Datasets:

hitachi-nlp

/

FLD.v2

like 7

DeductionInstance

that the perigonalness happens if the beaklessness occurs does not hold.

¬({A} -> {AB})

sent1: if the thermionicness happens then the rationalisticness does not occur and the draining lightheadedness occurs. sent2: that both the debilitation and the non-long-chainness happens is true if that the shove-halfpenny does not occur is not wrong. sent3: if that the shove-halfpenny happens but the bunco does not occur does not hold the shove-halfpenny does not occur. sent4: the non-long-chainness leads to that the beaklessness does not occur and the Hitlerianness occurs. sent5: the lashing happens. sent6: if the crucialness does not occur that the shove-halfpenny happens but the bunco does not occur is wrong. sent7: the crucialness does not occur if that the bowling does not occur and/or the etiolation does not occur is not true. sent8: if either the drinkableness does not occur or the beaklessness does not occur or both the fact that the biblioticsness occurs is not incorrect. sent9: if the beaklessness occurs then the flapping does not occur and the perigonalness happens.

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

the biblioticsness occurs.

{AT}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the perigonalness happens if the beaklessness occurs does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the thermionicness happens then the rationalisticness does not occur and the draining lightheadedness occurs. sent2: that both the debilitation and the non-long-chainness happens is true if that the shove-halfpenny does not occur is not wrong. sent3: if that the shove-halfpenny happens but the bunco does not occur does not hold the shove-halfpenny does not occur. sent4: the non-long-chainness leads to that the beaklessness does not occur and the Hitlerianness occurs. sent5: the lashing happens. sent6: if the crucialness does not occur that the shove-halfpenny happens but the bunco does not occur is wrong. sent7: the crucialness does not occur if that the bowling does not occur and/or the etiolation does not occur is not true. sent8: if either the drinkableness does not occur or the beaklessness does not occur or both the fact that the biblioticsness occurs is not incorrect. sent9: if the beaklessness occurs then the flapping does not occur and the perigonalness happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the beaklessness occurs.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the flapping does not occur and the perigonalness happens.; int1 -> int2: the perigonalness happens.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the dynamicsness happens or the permutation happens or both is wrong.

¬({C} v {D})

sent1: the myalgicness happens. sent2: if that the vestiariness does not occur and the palling goitrogen happens is false then the vestiariness happens. sent3: the headstand occurs. sent4: the headstand and/or the Zambian occurs. sent5: the dragooning rosebud occurs. sent6: the telephotography and the myalgicness happens. sent7: the palling goitrogen and the dragooning rosebud happens. sent8: the fact that either the dynamics occurs or the permutation happens or both is not correct if the fact that the palling goitrogen does not occur is not incorrect. sent9: the telephotography happens if the eye occurs. sent10: the baptism occurs. sent11: either the palling Rajidae or the wilting or both happens. sent12: the anthropologicalness happens. sent13: the loading occurs. sent14: the non-dynamicsness is prevented by the palling goitrogen.

sent1: {DB} sent2: ¬(¬{BN} & {A}) -> {BN} sent3: {BO} sent4: ({BO} v {BC}) sent5: {B} sent6: ({FC} & {DB}) sent7: ({A} & {B}) sent8: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} v {D}) sent9: {AT} -> {FC} sent10: {GK} sent11: ({CH} v {I}) sent12: {BF} sent13: {GA} sent14: {A} -> {C}

that either the dynamicsness happens or the permutation occurs or both is not right.

¬({C} v {D})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the dynamicsness happens or the permutation happens or both is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the myalgicness happens. sent2: if that the vestiariness does not occur and the palling goitrogen happens is false then the vestiariness happens. sent3: the headstand occurs. sent4: the headstand and/or the Zambian occurs. sent5: the dragooning rosebud occurs. sent6: the telephotography and the myalgicness happens. sent7: the palling goitrogen and the dragooning rosebud happens. sent8: the fact that either the dynamics occurs or the permutation happens or both is not correct if the fact that the palling goitrogen does not occur is not incorrect. sent9: the telephotography happens if the eye occurs. sent10: the baptism occurs. sent11: either the palling Rajidae or the wilting or both happens. sent12: the anthropologicalness happens. sent13: the loading occurs. sent14: the non-dynamicsness is prevented by the palling goitrogen. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: the palling goitrogen happens.; sent14 & int1 -> int2: the dynamicsness happens.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the alternateness happens and the expunction occurs.

({A} & {C})

sent1: the expunction happens. sent2: if the fact that the palling packthread does not occur and the dalliance does not occur is right then the expunction does not occur. sent3: if the horizontal does not occur both the alternateness and the expunction happens. sent4: if the horizontal does not occur the expunction occurs. sent5: the authorship does not occur. sent6: the non-horizontalness is triggered by that the nonwashableness and the cut-in happens. sent7: the fact that the draining brachyuran and the constitutionalness happens is not false if the carrier does not occur. sent8: both the authorship and the bringing happens if the examining rim does not occur. sent9: that both the non-blindedness and the examining Paliurus happens prevents that the hallooing occurs. sent10: the alternateness results in that not the dragooning fakir but the questioning occurs. sent11: that the horizontal does not occur is triggered by that the nonwashableness does not occur but the cut-in happens. sent12: if the draining breach does not occur but the blindedness happens then the niceness does not occur. sent13: both the postbiblicalness and the draining capsule happens if the fact that the conservation does not occur hold. sent14: the nonwashableness does not occur but the cut-in occurs. sent15: the nonwashableness does not occur. sent16: the snaking and the draining sabbatical occurs. sent17: the dalliance happens and the radiation occurs. sent18: that the expunction does not occur brings about that the horizontal and the alternating occurs. sent19: the non-germiness triggers that the prodigy occurs and the periodonticness occurs.

sent1: {C} sent2: (¬{D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{C} sent3: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {C}) sent4: ¬{B} -> {C} sent5: ¬{DG} sent6: ({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent7: ¬{JB} -> ({IK} & {IO}) sent8: ¬{HB} -> ({DG} & {ES}) sent9: (¬{IQ} & {HD}) -> ¬{II} sent10: {A} -> (¬{DM} & {DU}) sent11: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent12: (¬{AM} & {IQ}) -> ¬{HU} sent13: ¬{DB} -> ({HJ} & {BP}) sent14: (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent15: ¬{AA} sent16: ({HR} & {HS}) sent17: ({E} & {IE}) sent18: ¬{C} -> ({B} & {A}) sent19: ¬{EI} -> ({GB} & {IP})

the fact that the alternateness and the expunction occurs is not right.

¬({A} & {C})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the alternateness happens and the expunction occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the expunction happens. sent2: if the fact that the palling packthread does not occur and the dalliance does not occur is right then the expunction does not occur. sent3: if the horizontal does not occur both the alternateness and the expunction happens. sent4: if the horizontal does not occur the expunction occurs. sent5: the authorship does not occur. sent6: the non-horizontalness is triggered by that the nonwashableness and the cut-in happens. sent7: the fact that the draining brachyuran and the constitutionalness happens is not false if the carrier does not occur. sent8: both the authorship and the bringing happens if the examining rim does not occur. sent9: that both the non-blindedness and the examining Paliurus happens prevents that the hallooing occurs. sent10: the alternateness results in that not the dragooning fakir but the questioning occurs. sent11: that the horizontal does not occur is triggered by that the nonwashableness does not occur but the cut-in happens. sent12: if the draining breach does not occur but the blindedness happens then the niceness does not occur. sent13: both the postbiblicalness and the draining capsule happens if the fact that the conservation does not occur hold. sent14: the nonwashableness does not occur but the cut-in occurs. sent15: the nonwashableness does not occur. sent16: the snaking and the draining sabbatical occurs. sent17: the dalliance happens and the radiation occurs. sent18: that the expunction does not occur brings about that the horizontal and the alternating occurs. sent19: the non-germiness triggers that the prodigy occurs and the periodonticness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent14 -> int1: the horizontal does not occur.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the coupe is not unidirectional.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: that the landlady is a kind of an ancestor but it is not violent is not right. sent2: the watchman is not a Sinbad if that the landlady is a crinoid is not false. sent3: the coupe is not unidirectional if the beanie is not a kind of an audible. sent4: something that does not lean is both a boneset and not European. sent5: the watchman is not a Sinbad if the landlady is a Sinbad. sent6: that the beanie is unidirectional but not a confluence is not right. sent7: if the fact that the incumbent is not a boneset and it does not pall secretase is not correct then it pall secretase. sent8: if there exists something such that it is a boneset the fact that the incumbent is not a boneset and does not pall secretase is not true. sent9: the fact that something is a kind of non-cryptanalytic thing that is not feudal is wrong if it does pall secretase. sent10: the fact that the beanie is an audible but it is not tangential is not right if it is not foul. sent11: the Chadian does not lean if the watchman is both non-episcopal and not non-back. sent12: the coupe is not feudal. sent13: the coupe is unidirectional and fouls if the beanie does not pall adventurer. sent14: something is not episcopal but it does back if it is not a Sinbad. sent15: if the landlady does not drain landlady then it is a Sinbad or it is crinoid or both. sent16: the coupe is not a kind of an audible. sent17: the beanie is feudal if the havelock is feudal. sent18: the fact that something is unidirectional but it does not fraternize is not right if that it is not a foul is not right. sent19: the landlady does not drain landlady if the fact that it is both an ancestor and not violent is wrong. sent20: if something is feudal then that it does not pall adventurer is not wrong. sent21: if the fact that the beanie is an audible but it is not tangential does not hold the coupe is non-unidirectional. sent22: the fact that the coupe fouls and it does pall adventurer is not wrong if it is not feudal.

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

the fact that the coupe is unidirectional is true.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the coupe is not unidirectional. ; $context$ = sent1: that the landlady is a kind of an ancestor but it is not violent is not right. sent2: the watchman is not a Sinbad if that the landlady is a crinoid is not false. sent3: the coupe is not unidirectional if the beanie is not a kind of an audible. sent4: something that does not lean is both a boneset and not European. sent5: the watchman is not a Sinbad if the landlady is a Sinbad. sent6: that the beanie is unidirectional but not a confluence is not right. sent7: if the fact that the incumbent is not a boneset and it does not pall secretase is not correct then it pall secretase. sent8: if there exists something such that it is a boneset the fact that the incumbent is not a boneset and does not pall secretase is not true. sent9: the fact that something is a kind of non-cryptanalytic thing that is not feudal is wrong if it does pall secretase. sent10: the fact that the beanie is an audible but it is not tangential is not right if it is not foul. sent11: the Chadian does not lean if the watchman is both non-episcopal and not non-back. sent12: the coupe is not feudal. sent13: the coupe is unidirectional and fouls if the beanie does not pall adventurer. sent14: something is not episcopal but it does back if it is not a Sinbad. sent15: if the landlady does not drain landlady then it is a Sinbad or it is crinoid or both. sent16: the coupe is not a kind of an audible. sent17: the beanie is feudal if the havelock is feudal. sent18: the fact that something is unidirectional but it does not fraternize is not right if that it is not a foul is not right. sent19: the landlady does not drain landlady if the fact that it is both an ancestor and not violent is wrong. sent20: if something is feudal then that it does not pall adventurer is not wrong. sent21: if the fact that the beanie is an audible but it is not tangential does not hold the coupe is non-unidirectional. sent22: the fact that the coupe fouls and it does pall adventurer is not wrong if it is not feudal. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that that it is not a entablature and is a kind of a render is incorrect.

(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a pitprop and is a render is incorrect. sent2: there exists something such that that it is a entablature and it does render is not true. sent3: there exists something such that it is not a entablature and it is a kind of a render. sent4: the pole does not delineate. sent5: the fact that the pole is not a pitprop but it is a entablature is not true. sent6: that the fact that the pole is a entablature and it is a render hold does not hold. sent7: the fact that that the wristband is not a ogive and is formalistic is not incorrect is incorrect. sent8: if the terbium is not a pitprop then that the pole is a entablature and it is a render is not correct. sent9: the fact that there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a render and a pitprop does not hold is correct. sent10: the terbium is not a pitprop.

sent1: (Ex): ¬(¬{A}x & {AB}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: ¬{CB}{b} sent5: ¬(¬{A}{b} & {AA}{b}) sent6: ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent7: ¬(¬{JI}{ir} & {EG}{ir}) sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent9: (Ex): ¬(¬{AB}x & {A}x) sent10: ¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that that it is not a entablature and is a kind of a render is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a pitprop and is a render is incorrect. sent2: there exists something such that that it is a entablature and it does render is not true. sent3: there exists something such that it is not a entablature and it is a kind of a render. sent4: the pole does not delineate. sent5: the fact that the pole is not a pitprop but it is a entablature is not true. sent6: that the fact that the pole is a entablature and it is a render hold does not hold. sent7: the fact that that the wristband is not a ogive and is formalistic is not incorrect is incorrect. sent8: if the terbium is not a pitprop then that the pole is a entablature and it is a render is not correct. sent9: the fact that there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a render and a pitprop does not hold is correct. sent10: the terbium is not a pitprop. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the roller-skater is not unlucky.

