip-gloss is false. sent15: the fact that the fact that the poppet is malodorous thing that does not circumnavigate JV does not hold hold. sent16: that something is a dastard but it is not a kind of a Tibetan is not right if it circumnavigates JV. ; $proof$ =

sent16 -> int1: the fact that the poppet is a dastard and is not a kind of a Tibetan is not correct if it circumnavigates JV.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__