¬{F}{a}

sent1: the cryoscope is a meanie and it is healthful if it is not a Saroyan. sent2: if the cryoscope is a Saarinen and it is a kind of a meanie the oxide is not earless. sent3: the fact that if the roller-skater is both a pumpernickel and not the servant then the roller-skater is not unlucky hold. sent4: the roller-skater does not fraternize. sent5: something is a miss if it is a prop. sent6: the piggery is lucky. sent7: the roller-skater is a kind of a pumpernickel but it is not a servant if it misses. sent8: the cryoscope is a Saarinen. sent9: the marmoset is not a miss and is not a yodh if the oxide is a pumpernickel. sent10: if the marmoset is not a miss and it is not a yodh then the roller-skater does not prop. sent11: something is a kind of a pumpernickel that is unlucky if it is not earless.

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

the interpreter is a kind of a servant but it does not dragoon transcendence.

({E}{fh} & ¬{EL}{fh})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the roller-skater is not unlucky. ; $context$ = sent1: the cryoscope is a meanie and it is healthful if it is not a Saroyan. sent2: if the cryoscope is a Saarinen and it is a kind of a meanie the oxide is not earless. sent3: the fact that if the roller-skater is both a pumpernickel and not the servant then the roller-skater is not unlucky hold. sent4: the roller-skater does not fraternize. sent5: something is a miss if it is a prop. sent6: the piggery is lucky. sent7: the roller-skater is a kind of a pumpernickel but it is not a servant if it misses. sent8: the cryoscope is a Saarinen. sent9: the marmoset is not a miss and is not a yodh if the oxide is a pumpernickel. sent10: if the marmoset is not a miss and it is not a yodh then the roller-skater does not prop. sent11: something is a kind of a pumpernickel that is unlucky if it is not earless. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the roller-skater misses if it props.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the crocodilian is not a kind of a luger.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: there exists something such that it is not annual and does not drain dodo. sent2: everything is not a dark. sent3: the profiteer does not interpret if it is a ILO. sent4: the sip is not a kind of a Guyanese. sent5: there is something such that it does not dragoon Bozeman and it is not a plantation. sent6: if that something is not a assignor and is not a bindery is not right then it does not examine virginity. sent7: the motoneuron is not dark. sent8: the crocodilian is a luger if the sipunculid is not a kind of a luger. sent9: something is not an argonaut and does not collide if it is a luger. sent10: if a dark does not dragoon sayeret the crocodilian is not a kind of a luger. sent11: the fact that the sip is not a kind of a assignor and is not a bindery does not hold if it is not Guyanese. sent12: something is a kind of a slenderness but it does not drain handhold if it does not examine virginity. sent13: that the crocodilian is not a dark is correct. sent14: if the fact that the rabbitfish is not a ILO or it is a kind of a Kalamazoo or both is false then the profiteer is a ILO. sent15: the fact that the fact that the rabbitfish is not a ILO or it is a Kalamazoo or both is not correct is not wrong if there is something such that the fact that it does not drain handhold is right. sent16: everything is non-dark thing that does not dragoon sayeret. sent17: the sipunculid is not a luger if the fact that the Sand is a luger but it does not accrue is not correct. sent18: if something that is not a kind of a dark does not dragoon sayeret the crocodilian is not a luger.

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

the crocodilian is a luger.

{A}{a}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the crocodilian is not a kind of a luger. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is not annual and does not drain dodo. sent2: everything is not a dark. sent3: the profiteer does not interpret if it is a ILO. sent4: the sip is not a kind of a Guyanese. sent5: there is something such that it does not dragoon Bozeman and it is not a plantation. sent6: if that something is not a assignor and is not a bindery is not right then it does not examine virginity. sent7: the motoneuron is not dark. sent8: the crocodilian is a luger if the sipunculid is not a kind of a luger. sent9: something is not an argonaut and does not collide if it is a luger. sent10: if a dark does not dragoon sayeret the crocodilian is not a kind of a luger. sent11: the fact that the sip is not a kind of a assignor and is not a bindery does not hold if it is not Guyanese. sent12: something is a kind of a slenderness but it does not drain handhold if it does not examine virginity. sent13: that the crocodilian is not a dark is correct. sent14: if the fact that the rabbitfish is not a ILO or it is a kind of a Kalamazoo or both is false then the profiteer is a ILO. sent15: the fact that the fact that the rabbitfish is not a ILO or it is a Kalamazoo or both is not correct is not wrong if there is something such that the fact that it does not drain handhold is right. sent16: everything is non-dark thing that does not dragoon sayeret. sent17: the sipunculid is not a luger if the fact that the Sand is a luger but it does not accrue is not correct. sent18: if something that is not a kind of a dark does not dragoon sayeret the crocodilian is not a luger. ; $proof$ =

sent16 -> int1: the remedy is not a kind of a dark and it does not dragoon sayeret.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a dark and does not dragoon sayeret.; int2 & sent18 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it is not a insolubility then it is not a burden and it palls quintuplet.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: the soup burdens and it does pall quintuplet if it is not a kind of a insolubility. sent2: there exists something such that if that it is not a insolubility hold it is not a burden. sent3: there exists something such that if it does not starve it is an archive. sent4: if the soup does not drain microprocessor then it does not pall quintuplet and it does drain Anabaptist. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not a Luxemburger then it is a brogan and it is nonlexical. sent6: if the pod does not estivate it is glandular and it is a burden. sent7: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a insolubility then it burdens and does pall quintuplet. sent8: if the soup is not a insolubility then it does not burden and palls quintuplet. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not a petchary it does not pall doxycycline. sent10: there is something such that if it is a insolubility it is not a kind of a burden and it does pall quintuplet. sent11: the soup is not a burden but it does pall quintuplet if it is a insolubility. sent12: the soup palls quintuplet if it is not a insolubility. sent13: the soup is a kind of a insolubility that is a Oswald if it is not a fecklessness. sent14: if something does not dragoon gastroenterostomy it is not a kiss and not non-mediated. sent15: there is something such that if it does not propitiate then it dragoons Bellini.

sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent3: (Ex): ¬{GU}x -> {FN}x sent4: ¬{EL}{aa} -> (¬{AB}{aa} & {CE}{aa}) sent5: (Ex): ¬{AO}x -> ({GB}x & {JA}x) sent6: ¬{DJ}{o} -> ({BD}{o} & {AA}{o}) sent7: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{II}x -> ¬{DF}x sent10: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent11: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent12: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent13: ¬{BF}{aa} -> ({A}{aa} & {EB}{aa}) sent14: (x): ¬{HN}x -> (¬{JI}x & {HM}x) sent15: (Ex): ¬{GG}x -> {GE}x

if the fact that the soup does not dragoon gastroenterostomy is not wrong it is not a kiss and it does mediate.

¬{HN}{aa} -> (¬{JI}{aa} & {HM}{aa})

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not a insolubility then it is not a burden and it palls quintuplet. ; $context$ = sent1: the soup burdens and it does pall quintuplet if it is not a kind of a insolubility. sent2: there exists something such that if that it is not a insolubility hold it is not a burden. sent3: there exists something such that if it does not starve it is an archive. sent4: if the soup does not drain microprocessor then it does not pall quintuplet and it does drain Anabaptist. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not a Luxemburger then it is a brogan and it is nonlexical. sent6: if the pod does not estivate it is glandular and it is a burden. sent7: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a insolubility then it burdens and does pall quintuplet. sent8: if the soup is not a insolubility then it does not burden and palls quintuplet. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not a petchary it does not pall doxycycline. sent10: there is something such that if it is a insolubility it is not a kind of a burden and it does pall quintuplet. sent11: the soup is not a burden but it does pall quintuplet if it is a insolubility. sent12: the soup palls quintuplet if it is not a insolubility. sent13: the soup is a kind of a insolubility that is a Oswald if it is not a fecklessness. sent14: if something does not dragoon gastroenterostomy it is not a kiss and not non-mediated. sent15: there is something such that if it does not propitiate then it dragoons Bellini. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fennel does dragoon hardback.

{A}{a}

sent1: the fennel dragoons paragrapher or it is not a Athenian or both if there exists something such that it does not dragoon hardback. sent2: the existentialist does not dragoon hardback if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a exegete that dragoons airmailer is not true. sent3: if the fennel does not dragoon hardback then it is not Athenian. sent4: that the fennel is Athenian is not incorrect if it is a Athenian or it does not dragoon paragrapher or both. sent5: that the nailfile does not dragoon hardback hold. sent6: the treadmill is not a drug and is not satiate. sent7: something is not a Athenian if it does not dragoon airmailer and is not a exegete. sent8: the fennel is Athenian or it does not dragoon paragrapher or both. sent9: if something is not a drug and it does not satiate it does not pod. sent10: the fennel is a piedmont. sent11: the fact that that something is a exegete and it dragoons airmailer is not true if it does not pod is not false.

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

the gateau is non-Athenian.

¬{B}{ir}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fennel does dragoon hardback. ; $context$ = sent1: the fennel dragoons paragrapher or it is not a Athenian or both if there exists something such that it does not dragoon hardback. sent2: the existentialist does not dragoon hardback if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a exegete that dragoons airmailer is not true. sent3: if the fennel does not dragoon hardback then it is not Athenian. sent4: that the fennel is Athenian is not incorrect if it is a Athenian or it does not dragoon paragrapher or both. sent5: that the nailfile does not dragoon hardback hold. sent6: the treadmill is not a drug and is not satiate. sent7: something is not a Athenian if it does not dragoon airmailer and is not a exegete. sent8: the fennel is Athenian or it does not dragoon paragrapher or both. sent9: if something is not a drug and it does not satiate it does not pod. sent10: the fennel is a piedmont. sent11: the fact that that something is a exegete and it dragoons airmailer is not true if it does not pod is not false. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fennel does not dragoon hardback.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the fennel is not a Athenian.; sent4 & sent8 -> int2: the fennel is Athenian.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there exists something such that if it is a broody but not a hematocyst then it does not dragoon pepper is incorrect.

¬((Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)

sent1: there exists something such that if it does grin and it does not pall drawbar it is not arbitrable. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a broody and it is a hematocyst then it does not dragoon pepper. sent3: that the syllogist does not dragoon pepper if the syllogist is a broody and is not a hematocyst is not incorrect. sent4: if the vertebra is a hematocyst but it is not a deinonychus then it is not heterozygous. sent5: that there is something such that if it dragoons appellant and it does not hook it is not a kind of a management is right. sent6: if the syllogist is a broody but it is not a hematocyst then it does dragoon pepper. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a hangman and it is not a scythe then it is not a Flagstaff. sent8: the syllogist does not drain Maratha if it is a mispronunciation and it is not a kind of a wordsmith. sent9: if the syllogist is a broody and it is a hematocyst then it does not dragoon pepper. sent10: if the Ukranian is salvific thing that is not a deinonychus it is not a broody. sent11: if the syllogist does dragoon pepper but it does not sightsee then that it does not pall stitcher hold. sent12: there is something such that if it dragoons vertebra and does not drain Maratha then it does not drain Ukranian. sent13: the syllogist is not a kind of a procrastination if it palls archduchess and is not a hematocyst. sent14: there exists something such that if that it is a broody and it is not a kind of a hematocyst is not incorrect it does dragoon pepper. sent15: if the drawbar does dragoon pepper but it is not a kind of a rounding then it is not a mimosa. sent16: that if the syllogist is a second and not the crowbar the syllogist does not drain cartoonist is not incorrect. sent17: the syllogist is not a broody if it is both admissible and not vascular.

sent1: (Ex): ({HB}x & ¬{GK}x) -> ¬{GJ}x sent2: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent3: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent4: ({AB}{bs} & ¬{DK}{bs}) -> ¬{DA}{bs} sent5: (Ex): ({IL}x & ¬{IO}x) -> ¬{H}x sent6: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent7: (Ex): ({FC}x & ¬{AS}x) -> ¬{DN}x sent8: ({EQ}{aa} & ¬{BQ}{aa}) -> ¬{II}{aa} sent9: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent10: ({M}{hi} & ¬{DK}{hi}) -> ¬{AA}{hi} sent11: ({B}{aa} & ¬{DU}{aa}) -> ¬{FD}{aa} sent12: (Ex): ({HP}x & ¬{II}x) -> ¬{HD}x sent13: ({BL}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{FR}{aa} sent14: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent15: ({B}{go} & ¬{R}{go}) -> ¬{FE}{go} sent16: ({S}{aa} & ¬{CC}{aa}) -> ¬{HU}{aa} sent17: ({AR}{aa} & ¬{BA}{aa}) -> ¬{AA}{aa}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is a broody but not a hematocyst then it does not dragoon pepper is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it does grin and it does not pall drawbar it is not arbitrable. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a broody and it is a hematocyst then it does not dragoon pepper. sent3: that the syllogist does not dragoon pepper if the syllogist is a broody and is not a hematocyst is not incorrect. sent4: if the vertebra is a hematocyst but it is not a deinonychus then it is not heterozygous. sent5: that there is something such that if it dragoons appellant and it does not hook it is not a kind of a management is right. sent6: if the syllogist is a broody but it is not a hematocyst then it does dragoon pepper. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a hangman and it is not a scythe then it is not a Flagstaff. sent8: the syllogist does not drain Maratha if it is a mispronunciation and it is not a kind of a wordsmith. sent9: if the syllogist is a broody and it is a hematocyst then it does not dragoon pepper. sent10: if the Ukranian is salvific thing that is not a deinonychus it is not a broody. sent11: if the syllogist does dragoon pepper but it does not sightsee then that it does not pall stitcher hold. sent12: there is something such that if it dragoons vertebra and does not drain Maratha then it does not drain Ukranian. sent13: the syllogist is not a kind of a procrastination if it palls archduchess and is not a hematocyst. sent14: there exists something such that if that it is a broody and it is not a kind of a hematocyst is not incorrect it does dragoon pepper. sent15: if the drawbar does dragoon pepper but it is not a kind of a rounding then it is not a mimosa. sent16: that if the syllogist is a second and not the crowbar the syllogist does not drain cartoonist is not incorrect. sent17: the syllogist is not a broody if it is both admissible and not vascular. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the interlobularness occurs.

{D}

sent1: the Guineanness happens. sent2: that the refinement does not occur is caused by that the communist and the draining readability occurs. sent3: that the cut-in occurs is not incorrect if the draining hornpipe does not occur and/or the cut-in occurs. sent4: the passableness occurs. sent5: both the inclementness and the inferior happens. sent6: the concocting does not occur if the Guineanness and the draining hornpipe occurs. sent7: the draining hornpipe happens. sent8: the fact that the interlobularness does not occur is true if the Guineanness does not occur. sent9: the palling Vulcan does not occur. sent10: that the interlobularness happens is caused by that the concocting does not occur.

sent1: {A} sent2: ({IH} & {DP}) -> ¬{IB} sent3: (¬{B} v {HK}) -> {HK} sent4: {FP} sent5: ({JK} & {HI}) sent6: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent7: {B} sent8: ¬{A} -> ¬{D} sent9: ¬{FE} sent10: ¬{C} -> {D}

the interlobularness does not occur.

¬{D}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the interlobularness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the Guineanness happens. sent2: that the refinement does not occur is caused by that the communist and the draining readability occurs. sent3: that the cut-in occurs is not incorrect if the draining hornpipe does not occur and/or the cut-in occurs. sent4: the passableness occurs. sent5: both the inclementness and the inferior happens. sent6: the concocting does not occur if the Guineanness and the draining hornpipe occurs. sent7: the draining hornpipe happens. sent8: the fact that the interlobularness does not occur is true if the Guineanness does not occur. sent9: the palling Vulcan does not occur. sent10: that the interlobularness happens is caused by that the concocting does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent7 -> int1: the Guinean occurs and the draining hornpipe occurs.; sent6 & int1 -> int2: the concocting does not occur.; sent10 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the non-theosophicalness and the feline occurs is not correct.

¬(¬{A} & {C})

sent1: the fact that both the non-theosophicalness and the feline occurs is wrong if the examining compounded does not occur. sent2: if that both the non-hematologicness and the examining compounded occurs is not right then the theosophicalness does not occur. sent3: the fact that the keratotomy does not occur is right. sent4: the draining ligament does not occur if the fact that the obligatoriness occurs and the Lens occurs is wrong. sent5: the exudation happens. sent6: if the monstrosity does not occur both the Seljuk and the felineness occurs. sent7: that not the draining frame-up but the polarographicness occurs is not correct. sent8: the fact that both the theosophicalness and the felineness happens is not true if the examining compounded does not occur. sent9: the draining frame-up does not occur. sent10: the diclinousness does not occur. sent11: the marrying does not occur. sent12: that the frictionlessness does not occur but the palling pinch occurs is wrong. sent13: if the haemophilicness does not occur then the fact that not the gig but the draining Equisetum occurs is wrong. sent14: that the exudation happens and the hill does not occur prevents the examining compounded. sent15: if the diclinousness does not occur the fact that both the obligatoriness and the Lens happens does not hold. sent16: if the draining ligament does not occur that the hematologicness does not occur and the examining compounded happens is false. sent17: the fact that that the theosophicalness and the feline happens is not correct is not false. sent18: the fact that the dragooning numeracy does not occur but the broadening occurs is wrong if the examining beef does not occur. sent19: the exudation happens and the hill does not occur. sent20: the nonarborealness but not the marrying occurs. sent21: the banking does not occur. sent22: the polarographicness does not occur.

sent1: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{A} & {C}) sent2: ¬(¬{D} & {B}) -> ¬{A} sent3: ¬{DL} sent4: ¬({M} & {L}) -> ¬{G} sent5: {AA} sent6: ¬{F} -> ({E} & {C}) sent7: ¬(¬{GP} & {HB}) sent8: ¬{B} -> ¬({A} & {C}) sent9: ¬{GP} sent10: ¬{O} sent11: ¬{HQ} sent12: ¬(¬{IO} & {GH}) sent13: ¬{HL} -> ¬(¬{DK} & {EB}) sent14: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent15: ¬{O} -> ¬({M} & {L}) sent16: ¬{G} -> ¬(¬{D} & {B}) sent17: ¬({A} & {C}) sent18: ¬{DU} -> ¬(¬{DO} & {GU}) sent19: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent20: ({IS} & ¬{HQ}) sent21: ¬{DQ} sent22: ¬{HB}

the theosophicalness does not occur and the feline occurs.

(¬{A} & {C})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the non-theosophicalness and the feline occurs is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that both the non-theosophicalness and the feline occurs is wrong if the examining compounded does not occur. sent2: if that both the non-hematologicness and the examining compounded occurs is not right then the theosophicalness does not occur. sent3: the fact that the keratotomy does not occur is right. sent4: the draining ligament does not occur if the fact that the obligatoriness occurs and the Lens occurs is wrong. sent5: the exudation happens. sent6: if the monstrosity does not occur both the Seljuk and the felineness occurs. sent7: that not the draining frame-up but the polarographicness occurs is not correct. sent8: the fact that both the theosophicalness and the felineness happens is not true if the examining compounded does not occur. sent9: the draining frame-up does not occur. sent10: the diclinousness does not occur. sent11: the marrying does not occur. sent12: that the frictionlessness does not occur but the palling pinch occurs is wrong. sent13: if the haemophilicness does not occur then the fact that not the gig but the draining Equisetum occurs is wrong. sent14: that the exudation happens and the hill does not occur prevents the examining compounded. sent15: if the diclinousness does not occur the fact that both the obligatoriness and the Lens happens does not hold. sent16: if the draining ligament does not occur that the hematologicness does not occur and the examining compounded happens is false. sent17: the fact that that the theosophicalness and the feline happens is not correct is not false. sent18: the fact that the dragooning numeracy does not occur but the broadening occurs is wrong if the examining beef does not occur. sent19: the exudation happens and the hill does not occur. sent20: the nonarborealness but not the marrying occurs. sent21: the banking does not occur. sent22: the polarographicness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent19 -> int1: the examining compounded does not occur.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the calumet is both a seventeenth and not a volcanology.

({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b})

sent1: if the flip does not dragoon weepiness then the calumet is a seventeenth but it is not a volcanology. sent2: the calumet is not a kind of a volcanology. sent3: if the calumet does not dragoon weepiness the flip is not a kind of a seventeenth. sent4: if the flip does not dragoon weepiness the calumet is not a volcanology. sent5: The weepiness does not dragoon flip. sent6: the flip does not intertwine. sent7: the flip does not dragoon weepiness. sent8: the calumet does dragoon weepiness but it is not a kind of a seventeenth if that the flip is not a volcanology is right. sent9: that that the calumet does dragoon weepiness is not wrong if the flip does dragoon weepiness is correct. sent10: the reverse is not a volcanology. sent11: the honker is a kind of locomotive thing that intertwines. sent12: that something is both a seventeenth and not a volcanology is wrong if it does not dragoon weepiness.

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

that the calumet is a seventeenth that is not a volcanology does not hold.

¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the calumet is both a seventeenth and not a volcanology. ; $context$ = sent1: if the flip does not dragoon weepiness then the calumet is a seventeenth but it is not a volcanology. sent2: the calumet is not a kind of a volcanology. sent3: if the calumet does not dragoon weepiness the flip is not a kind of a seventeenth. sent4: if the flip does not dragoon weepiness the calumet is not a volcanology. sent5: The weepiness does not dragoon flip. sent6: the flip does not intertwine. sent7: the flip does not dragoon weepiness. sent8: the calumet does dragoon weepiness but it is not a kind of a seventeenth if that the flip is not a volcanology is right. sent9: that that the calumet does dragoon weepiness is not wrong if the flip does dragoon weepiness is correct. sent10: the reverse is not a volcanology. sent11: the honker is a kind of locomotive thing that intertwines. sent12: that something is both a seventeenth and not a volcanology is wrong if it does not dragoon weepiness. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there exists something such that if it is four-wheel it does not examine scarcity and it does not dovetail is wrong.

¬((Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x))

sent1: a four-wheel thing does not examine scarcity and is a dovetail. sent2: there exists something such that if it does pall unseasonableness it is not a Nigeria and it is homocercal. sent3: something that is four-wheel does not examine scarcity. sent4: if something is four-wheel it does not examine scarcity and is not a dovetail. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not non-digital then it is both non-fibrocalcific and not a gamete.

sent1: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (Ex): {IA}x -> (¬{CO}x & {AQ}x) sent3: (x): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent4: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: (Ex): {Q}x -> (¬{ER}x & ¬{DM}x)

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is four-wheel it does not examine scarcity and it does not dovetail is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: a four-wheel thing does not examine scarcity and is a dovetail. sent2: there exists something such that if it does pall unseasonableness it is not a Nigeria and it is homocercal. sent3: something that is four-wheel does not examine scarcity. sent4: if something is four-wheel it does not examine scarcity and is not a dovetail. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not non-digital then it is both non-fibrocalcific and not a gamete. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: the wether does not examine scarcity and it is not a dovetail if it is four-wheel.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the bilabial occurs and the rending occurs.

({D} & {C})

sent1: the dragooning Simon does not occur if the fact that the amnesicness and the dragooning Simon occurs is false. sent2: the dragooning spade does not occur if the fact that the dragooning Simon happens but the ford does not occur is not right. sent3: the Romance does not occur if the fact that both the actuarialness and the foreignness occurs is not correct. sent4: not the dragooning spade but the initiation happens if the fording does not occur. sent5: that the amnesicness does not occur is right. sent6: if the black-and-whiteness happens then the erectingness happens. sent7: the fact that the fact that both the amnesic and the dragooning Simon occurs does not hold hold if the fact that the Romance does not occur is true. sent8: if the erectingness occurs then the rending happens. sent9: the black-and-whiteness happens. sent10: the fact that the dragooning Simon happens but the ford does not occur is not right if that the amnesic does not occur is not incorrect. sent11: if the black-and-whiteness does not occur then the fact that both the bilabialness and the rending occurs is not correct. sent12: the fording does not occur and/or the dragooning spade does not occur if the dragooning Simon does not occur. sent13: that both the dragooning spade and the initiation happens causes that the bilabial occurs. sent14: that the dragooning spade occurs is prevented by that the fording does not occur and/or that the dragooning spade does not occur. sent15: that the dragooning spade does not occur but the initiation happens prevents that the bilabial does not occur.

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

the fact that the bilabial and the rending happens does not hold.

¬({D} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bilabial occurs and the rending occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the dragooning Simon does not occur if the fact that the amnesicness and the dragooning Simon occurs is false. sent2: the dragooning spade does not occur if the fact that the dragooning Simon happens but the ford does not occur is not right. sent3: the Romance does not occur if the fact that both the actuarialness and the foreignness occurs is not correct. sent4: not the dragooning spade but the initiation happens if the fording does not occur. sent5: that the amnesicness does not occur is right. sent6: if the black-and-whiteness happens then the erectingness happens. sent7: the fact that the fact that both the amnesic and the dragooning Simon occurs does not hold hold if the fact that the Romance does not occur is true. sent8: if the erectingness occurs then the rending happens. sent9: the black-and-whiteness happens. sent10: the fact that the dragooning Simon happens but the ford does not occur is not right if that the amnesic does not occur is not incorrect. sent11: if the black-and-whiteness does not occur then the fact that both the bilabialness and the rending occurs is not correct. sent12: the fording does not occur and/or the dragooning spade does not occur if the dragooning Simon does not occur. sent13: that both the dragooning spade and the initiation happens causes that the bilabial occurs. sent14: that the dragooning spade occurs is prevented by that the fording does not occur and/or that the dragooning spade does not occur. sent15: that the dragooning spade does not occur but the initiation happens prevents that the bilabial does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent9 -> int1: the erectingness happens.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the rending happens.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the fact that the terbinafine is a cassock and is not lean is not true if the budgerigar does oversleep is incorrect.

¬({A}{a} -> ¬({C}{c} & ¬{B}{c}))

sent1: if the budgerigar oversleeps then the terbinafine is a cassock but not lean. sent2: if the budgerigar is lean then the chinoiserie is a cassock that does not oversleep. sent3: if the terbinafine does lean the budgerigar is a cassock and does not oversleep. sent4: the chinoiserie oversleeps but it is not lean if the budgerigar is a cassock. sent5: the fact that the chinoiserie is lean and is not a cassock is not correct if the terbinafine does oversleep. sent6: the ounce oversleeps. sent7: if the chinoiserie is lean the fact that the terbinafine is a kind of a cassock that does not lean does not hold. sent8: the terbinafine does oversleep but it is not lean if the budgerigar is a cassock. sent9: if the chinoiserie oversleeps that the budgerigar does lean but it does not oversleeps does not hold. sent10: the fact that the terbinafine is a kind of a cassock that is lean is not true if the chinoiserie lean. sent11: that the budgerigar does oversleep and is not a cassock is false if the terbinafine leans. sent12: that the chinoiserie is a cassock and it does lean is not correct if the budgerigar oversleeps. sent13: if the budgerigar does oversleep the chinoiserie does lean. sent14: the fact that the terbinafine is a cassock and lean is not right if the budgerigar oversleeps. sent15: if the terbinafine does lean then the chinoiserie is a kind of a cassock. sent16: if the chinoiserie oversleeps then the budgerigar is lean. sent17: the terbinafine is a kind of a cassock but it is not lean if that the chinoiserie is lean is correct. sent18: the terbinafine leans if the chinoiserie is a cassock. sent19: the kanchil is a Opera but it does not lean.

sent1: {A}{a} -> ({C}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent2: {B}{a} -> ({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent3: {B}{c} -> ({C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent4: {C}{a} -> ({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent5: {A}{c} -> ¬({B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent6: {A}{gt} sent7: {B}{b} -> ¬({C}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent8: {C}{a} -> ({A}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent9: {A}{b} -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent10: {B}{b} -> ¬({C}{c} & {B}{c}) sent11: {B}{c} -> ¬({A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent12: {A}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent13: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent14: {A}{a} -> ¬({C}{c} & {B}{c}) sent15: {B}{c} -> {C}{b} sent16: {A}{b} -> {B}{a} sent17: {B}{b} -> ({C}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent18: {C}{b} -> {B}{c} sent19: ({AN}{fs} & ¬{B}{fs})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the fact that the terbinafine is a cassock and is not lean is not true if the budgerigar does oversleep is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the budgerigar oversleeps then the terbinafine is a cassock but not lean. sent2: if the budgerigar is lean then the chinoiserie is a cassock that does not oversleep. sent3: if the terbinafine does lean the budgerigar is a cassock and does not oversleep. sent4: the chinoiserie oversleeps but it is not lean if the budgerigar is a cassock. sent5: the fact that the chinoiserie is lean and is not a cassock is not correct if the terbinafine does oversleep. sent6: the ounce oversleeps. sent7: if the chinoiserie is lean the fact that the terbinafine is a kind of a cassock that does not lean does not hold. sent8: the terbinafine does oversleep but it is not lean if the budgerigar is a cassock. sent9: if the chinoiserie oversleeps that the budgerigar does lean but it does not oversleeps does not hold. sent10: the fact that the terbinafine is a kind of a cassock that is lean is not true if the chinoiserie lean. sent11: that the budgerigar does oversleep and is not a cassock is false if the terbinafine leans. sent12: that the chinoiserie is a cassock and it does lean is not correct if the budgerigar oversleeps. sent13: if the budgerigar does oversleep the chinoiserie does lean. sent14: the fact that the terbinafine is a cassock and lean is not right if the budgerigar oversleeps. sent15: if the terbinafine does lean then the chinoiserie is a kind of a cassock. sent16: if the chinoiserie oversleeps then the budgerigar is lean. sent17: the terbinafine is a kind of a cassock but it is not lean if that the chinoiserie is lean is correct. sent18: the terbinafine leans if the chinoiserie is a cassock. sent19: the kanchil is a Opera but it does not lean. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the budgerigar oversleeps.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the chinoiserie does lean.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: that the terbinafine is a kind of a cassock but it is not lean is wrong.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the runway is a gametangium.

{B}{b}

sent1: if there exists something such that it is not a foreshore then the centerpiece does not pall Isfahan. sent2: if the functionalist is a curve the runway is a gametangium. sent3: the runway is not a curve. sent4: if something dragoons palpation and it dragoons Herbart then it is not a kind of a foreshore. sent5: the functionalist drains Dasypodidae if it is not a bellows. sent6: the weigela is not trophoblastic and/or does not dragoon Herbart. sent7: the fact that the weigela is not a kind of a nirvana if the fact that the fodder is a nirvana but it is not a kind of a pragmatic does not hold is not incorrect. sent8: if the runway is a curve then the functionalist is a gametangium. sent9: if either something is not trophoblastic or it does not dragoon Herbart or both it does not dragoon Herbart. sent10: if the functionalist is not a bellows it does drain Dasypodidae and is a curve. sent11: if there is something such that that it does dim and it is not a goitrogen does not hold then that the echovirus is a kind of a goitrogen is not incorrect. sent12: the functionalist does drain Dasypodidae. sent13: if that something is both ruminant and directing is not correct then it is ruminant. sent14: the sporophyll is not a bellows. sent15: if the weigela does not dragoon Herbart and is not a nirvana then the specimen dragoon Herbart. sent16: the specimen does dragoon palpation. sent17: the fact that the functionalist is not nonruminant but it does direct does not hold if the echovirus is a goitrogen. sent18: that the fodder is a kind of a nirvana and is not a pragmatic is not correct. sent19: that the Xhosa is not undimmed and not a goitrogen is wrong if there is something such that it does not pall Isfahan. sent20: the functionalist does not bellow.

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

the runway is not a kind of a gametangium.

¬{B}{b}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the runway is a gametangium. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it is not a foreshore then the centerpiece does not pall Isfahan. sent2: if the functionalist is a curve the runway is a gametangium. sent3: the runway is not a curve. sent4: if something dragoons palpation and it dragoons Herbart then it is not a kind of a foreshore. sent5: the functionalist drains Dasypodidae if it is not a bellows. sent6: the weigela is not trophoblastic and/or does not dragoon Herbart. sent7: the fact that the weigela is not a kind of a nirvana if the fact that the fodder is a nirvana but it is not a kind of a pragmatic does not hold is not incorrect. sent8: if the runway is a curve then the functionalist is a gametangium. sent9: if either something is not trophoblastic or it does not dragoon Herbart or both it does not dragoon Herbart. sent10: if the functionalist is not a bellows it does drain Dasypodidae and is a curve. sent11: if there is something such that that it does dim and it is not a goitrogen does not hold then that the echovirus is a kind of a goitrogen is not incorrect. sent12: the functionalist does drain Dasypodidae. sent13: if that something is both ruminant and directing is not correct then it is ruminant. sent14: the sporophyll is not a bellows. sent15: if the weigela does not dragoon Herbart and is not a nirvana then the specimen dragoon Herbart. sent16: the specimen does dragoon palpation. sent17: the fact that the functionalist is not nonruminant but it does direct does not hold if the echovirus is a goitrogen. sent18: that the fodder is a kind of a nirvana and is not a pragmatic is not correct. sent19: that the Xhosa is not undimmed and not a goitrogen is wrong if there is something such that it does not pall Isfahan. sent20: the functionalist does not bellow. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent20 -> int1: the functionalist does drain Dasypodidae and is a kind of a curve.; int1 -> int2: the functionalist is a kind of a curve.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that that it does not lave and is not a nonparticipant is not correct.

(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: the fact that something does not lave and is not a nonparticipant does not hold if it is not a Onega. sent2: the busbar is not a mescal if something is a Utu. sent3: the drugget is not intemperate if there is something such that it is a kind of a moderation. sent4: the proctoscope is a Onega that does not decouple if the clemency is a southernism. sent5: that the handicraft is not a kind of a Onega and is an antibiotic is incorrect if it is not satyric. sent6: there exists something such that that it laves and is not a nonparticipant is not right. sent7: the fact that the fact that the drugget does not lave and it does not pall handicraft hold is false if it is not a Utu. sent8: the fact that something does not lave but it is a nonparticipant is not right if that it is not a kind of a Onega is not false. sent9: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a fiancee that is not a kind of a mescal does not hold. sent10: something is a southernism. sent11: if there is something such that it is a kind of a gorilla the drugget is not a kind of a Onega. sent12: the drugget is not a Onega if something is a southernism. sent13: if something is not a complement then that it is not a gorilla and dragoons busbar is not true.

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: (x): {BS}x -> ¬{EC}{hs} sent3: (x): {DD}x -> ¬{HP}{aa} sent4: {B}{a} -> ({A}{p} & ¬{GN}{p}) sent5: ¬{GS}{fl} -> ¬(¬{A}{fl} & {FF}{fl}) sent6: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: ¬{BS}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{JF}{aa}) sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬({HF}x & ¬{EC}x) sent10: (Ex): {B}x sent11: (x): {DF}x -> ¬{A}{aa} sent12: (x): {B}x -> ¬{A}{aa} sent13: (x): ¬{EB}x -> ¬(¬{DF}x & {R}x)

the proctoscope does not decouple.

¬{GN}{p}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that that it does not lave and is not a nonparticipant is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something does not lave and is not a nonparticipant does not hold if it is not a Onega. sent2: the busbar is not a mescal if something is a Utu. sent3: the drugget is not intemperate if there is something such that it is a kind of a moderation. sent4: the proctoscope is a Onega that does not decouple if the clemency is a southernism. sent5: that the handicraft is not a kind of a Onega and is an antibiotic is incorrect if it is not satyric. sent6: there exists something such that that it laves and is not a nonparticipant is not right. sent7: the fact that the fact that the drugget does not lave and it does not pall handicraft hold is false if it is not a Utu. sent8: the fact that something does not lave but it is a nonparticipant is not right if that it is not a kind of a Onega is not false. sent9: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a fiancee that is not a kind of a mescal does not hold. sent10: something is a southernism. sent11: if there is something such that it is a kind of a gorilla the drugget is not a kind of a Onega. sent12: the drugget is not a Onega if something is a southernism. sent13: if something is not a complement then that it is not a gorilla and dragoons busbar is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: that the drugget does not lave and is not a kind of a nonparticipant is not right if it is not a kind of a Onega.; sent10 & sent12 -> int2: the drugget is not a Onega.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the drugget does not lave and it is not a nonparticipant is false.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the draining eggbeater does not occur.

¬{B}

sent1: the waveform and the premenstrualness happens if the buyout does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the wearing does not occur is true then that both the non-uncontroversialness and the waggery occurs is wrong. sent3: that the palling Shaker happens and the low does not occur does not hold if the examining Ilmen occurs. sent4: if the fact that the palling Shaker and the non-lowness happens is false the fact that the buyout does not occur hold. sent5: if the cooperative does not occur and the manifesting does not occur then the hematologicness happens. sent6: if the migratoriness does not occur then the abiogeneticness does not occur. sent7: if the palling carnival does not occur then that the wear happens and the draining eggbeater occurs does not hold. sent8: if the palling carnival does not occur then the draining eggbeater and the wearing happens. sent9: both the non-uncontroversialness and the waggery occurs. sent10: if the existentialistness does not occur then the cooperative does not occur and the manifesting does not occur. sent11: that the draining Freemasonry does not occur brings about that the examining Ilmen happens and the earthquake occurs. sent12: if the premenstrualness happens the go-slow but not the palling carnival occurs. sent13: the comptrollership does not occur if that the wear and the draining eggbeater occurs is not correct. sent14: the hematologicness leads to that the draining Freemasonry does not occur. sent15: the existentialist is prevented by the non-abiogeneticness.

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

the draining eggbeater happens.

{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the draining eggbeater does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the waveform and the premenstrualness happens if the buyout does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the wearing does not occur is true then that both the non-uncontroversialness and the waggery occurs is wrong. sent3: that the palling Shaker happens and the low does not occur does not hold if the examining Ilmen occurs. sent4: if the fact that the palling Shaker and the non-lowness happens is false the fact that the buyout does not occur hold. sent5: if the cooperative does not occur and the manifesting does not occur then the hematologicness happens. sent6: if the migratoriness does not occur then the abiogeneticness does not occur. sent7: if the palling carnival does not occur then that the wear happens and the draining eggbeater occurs does not hold. sent8: if the palling carnival does not occur then the draining eggbeater and the wearing happens. sent9: both the non-uncontroversialness and the waggery occurs. sent10: if the existentialistness does not occur then the cooperative does not occur and the manifesting does not occur. sent11: that the draining Freemasonry does not occur brings about that the examining Ilmen happens and the earthquake occurs. sent12: if the premenstrualness happens the go-slow but not the palling carnival occurs. sent13: the comptrollership does not occur if that the wear and the draining eggbeater occurs is not correct. sent14: the hematologicness leads to that the draining Freemasonry does not occur. sent15: the existentialist is prevented by the non-abiogeneticness. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the wear does not occur.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that not the uncontroversialness but the waggery occurs does not hold.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the wear happens.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the overburdening happens.

{C}

sent1: the drumming occurs. sent2: that the drumming and/or the feminism occurs yields that the crenel does not occur. sent3: the feminism happens. sent4: the pharyngealness and/or the palling slot prevents the mutativeness. sent5: if the mutativeness does not occur then the feminism occurs and the overburden happens. sent6: if the fact that the feminism happens and the drumming does not occur is not true then the overburdening occurs.

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

the crenel does not occur.

¬{JH}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the overburdening happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the drumming occurs. sent2: that the drumming and/or the feminism occurs yields that the crenel does not occur. sent3: the feminism happens. sent4: the pharyngealness and/or the palling slot prevents the mutativeness. sent5: if the mutativeness does not occur then the feminism occurs and the overburden happens. sent6: if the fact that the feminism happens and the drumming does not occur is not true then the overburdening occurs. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the feminism happens and the drumming does not occur.; assump1 -> int1: the drumming does not occur.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the feminism occurs but the drumming does not occur does not hold.; sent6 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the dam is not cyclothymic.

¬{E}{c}

sent1: there exists something such that it is a falafel. sent2: if something is a kind of a falafel the saurel is not a supplejack. sent3: the dam is cyclothymic if the saurel is cyclothymic. sent4: the Panamanian is nonassociative if the saurel is not a supplejack. sent5: the dam is not associative. sent6: if the fact that the dam is cyclothymic hold then the Panamanian is cyclothymic. sent7: if the Panamanian is nonassociative then the dam is nonassociative but it is not formic.

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

the dam is cyclothymic.

{E}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dam is not cyclothymic. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is a falafel. sent2: if something is a kind of a falafel the saurel is not a supplejack. sent3: the dam is cyclothymic if the saurel is cyclothymic. sent4: the Panamanian is nonassociative if the saurel is not a supplejack. sent5: the dam is not associative. sent6: if the fact that the dam is cyclothymic hold then the Panamanian is cyclothymic. sent7: if the Panamanian is nonassociative then the dam is nonassociative but it is not formic. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the saurel is not a supplejack.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the Panamanian is nonassociative.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the dam is nonassociative but it is not formic.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if it is a blacking that it does not examine tamponade and is not a Kuhn hold.

(Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: something does not examine tamponade and it is not a Kuhn if it is a blacking.

sent1: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is a blacking that it does not examine tamponade and is not a Kuhn hold. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not examine tamponade and it is not a Kuhn if it is a blacking. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: if the fact that the painting is a blacking is not wrong it does not examine tamponade and it is not a kind of a Kuhn.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the forwarding does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: the reentry happens and the quiescence happens. sent2: the non-forwardingness and/or that the dragooning tincture does not occur is triggered by the impoliticness. sent3: that the politicness does not occur and the dragooning tincture does not occur does not hold if the fact that the triumph occurs is not incorrect. sent4: if that the domination does not occur hold the dragooning demureness and the forwardingness occurs. sent5: not the dragooning demureness but the domination happens. sent6: if that the ether and the vicissitude occurs does not hold the vicissitude does not occur. sent7: the bifurcation happens. sent8: the ascensionalness happens and the dragooning demureness happens if the domination does not occur. sent9: that the domination occurs and the dragooning tincture happens prevents the forwardingness. sent10: the volley occurs and the territoriality happens if the vicissitude does not occur. sent11: that the ether happens and the vicissitude occurs is false. sent12: that the territoriality does not occur causes that the draining old-timer does not occur and the pantheistness does not occur. sent13: if that the draining old-timer occurs is not false then the dragooning cuisine does not occur and/or the pantheist happens. sent14: if the groove does not occur the triumph and the dragooning centaury happens. sent15: the territoriality brings about that the draining old-timer occurs. sent16: the dragooning tincture happens and the politicness happens. sent17: that the groove does not occur and the dragooning cuisine does not occur is caused by that the pantheistness does not occur. sent18: that the politicness happens is prevented by that the triumph occurs. sent19: both the roping and the fullbacking occurs.

sent1: ({BF} & {FH}) sent2: ¬{E} -> (¬{D} v ¬{C}) sent3: {F} -> ¬(¬{E} & ¬{C}) sent4: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {D}) sent5: (¬{A} & {B}) sent6: ¬({P} & {N}) -> ¬{N} sent7: {BG} sent8: ¬{B} -> ({DS} & {A}) sent9: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent10: ¬{N} -> ({M} & {L}) sent11: ¬({P} & {N}) sent12: ¬{L} -> (¬{K} & ¬{J}) sent13: {K} -> (¬{I} v {J}) sent14: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent15: {L} -> {K} sent16: ({C} & {E}) sent17: ¬{J} -> (¬{H} & ¬{I}) sent18: {F} -> ¬{E} sent19: ({HC} & {CC})

the forwarding occurs.

{D}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the forwarding does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the reentry happens and the quiescence happens. sent2: the non-forwardingness and/or that the dragooning tincture does not occur is triggered by the impoliticness. sent3: that the politicness does not occur and the dragooning tincture does not occur does not hold if the fact that the triumph occurs is not incorrect. sent4: if that the domination does not occur hold the dragooning demureness and the forwardingness occurs. sent5: not the dragooning demureness but the domination happens. sent6: if that the ether and the vicissitude occurs does not hold the vicissitude does not occur. sent7: the bifurcation happens. sent8: the ascensionalness happens and the dragooning demureness happens if the domination does not occur. sent9: that the domination occurs and the dragooning tincture happens prevents the forwardingness. sent10: the volley occurs and the territoriality happens if the vicissitude does not occur. sent11: that the ether happens and the vicissitude occurs is false. sent12: that the territoriality does not occur causes that the draining old-timer does not occur and the pantheistness does not occur. sent13: if that the draining old-timer occurs is not false then the dragooning cuisine does not occur and/or the pantheist happens. sent14: if the groove does not occur the triumph and the dragooning centaury happens. sent15: the territoriality brings about that the draining old-timer occurs. sent16: the dragooning tincture happens and the politicness happens. sent17: that the groove does not occur and the dragooning cuisine does not occur is caused by that the pantheistness does not occur. sent18: that the politicness happens is prevented by that the triumph occurs. sent19: both the roping and the fullbacking occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the domination occurs.; sent16 -> int2: the dragooning tincture happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the domination and the dragooning tincture happens.; int3 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there exists something such that if it is not a Palaquium or it is not a hosier or both then it does not drain yellowcake is wrong.

¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)

sent1: the spinner is not anthropic if the fact that it is not a hosier is true. sent2: the fact that the spinner does not dragoon Xylomelum is correct if it is not a sophisticate. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a Palaquium or not a hosier or both it does drain yellowcake. sent4: the spinner is not phonetics if it does not rejoice and/or does not drain yellowcake. sent5: something that does not dragoon Plantagenet and/or does not drain yellowcake is not robust. sent6: if something does not pall Lenard and/or palls IMO then it is not eradicable. sent7: the spinner is not a Palaquium if either it does not drain syllogist or it does wilt or both. sent8: there is something such that if it either is not a kind of a Palaquium or is a hosier or both it does not drain yellowcake. sent9: there exists something such that if it either is dimensional or is not prefectural or both then it is not incongruent. sent10: if either something is not a Palaquium or it is not a hosier or both then it does not drain yellowcake.

sent1: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬{JF}{aa} sent2: ¬{DK}{aa} -> ¬{AT}{aa} sent3: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: (¬{AN}{aa} v ¬{B}{aa}) -> ¬{AD}{aa} sent5: (x): (¬{CD}x v ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent6: (x): (¬{HP}x v {BB}x) -> ¬{HO}x sent7: (¬{FR}{aa} v {EK}{aa}) -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent8: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent9: (Ex): ({AF}x v ¬{AG}x) -> ¬{GC}x sent10: (x): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

the syllogist is not robust if it either does not dragoon Plantagenet or does not drain yellowcake or both.

(¬{CD}{im} v ¬{B}{im}) -> ¬{C}{im}

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is not a Palaquium or it is not a hosier or both then it does not drain yellowcake is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the spinner is not anthropic if the fact that it is not a hosier is true. sent2: the fact that the spinner does not dragoon Xylomelum is correct if it is not a sophisticate. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a Palaquium or not a hosier or both it does drain yellowcake. sent4: the spinner is not phonetics if it does not rejoice and/or does not drain yellowcake. sent5: something that does not dragoon Plantagenet and/or does not drain yellowcake is not robust. sent6: if something does not pall Lenard and/or palls IMO then it is not eradicable. sent7: the spinner is not a Palaquium if either it does not drain syllogist or it does wilt or both. sent8: there is something such that if it either is not a kind of a Palaquium or is a hosier or both it does not drain yellowcake. sent9: there exists something such that if it either is dimensional or is not prefectural or both then it is not incongruent. sent10: if either something is not a Palaquium or it is not a hosier or both then it does not drain yellowcake. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the spinner does not drain yellowcake if it is not a kind of a Palaquium and/or it is not a kind of a hosier.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the cinder does not examine Liege.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: something intonates if it is not a clansman but synovial. sent2: if something is not a kind of a clansman then that the cinder is synovial and it examines Liege is wrong. sent3: the cinder is synovial if the half-and-half examines Liege. sent4: something does not intonate. sent5: something does intonate. sent6: there are non-synovial things. sent7: that the hadron does examine Liege and it is a clansman does not hold. sent8: if there is something such that it does dragoon retreated the hadron is not a clansman but it is synovial. sent9: something is a ubiquinone and is not an affirmative if it does not drain risk. sent10: the millionaire does not examine Liege. sent11: the fact that the cinder does examine Liege and it is a kind of a clansman is not correct. sent12: if something is not an affirmative the fact that it does drain fevered and it does pall redoubt is false. sent13: there exists something such that it does not examine Liege. sent14: if that the hadron is both a clansman and synovial is false the cinder does not examine Liege. sent15: the hadron does not examine Liege if that the cinder is a clansman and synovial is not true. sent16: the half-and-half does dragoon retreated if there is something such that the fact that it drains fevered and does pall redoubt does not hold. sent17: if the hadron is not a clansman the cinder does not examine Liege. sent18: the hadron is not a nominal. sent19: that something is early and does not intonate is not true if it is synovial.

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

the cinder does examine Liege.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the cinder does not examine Liege. ; $context$ = sent1: something intonates if it is not a clansman but synovial. sent2: if something is not a kind of a clansman then that the cinder is synovial and it examines Liege is wrong. sent3: the cinder is synovial if the half-and-half examines Liege. sent4: something does not intonate. sent5: something does intonate. sent6: there are non-synovial things. sent7: that the hadron does examine Liege and it is a clansman does not hold. sent8: if there is something such that it does dragoon retreated the hadron is not a clansman but it is synovial. sent9: something is a ubiquinone and is not an affirmative if it does not drain risk. sent10: the millionaire does not examine Liege. sent11: the fact that the cinder does examine Liege and it is a kind of a clansman is not correct. sent12: if something is not an affirmative the fact that it does drain fevered and it does pall redoubt is false. sent13: there exists something such that it does not examine Liege. sent14: if that the hadron is both a clansman and synovial is false the cinder does not examine Liege. sent15: the hadron does not examine Liege if that the cinder is a clansman and synovial is not true. sent16: the half-and-half does dragoon retreated if there is something such that the fact that it drains fevered and does pall redoubt does not hold. sent17: if the hadron is not a clansman the cinder does not examine Liege. sent18: the hadron is not a nominal. sent19: that something is early and does not intonate is not true if it is synovial. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the emmenagogue is a lunula.

{B}{c}

sent1: if the suffragan is not unbreakable then the fact that that the issue is cathodic and/or it does drain Halloween does not hold is not false. sent2: the emmenagogue is not a kind of a lunula if there is something such that the fact that it is not a arcus and it is not unbreakable is false. sent3: the emmenagogue is a lunula if there is something such that that the fact that it is cathodic and/or does drain Halloween is not false is false. sent4: that the fact that the issue either is unbreakable or drains Halloween or both hold does not hold if the suffragan is not cathodic. sent5: if the fountain is not unbreakable that it is not a kind of a lunula and it drains Halloween is not correct. sent6: the suffragan is a kind of an insinuation. sent7: the issue does not drain Halloween. sent8: that something dragoons hair-raiser and it does dragoon pinch hold if it is not a Naga. sent9: something is not a lunula. sent10: if the issue is not a lunula that either the emmenagogue does drain Halloween or it is unbreakable or both does not hold. sent11: if that something is not a lunula but it drains Halloween is incorrect then it does not drains Halloween.

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

the emmenagogue is not a lunula.

¬{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the emmenagogue is a lunula. ; $context$ = sent1: if the suffragan is not unbreakable then the fact that that the issue is cathodic and/or it does drain Halloween does not hold is not false. sent2: the emmenagogue is not a kind of a lunula if there is something such that the fact that it is not a arcus and it is not unbreakable is false. sent3: the emmenagogue is a lunula if there is something such that that the fact that it is cathodic and/or does drain Halloween is not false is false. sent4: that the fact that the issue either is unbreakable or drains Halloween or both hold does not hold if the suffragan is not cathodic. sent5: if the fountain is not unbreakable that it is not a kind of a lunula and it drains Halloween is not correct. sent6: the suffragan is a kind of an insinuation. sent7: the issue does not drain Halloween. sent8: that something dragoons hair-raiser and it does dragoon pinch hold if it is not a Naga. sent9: something is not a lunula. sent10: if the issue is not a lunula that either the emmenagogue does drain Halloween or it is unbreakable or both does not hold. sent11: if that something is not a lunula but it drains Halloween is incorrect then it does not drains Halloween. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the sunray is not unservile.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: the cactus dragoons unseasonableness. sent2: if the fact that the sunray is supraorbital is not wrong it is a watch. sent3: if the mosque dragoons unseasonableness it is anatomic. sent4: the fact that the pantheon drains marang and it is a kind of a ubiquinone does not hold. sent5: if the cactus is not non-supraorbital the sunray is a goddaughter but it does not watch. sent6: the cactus is supraorbital if the fact that the Chadian does not drain Glaucium but it is pleomorphic is false. sent7: the cactus is a watch. sent8: if something is neuter then the fact that it does not drain Glaucium and it is pleomorphic is false. sent9: if something that is a goddaughter is not a watch then it is unservile. sent10: the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter if that the cactus palls cricketer and/or dragoons unseasonableness is not true. sent11: that the cactus does pall cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both is wrong. sent12: something is a pyrrhic and is a neuter if the fact that it does not drain marang is correct. sent13: that something is not a kind of a goddaughter and is not unservile does not hold if it does watch. sent14: the fact that the cactus is supraorbital and/or it does not dragoon unseasonableness is not correct. sent15: if that the cactus palls cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both does not hold the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter. sent16: the sunray is supraorbital. sent17: the fact that if something is not pleomorphic then it does watch and it is not non-supraorbital hold. sent18: if a goddaughter does watch it is not unservile.

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

the melter is a goddaughter.

{B}{ji}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sunray is not unservile. ; $context$ = sent1: the cactus dragoons unseasonableness. sent2: if the fact that the sunray is supraorbital is not wrong it is a watch. sent3: if the mosque dragoons unseasonableness it is anatomic. sent4: the fact that the pantheon drains marang and it is a kind of a ubiquinone does not hold. sent5: if the cactus is not non-supraorbital the sunray is a goddaughter but it does not watch. sent6: the cactus is supraorbital if the fact that the Chadian does not drain Glaucium but it is pleomorphic is false. sent7: the cactus is a watch. sent8: if something is neuter then the fact that it does not drain Glaucium and it is pleomorphic is false. sent9: if something that is a goddaughter is not a watch then it is unservile. sent10: the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter if that the cactus palls cricketer and/or dragoons unseasonableness is not true. sent11: that the cactus does pall cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both is wrong. sent12: something is a pyrrhic and is a neuter if the fact that it does not drain marang is correct. sent13: that something is not a kind of a goddaughter and is not unservile does not hold if it does watch. sent14: the fact that the cactus is supraorbital and/or it does not dragoon unseasonableness is not correct. sent15: if that the cactus palls cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both does not hold the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter. sent16: the sunray is supraorbital. sent17: the fact that if something is not pleomorphic then it does watch and it is not non-supraorbital hold. sent18: if a goddaughter does watch it is not unservile. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent11 -> int1: the sunray is a goddaughter.; sent2 & sent16 -> int2: the sunray is a watch.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sunray is a goddaughter and it is a watch.; sent18 -> int4: if the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter and is a kind of a watch it is not unservile.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Reid that it is heterologous and/or is not Anguillan is wrong.

(Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x)

sent1: if the monkey is a kind of a Reid then it is not heterologous. sent2: there is something such that if it is a Reid that it is a Anguillan is correct. sent3: if something is a muscle then the fact that it drains outtake or is non-heterologous or both is not true. sent4: if the monkey is a kind of a Reid then the fact that it is heterologous or is not a Anguillan or both does not hold. sent5: if the monkey does pall treat then it is autoradiographic. sent6: if the longbow does drain segregator then that it is a peroxide and/or it is not unsurmountable is not true. sent7: that the monkey is heterologous and/or it is Anguillan does not hold if it is a Reid. sent8: there is something such that if it is a kind of a Reid that it is heterologous and/or it is Anguillan is false. sent9: there exists something such that if it is a Reid then it is heterologous or is not a kind of a Anguillan or both. sent10: if the monkey is a Reid it is heterologous or is not a Anguillan or both. sent11: that the wings is heterologous and/or not mercuric is incorrect if it dragoons overshoe.

sent1: {A}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> {AB}x sent3: (x): {DB}x -> ¬({AQ}x v ¬{AA}x) sent4: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent5: {FQ}{aa} -> {JA}{aa} sent6: {IE}{ek} -> ¬({JG}{ek} v ¬{H}{ek}) sent7: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) sent9: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent10: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent11: {GO}{gs} -> ¬({AA}{gs} v ¬{B}{gs})

if the coast muscles then that either it does drain outtake or it is non-heterologous or both is false.

{DB}{fu} -> ¬({AQ}{fu} v ¬{AA}{fu})

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Reid that it is heterologous and/or is not Anguillan is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the monkey is a kind of a Reid then it is not heterologous. sent2: there is something such that if it is a Reid that it is a Anguillan is correct. sent3: if something is a muscle then the fact that it drains outtake or is non-heterologous or both is not true. sent4: if the monkey is a kind of a Reid then the fact that it is heterologous or is not a Anguillan or both does not hold. sent5: if the monkey does pall treat then it is autoradiographic. sent6: if the longbow does drain segregator then that it is a peroxide and/or it is not unsurmountable is not true. sent7: that the monkey is heterologous and/or it is Anguillan does not hold if it is a Reid. sent8: there is something such that if it is a kind of a Reid that it is heterologous and/or it is Anguillan is false. sent9: there exists something such that if it is a Reid then it is heterologous or is not a kind of a Anguillan or both. sent10: if the monkey is a Reid it is heterologous or is not a Anguillan or both. sent11: that the wings is heterologous and/or not mercuric is incorrect if it dragoons overshoe. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the derelict drains dandruff.

{AB}{a}

sent1: the fact that the derelict does not shag is true. sent2: the derelict does not Romanize. sent3: the khamsin does not Romanize. sent4: if something divides but it does not Romanize it does not drain dandruff. sent5: if the gallium is a numeral then the fact that it does Romanize and it is not a divided is false. sent6: the suede examines bonobo and does not pall Babar. sent7: if the fact that something is not a numeral and does dragoon harp is not correct it is a numeral. sent8: the derelict does pall Babar if it does not Romanize. sent9: the derelict does pall Babar and is not an italic if it is not a quest. sent10: the bauxite is a numeral and palls composition. sent11: either the derelict does not dragoon harp or it is not a kind of a numeral or both if the gallium palls composition. sent12: the derelict does pall Babar. sent13: the derelict does pall Babar but it does not drain dandruff if it does not Romanize. sent14: that if the gallium is not wolflike then the gallium is a kind of stoichiometric thing that does pall composition is right. sent15: something that is a kind of a numeral is a divided and does not Romanize.

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

the plantigrade does not drain dandruff.

¬{AB}{gc}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the derelict drains dandruff. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the derelict does not shag is true. sent2: the derelict does not Romanize. sent3: the khamsin does not Romanize. sent4: if something divides but it does not Romanize it does not drain dandruff. sent5: if the gallium is a numeral then the fact that it does Romanize and it is not a divided is false. sent6: the suede examines bonobo and does not pall Babar. sent7: if the fact that something is not a numeral and does dragoon harp is not correct it is a numeral. sent8: the derelict does pall Babar if it does not Romanize. sent9: the derelict does pall Babar and is not an italic if it is not a quest. sent10: the bauxite is a numeral and palls composition. sent11: either the derelict does not dragoon harp or it is not a kind of a numeral or both if the gallium palls composition. sent12: the derelict does pall Babar. sent13: the derelict does pall Babar but it does not drain dandruff if it does not Romanize. sent14: that if the gallium is not wolflike then the gallium is a kind of stoichiometric thing that does pall composition is right. sent15: something that is a kind of a numeral is a divided and does not Romanize. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent2 -> int1: the derelict palls Babar but it does not drain dandruff.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the prothorax is a Mexico but it is not covalent is not correct.

¬({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

sent1: the crocodile is not a Rilke. sent2: if the fact that the crocodile is repeatable hold the prothorax sights. sent3: if the fact that something is not a kind of a jellyleaf and it does not dragoon argonaut does not hold then it is repeatable. sent4: that something is a Mexico and covalent is not correct if it sights. sent5: that the prothorax is a chigger but it is not repeatable is not right if it is a kind of an according. sent6: the fact that the crocodile is not a jellyleaf but it dragoons argonaut is false if the fact that it is not a kind of a Rilke hold. sent7: if the fact that the crocodile is covalent is right that it is a kind of a Mexico that does dragoon argonaut is not true. sent8: the fact that the crocodile is not a jellyleaf and it does not dragoon argonaut is not right if it is not a Rilke.

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the prothorax is a Mexico but it is not covalent is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the crocodile is not a Rilke. sent2: if the fact that the crocodile is repeatable hold the prothorax sights. sent3: if the fact that something is not a kind of a jellyleaf and it does not dragoon argonaut does not hold then it is repeatable. sent4: that something is a Mexico and covalent is not correct if it sights. sent5: that the prothorax is a chigger but it is not repeatable is not right if it is a kind of an according. sent6: the fact that the crocodile is not a jellyleaf but it dragoons argonaut is false if the fact that it is not a kind of a Rilke hold. sent7: if the fact that the crocodile is covalent is right that it is a kind of a Mexico that does dragoon argonaut is not true. sent8: the fact that the crocodile is not a jellyleaf and it does not dragoon argonaut is not right if it is not a Rilke. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the crocodile is repeatable if the fact that it is not a kind of a jellyleaf and it does not dragoon argonaut is not correct.; sent8 & sent1 -> int2: that the crocodile is not a jellyleaf and it does not dragoon argonaut does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the crocodile is repeatable is not incorrect.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: the prothorax is a sight.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the Mandarin is a preservative.

{B}{b}

sent1: the gorilla is not nonarbitrary and is a tala. sent2: the vestry is not a tala and drains gorilla. sent3: the gorilla is a flannelbush. sent4: the sculler is not a tala. sent5: the Mandarin is not a tala but it is Hebraic. sent6: the Mandarin is nonarbitrary if the gorilla is both a preservative and a tala. sent7: the fact that the gorilla is a aquatics is true. sent8: the newsagent is not a tala but it is a forte. sent9: the gorilla is nonarbitrary if the Mandarin is both a preservative and a tala. sent10: the samurai is not a kind of a tala and snoozes. sent11: the Mandarin is a kind of a preservative if the gorilla is a kind of non-nonarbitrary a tala. sent12: the gorilla is not a preservative but a tala. sent13: the gorilla does dragoon sushi. sent14: if the Mandarin is a kind of a tala that is nonarbitrary the gorilla is a preservative.

sent1: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent2: (¬{AB}{bb} & {BO}{bb}) sent3: {HR}{a} sent4: ¬{AB}{bc} sent5: (¬{AB}{b} & {HU}{b}) sent6: ({B}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {AA}{b} sent7: {GM}{a} sent8: (¬{AB}{h} & {IS}{h}) sent9: ({B}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> {AA}{a} sent10: (¬{AB}{ah} & {DC}{ah}) sent11: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent12: (¬{B}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent13: {EA}{a} sent14: ({AB}{b} & {AA}{b}) -> {B}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the Mandarin is a preservative. ; $context$ = sent1: the gorilla is not nonarbitrary and is a tala. sent2: the vestry is not a tala and drains gorilla. sent3: the gorilla is a flannelbush. sent4: the sculler is not a tala. sent5: the Mandarin is not a tala but it is Hebraic. sent6: the Mandarin is nonarbitrary if the gorilla is both a preservative and a tala. sent7: the fact that the gorilla is a aquatics is true. sent8: the newsagent is not a tala but it is a forte. sent9: the gorilla is nonarbitrary if the Mandarin is both a preservative and a tala. sent10: the samurai is not a kind of a tala and snoozes. sent11: the Mandarin is a kind of a preservative if the gorilla is a kind of non-nonarbitrary a tala. sent12: the gorilla is not a preservative but a tala. sent13: the gorilla does dragoon sushi. sent14: if the Mandarin is a kind of a tala that is nonarbitrary the gorilla is a preservative. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the tetrafluoroethylene does examine rover and it does chirr.

({B}{aa} & {A}{aa})

sent1: the tetrafluoroethylene does examine rover if that it is a Lutheran and it is not a kind of a Bengali is not correct. sent2: the tetrafluoroethylene chirrs if there is something such that it chirrs. sent3: something does frame if it is stative. sent4: if that something is astronautic but not bifilar is wrong then it examines rover. sent5: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not chirr and is not a eudemonism is wrong then the tetrafluoroethylene does chirr. sent6: there exists something such that that it does chirr and it is not a eudemonism is not correct. sent7: the fact that the tetrafluoroethylene is astronautic but it is not bifilar is not right. sent8: there exists something such that that it does not chirr and is a eudemonism is wrong. sent9: the body is limbless and does examine rover if it is not a eudemonism. sent10: the body is not a eudemonism. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it is a gobbet and it does not dragoon pinkie is not right. sent12: if something is not astronautic then the fact that it examines rover is not wrong. sent13: something does not chirr and it is not a eudemonism. sent14: there is something such that the fact that it does not chirr and it is not a eudemonism is not right. sent15: everything is not a kind of a eudemonism and/or it is not a smell.

sent1: ¬({IR}{aa} & ¬{BN}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent2: (x): {A}x -> {A}{aa} sent3: (x): {GU}x -> {EN}x sent4: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{D}x) -> {A}{aa} sent6: (Ex): ¬({A}x & ¬{D}x) sent7: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{A}x & {D}x) sent9: ¬{D}{b} -> ({C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent10: ¬{D}{b} sent11: (Ex): ¬({BQ}x & ¬{IA}x) sent12: (x): ¬{AA}x -> {B}x sent13: (Ex): (¬{A}x & ¬{D}x) sent14: (Ex): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{D}x) sent15: (x): (¬{D}x v ¬{E}x)

the fact that that the tetrafluoroethylene examines rover and it chirrs is not true is not wrong.

¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tetrafluoroethylene does examine rover and it does chirr. ; $context$ = sent1: the tetrafluoroethylene does examine rover if that it is a Lutheran and it is not a kind of a Bengali is not correct. sent2: the tetrafluoroethylene chirrs if there is something such that it chirrs. sent3: something does frame if it is stative. sent4: if that something is astronautic but not bifilar is wrong then it examines rover. sent5: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not chirr and is not a eudemonism is wrong then the tetrafluoroethylene does chirr. sent6: there exists something such that that it does chirr and it is not a eudemonism is not correct. sent7: the fact that the tetrafluoroethylene is astronautic but it is not bifilar is not right. sent8: there exists something such that that it does not chirr and is a eudemonism is wrong. sent9: the body is limbless and does examine rover if it is not a eudemonism. sent10: the body is not a eudemonism. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it is a gobbet and it does not dragoon pinkie is not right. sent12: if something is not astronautic then the fact that it examines rover is not wrong. sent13: something does not chirr and it is not a eudemonism. sent14: there is something such that the fact that it does not chirr and it is not a eudemonism is not right. sent15: everything is not a kind of a eudemonism and/or it is not a smell. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: if that the tetrafluoroethylene is astronautic but it is not bifilar is wrong then it examines rover.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the tetrafluoroethylene examines rover.; sent14 & sent5 -> int3: the tetrafluoroethylene does chirr.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there exists something such that if it is not comic that it is not minors and does not legitimate is not right is false.

¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x))

sent1: if something is a cabin then that it is both not postglacial and not a Ana is incorrect. sent2: if the exhaust is not chiasmal that it is not a sulfamethazine and is comic does not hold. sent3: there is something such that if it is not ergotropic then the fact that it is a kind of non-invisible thing that alliterates is false. sent4: the fact that something does not drain dervish and it is not on is false if it does not pall parsonage. sent5: the pollard is both not minors and not legitimate if it is not comic. sent6: that the pollard is a kind of non-minors thing that is not legitimate is not true if the fact that it is comic is not false. sent7: if the pollard does not legitimate it is not pleasant and it is not sectorial. sent8: if something is not ergotropic then that it does not drain dervish and it does not drain brachyuran is not true. sent9: that something is not year-round and it is not minors is wrong if it is not mutational. sent10: if the pollard is not comic that it is a balsamroot and it is not boreal is wrong. sent11: there is something such that if it is not juvenile the fact that it is a kind of a Mandaean and it is not a kind of a offside is not correct. sent12: if the pollard is a kind of a hint that it is not an empress and it does not legitimate does not hold. sent13: if something is not comic then the fact that it is not minors and it is not legitimate is not right.

sent1: (x): {EE}x -> ¬(¬{FQ}x & ¬{HK}x) sent2: ¬{FF}{ad} -> ¬(¬{GP}{ad} & {A}{ad}) sent3: (Ex): ¬{FL}x -> ¬(¬{EU}x & {DR}x) sent4: (x): ¬{IO}x -> ¬(¬{IF}x & ¬{AT}x) sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent7: ¬{AB}{aa} -> (¬{HU}{aa} & ¬{O}{aa}) sent8: (x): ¬{FL}x -> ¬(¬{IF}x & ¬{H}x) sent9: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬(¬{BL}x & ¬{AA}x) sent10: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({IS}{aa} & ¬{DU}{aa}) sent11: (Ex): ¬{AI}x -> ¬({CH}x & ¬{HS}x) sent12: {EF}{aa} -> ¬(¬{CD}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent13: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

the fact that the snowberry is non-year-round thing that is not minors is wrong if it is not mutational.

¬{G}{er} -> ¬(¬{BL}{er} & ¬{AA}{er})

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is not comic that it is not minors and does not legitimate is not right is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a cabin then that it is both not postglacial and not a Ana is incorrect. sent2: if the exhaust is not chiasmal that it is not a sulfamethazine and is comic does not hold. sent3: there is something such that if it is not ergotropic then the fact that it is a kind of non-invisible thing that alliterates is false. sent4: the fact that something does not drain dervish and it is not on is false if it does not pall parsonage. sent5: the pollard is both not minors and not legitimate if it is not comic. sent6: that the pollard is a kind of non-minors thing that is not legitimate is not true if the fact that it is comic is not false. sent7: if the pollard does not legitimate it is not pleasant and it is not sectorial. sent8: if something is not ergotropic then that it does not drain dervish and it does not drain brachyuran is not true. sent9: that something is not year-round and it is not minors is wrong if it is not mutational. sent10: if the pollard is not comic that it is a balsamroot and it is not boreal is wrong. sent11: there is something such that if it is not juvenile the fact that it is a kind of a Mandaean and it is not a kind of a offside is not correct. sent12: if the pollard is a kind of a hint that it is not an empress and it does not legitimate does not hold. sent13: if something is not comic then the fact that it is not minors and it is not legitimate is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent13 -> int1: that that the pollard is not minors and does not legitimate is correct is wrong if the fact that it is not comic is not wrong.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the secretin is a Ta'ziyeh.

{D}{a}

sent1: there is something such that it does better. sent2: that the secretin is not a Ta'ziyeh is not incorrect if the fact that either it is a kind of a dinginess or it is lacrimal or both does not hold. sent3: something is not a Naja if it is a kind of unquiet thing that is a kind of a lumpsucker. sent4: that either the vetch stills or it is a Ta'ziyeh or both is not right. sent5: the fact that the secretin is a dinginess and/or it is lacrimal is not correct if something betters. sent6: the secretin is not lacrimal. sent7: something that either is lacrimal or is not a Ta'ziyeh or both is not a dinginess. sent8: if the fact that the belching is high-interest but it does not dragoon sheepshead is wrong the durian is not lacrimal. sent9: the fact that if there exists something such that the fact that it betters hold the secretin is not lacrimal is true. sent10: that the belching is high-interest but it does not dragoon sheepshead is false if it is not a kind of a Naja.

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

that the sheepshead does better and/or is puerperal is incorrect.

¬({A}{jk} v {HI}{jk})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the secretin is a Ta'ziyeh. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it does better. sent2: that the secretin is not a Ta'ziyeh is not incorrect if the fact that either it is a kind of a dinginess or it is lacrimal or both does not hold. sent3: something is not a Naja if it is a kind of unquiet thing that is a kind of a lumpsucker. sent4: that either the vetch stills or it is a Ta'ziyeh or both is not right. sent5: the fact that the secretin is a dinginess and/or it is lacrimal is not correct if something betters. sent6: the secretin is not lacrimal. sent7: something that either is lacrimal or is not a Ta'ziyeh or both is not a dinginess. sent8: if the fact that the belching is high-interest but it does not dragoon sheepshead is wrong the durian is not lacrimal. sent9: the fact that if there exists something such that the fact that it betters hold the secretin is not lacrimal is true. sent10: that the belching is high-interest but it does not dragoon sheepshead is false if it is not a kind of a Naja. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent5 -> int1: that the secretin is a kind of a dinginess and/or is lacrimal is wrong.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the fact that the horsemint is disciplinary and it is sad is right is incorrect.

¬({C}{b} & {D}{b})

sent1: there is something such that it is not a turnip and it is untrustworthy. sent2: the horsemint is not a kind of a bump. sent3: the erythromycin is untrustworthy. sent4: the daydreamer is not complimentary but it is a turnip. sent5: the daydreamer is not complimentary but it is a koan. sent6: if the erythromycin is complimentary then the daydreamer is untrustworthy. sent7: the erythromycin is disciplinary if something that is not a shear is untrustworthy. sent8: if something that is not a kind of a turnip is complimentary the daydreamer is sad. sent9: the lumper is not a fitter but it is disciplinary. sent10: that that something is disciplinary and it is sad is not true if it is not untrustworthy is correct. sent11: if something is not a shear it is a kind of a turnip that is untrustworthy. sent12: the daydreamer does shear if the erythromycin is a kind of a turnip. sent13: the horsemint is disciplinary if the fact that the erythromycin shears hold. sent14: the erythromycin is untrustworthy and it shears. sent15: the horsemint is sad if something that is not complimentary is a turnip.

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

the community is a turnip.

{E}{fs}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the fact that the horsemint is disciplinary and it is sad is right is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is not a turnip and it is untrustworthy. sent2: the horsemint is not a kind of a bump. sent3: the erythromycin is untrustworthy. sent4: the daydreamer is not complimentary but it is a turnip. sent5: the daydreamer is not complimentary but it is a koan. sent6: if the erythromycin is complimentary then the daydreamer is untrustworthy. sent7: the erythromycin is disciplinary if something that is not a shear is untrustworthy. sent8: if something that is not a kind of a turnip is complimentary the daydreamer is sad. sent9: the lumper is not a fitter but it is disciplinary. sent10: that that something is disciplinary and it is sad is not true if it is not untrustworthy is correct. sent11: if something is not a shear it is a kind of a turnip that is untrustworthy. sent12: the daydreamer does shear if the erythromycin is a kind of a turnip. sent13: the horsemint is disciplinary if the fact that the erythromycin shears hold. sent14: the erythromycin is untrustworthy and it shears. sent15: the horsemint is sad if something that is not complimentary is a turnip. ; $proof$ =

sent14 -> int1: the erythromycin is a shear.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: the horsemint is disciplinary.; sent4 -> int3: there exists something such that it is not complimentary and it is a turnip.; int3 & sent15 -> int4: that the horsemint is sad is not wrong.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the liposome does not examine C-clamp.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: if something is a Sabine it is a regent. sent2: if that the latchkey is a Seder is true the polemonium is a roentgenium. sent3: something that is a roentgenium is not non-vagal. sent4: the fact that if something is not a kind of an abort then the facade is inalienable is not false. sent5: there is something such that it is not a kind of an abort. sent6: the thatcher does not fib but it is a Seder if there exists something such that it is a regent. sent7: if the liposome palls latchkey and does not oxidise it does not examine C-clamp. sent8: if the liposome does not pall latchkey and oxidises then it does not examine C-clamp. sent9: if the facade is inalienable then the landscape does flicker. sent10: the liposome does not pall latchkey and it does not oxidise. sent11: if the landscape does dragoon deism the sock is thalassic. sent12: that the skewer does not drain naloxone or it is not a malignity or both is wrong if there exists something such that it is vagal. sent13: the sock does not drain naloxone if that the skewer does not drain naloxone or it is not a malignity or both does not hold. sent14: the latchkey is a kind of a Seder if the thatcher is not a fib but it is a Seder. sent15: something dragoons deism if it is a flicker. sent16: if the gear is Panamanian then that the liposome is not a pretext and it is not a kind of a drudging does not hold. sent17: if that the hallux is not modest and does not dragoon coordinate hold the paste is a Sabine. sent18: if something does not drain naloxone but it is thalassic the gear is a Panamanian. sent19: the hallux is not modest and it does not dragoon coordinate. sent20: the liposome does not examine C-clamp if it does not pall latchkey and it does not oxidise. sent21: the hearthrug does not examine C-clamp if the fact that the liposome is not a kind of a pretext and it is not a drudging is incorrect.

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

the hearthrug does not examine C-clamp.

¬{B}{ag}

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the liposome does not examine C-clamp. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a Sabine it is a regent. sent2: if that the latchkey is a Seder is true the polemonium is a roentgenium. sent3: something that is a roentgenium is not non-vagal. sent4: the fact that if something is not a kind of an abort then the facade is inalienable is not false. sent5: there is something such that it is not a kind of an abort. sent6: the thatcher does not fib but it is a Seder if there exists something such that it is a regent. sent7: if the liposome palls latchkey and does not oxidise it does not examine C-clamp. sent8: if the liposome does not pall latchkey and oxidises then it does not examine C-clamp. sent9: if the facade is inalienable then the landscape does flicker. sent10: the liposome does not pall latchkey and it does not oxidise. sent11: if the landscape does dragoon deism the sock is thalassic. sent12: that the skewer does not drain naloxone or it is not a malignity or both is wrong if there exists something such that it is vagal. sent13: the sock does not drain naloxone if that the skewer does not drain naloxone or it is not a malignity or both does not hold. sent14: the latchkey is a kind of a Seder if the thatcher is not a fib but it is a Seder. sent15: something dragoons deism if it is a flicker. sent16: if the gear is Panamanian then that the liposome is not a pretext and it is not a kind of a drudging does not hold. sent17: if that the hallux is not modest and does not dragoon coordinate hold the paste is a Sabine. sent18: if something does not drain naloxone but it is thalassic the gear is a Panamanian. sent19: the hallux is not modest and it does not dragoon coordinate. sent20: the liposome does not examine C-clamp if it does not pall latchkey and it does not oxidise. sent21: the hearthrug does not examine C-clamp if the fact that the liposome is not a kind of a pretext and it is not a drudging is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent20 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the primitive is unsworn or senatorial or both.

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

sent1: the primitive shucks and is not a submucosa. sent2: that either something is unsworn or it is senatorial or both is not right if it does not drain Iraq. sent3: the wicker does not drain preschooler if there is something such that that it is Lebanese thing that drain preschooler does not hold. sent4: something does drain hairline if it is phonological. sent5: the fact that the primitive is unsworn or it is senatorial or both is false if the puffer does not drain Iraq. sent6: if there is something such that it does not drain preschooler that the Kusan examines natatorium and it does drain preschooler is incorrect. sent7: the infection is a submucosa if the Kusan is not a kind of a setscrew and does not shuck. sent8: that the whelk does not examine kickoff but it is on is not right. sent9: if something drains hairline the fact that the halophile is a Lebanese and drains preschooler is not right. sent10: the announcer either does drain Iraq or dragoons massif or both. sent11: if the puffer does drain Iraq then the primitive is unsworn. sent12: something is not a Moor if that it does examine natatorium and it drains preschooler is incorrect. sent13: something that does drain Iraq is senatorial. sent14: if there is something such that that it does not examine kickoff and it is on is incorrect the natatorium does not pall bilabial. sent15: the preschooler drains Iraq. sent16: the fumigator is a kind of phonological thing that is predestinarian if the natatorium does not pall bilabial. sent17: that if the puffer is a submucosa the primitive does not drain Iraq is not wrong. sent18: something is not a setscrew and it does not shuck if it is not a Moor. sent19: the fact that if there exists something such that it does shuck and it is not a submucosa the puffer is a setscrew is not incorrect. sent20: The Iraq does drain puffer. sent21: the puffer is a submucosa or it drains Iraq or both if there is something such that it is a submucosa. sent22: the puffer does drain Iraq.

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

the fact that the landscape butterflies or it is senatorial or both is right.

({JE}{eg} v {C}{eg})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the primitive is unsworn or senatorial or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the primitive shucks and is not a submucosa. sent2: that either something is unsworn or it is senatorial or both is not right if it does not drain Iraq. sent3: the wicker does not drain preschooler if there is something such that that it is Lebanese thing that drain preschooler does not hold. sent4: something does drain hairline if it is phonological. sent5: the fact that the primitive is unsworn or it is senatorial or both is false if the puffer does not drain Iraq. sent6: if there is something such that it does not drain preschooler that the Kusan examines natatorium and it does drain preschooler is incorrect. sent7: the infection is a submucosa if the Kusan is not a kind of a setscrew and does not shuck. sent8: that the whelk does not examine kickoff but it is on is not right. sent9: if something drains hairline the fact that the halophile is a Lebanese and drains preschooler is not right. sent10: the announcer either does drain Iraq or dragoons massif or both. sent11: if the puffer does drain Iraq then the primitive is unsworn. sent12: something is not a Moor if that it does examine natatorium and it drains preschooler is incorrect. sent13: something that does drain Iraq is senatorial. sent14: if there is something such that that it does not examine kickoff and it is on is incorrect the natatorium does not pall bilabial. sent15: the preschooler drains Iraq. sent16: the fumigator is a kind of phonological thing that is predestinarian if the natatorium does not pall bilabial. sent17: that if the puffer is a submucosa the primitive does not drain Iraq is not wrong. sent18: something is not a setscrew and it does not shuck if it is not a Moor. sent19: the fact that if there exists something such that it does shuck and it is not a submucosa the puffer is a setscrew is not incorrect. sent20: The Iraq does drain puffer. sent21: the puffer is a submucosa or it drains Iraq or both if there is something such that it is a submucosa. sent22: the puffer does drain Iraq. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent22 -> int1: the primitive is unsworn.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the consecration does not occur and the gnosticness does not occur does not hold.

¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB})

sent1: the audit does not occur and the BAN does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the fortune occurs and the contrapuntalness does not occur is wrong the achieving does not occur. sent3: the unsocialness and the competitiveness occurs if the forcelessness does not occur. sent4: the socialness yields that the phreaticness does not occur and the draining lancewood does not occur. sent5: that the thundershower but not the grind occurs is caused by that the draining fandango occurs. sent6: that the forcelessness occurs causes that the noncompetitiveness and the socialness happens. sent7: the gnosticness does not occur. sent8: the soliton does not occur and the palling house does not occur. sent9: the draining fandango happens and the inspiratoriness happens if the fact that the amauroticness does not occur is not false. sent10: if the fact that the achieving does not occur is not wrong the fact that both the non-amauroticness and the non-hemodynamicsness happens is not wrong. sent11: the fact that the consecration does not occur and the gnosticness does not occur is not true if the unsocialness occurs. sent12: the consecration does not occur and the gnosticness does not occur. sent13: the flashflood does not occur and the dragooning Dorotheanthus does not occur. sent14: that the forcelessness happens and the grapelikeness occurs is caused by that the grind does not occur. sent15: the falsifying but not the draining Brahui happens. sent16: if the draining Brahui does not occur the fact that the fortune occurs and the contrapuntalness does not occur is false. sent17: the mercantilism does not occur and the regress does not occur. sent18: the licentiousness does not occur and the analogousness does not occur.

sent1: (¬{CN} & ¬{BD}) sent2: ¬({L} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{K} sent3: ¬{C} -> ({A} & ¬{B}) sent4: ¬{A} -> (¬{GB} & ¬{AL}) sent5: {G} -> ({F} & ¬{E}) sent6: {C} -> ({B} & ¬{A}) sent7: ¬{AB} sent8: (¬{HE} & ¬{FQ}) sent9: ¬{I} -> ({G} & {H}) sent10: ¬{K} -> (¬{I} & ¬{J}) sent11: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent12: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent13: (¬{DU} & ¬{JJ}) sent14: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {D}) sent15: ({O} & ¬{N}) sent16: ¬{N} -> ¬({L} & ¬{M}) sent17: (¬{IA} & ¬{AU}) sent18: (¬{FC} & ¬{HC})

the phreaticness does not occur and the draining lancewood does not occur.

(¬{GB} & ¬{AL})

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the consecration does not occur and the gnosticness does not occur does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the audit does not occur and the BAN does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the fortune occurs and the contrapuntalness does not occur is wrong the achieving does not occur. sent3: the unsocialness and the competitiveness occurs if the forcelessness does not occur. sent4: the socialness yields that the phreaticness does not occur and the draining lancewood does not occur. sent5: that the thundershower but not the grind occurs is caused by that the draining fandango occurs. sent6: that the forcelessness occurs causes that the noncompetitiveness and the socialness happens. sent7: the gnosticness does not occur. sent8: the soliton does not occur and the palling house does not occur. sent9: the draining fandango happens and the inspiratoriness happens if the fact that the amauroticness does not occur is not false. sent10: if the fact that the achieving does not occur is not wrong the fact that both the non-amauroticness and the non-hemodynamicsness happens is not wrong. sent11: the fact that the consecration does not occur and the gnosticness does not occur is not true if the unsocialness occurs. sent12: the consecration does not occur and the gnosticness does not occur. sent13: the flashflood does not occur and the dragooning Dorotheanthus does not occur. sent14: that the forcelessness happens and the grapelikeness occurs is caused by that the grind does not occur. sent15: the falsifying but not the draining Brahui happens. sent16: if the draining Brahui does not occur the fact that the fortune occurs and the contrapuntalness does not occur is false. sent17: the mercantilism does not occur and the regress does not occur. sent18: the licentiousness does not occur and the analogousness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent12 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the fete does not occur and the penetration does not occur does not hold.

¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB})

sent1: that the fact that the draining beggary does not occur and/or the clarification occurs is not wrong is not right if the fractionalness happens. sent2: that the palling scourge does not occur or the draining fevered occurs or both is not correct if that that the tool does not occur is incorrect is not incorrect. sent3: the fact that the dormancy and the Gibraltarianness happens is false if the invasiveness does not occur. sent4: that not the eyedrop but the stiff happens is triggered by the non-Gibraltarianness. sent5: the fractionalness happens if the fact that that either the palling scourge does not occur or the draining fevered occurs or both does not hold is correct. sent6: if the damaging does not occur the adaxialness does not occur and the Anglican does not occur. sent7: if that the draining beggary and the damaging happens is not correct then the damaging does not occur. sent8: both the neuropsychologicalness and the Anglicanness occurs if the eyedrop does not occur. sent9: the impoliteness occurs if the archdiocesanness happens but the uncharitableness does not occur. sent10: if the fact that the dormancy and the Gibraltarian occurs is not correct the Gibraltarian does not occur. sent11: the fete does not occur and the penetration does not occur. sent12: the damaging happens if the fact that the draining beggary does not occur and/or the clarification happens is not true. sent13: if the Anglicanness happens then the dragooning mother-in-law does not occur and the unmanliness does not occur. sent14: the fete does not occur. sent15: the humanitarianness does not occur and the ambulation does not occur. sent16: the tool occurs and the palling wether happens if the dragooning mother-in-law does not occur. sent17: if the guardianship occurs and the impoliteness occurs the fact that the invasiveness does not occur is not wrong. sent18: if the damaging happens then that that the fete does not occur and the penetration does not occur is not true is true. sent19: the guardianship happens.

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

the non-adaxialness and the non-Anglicanness happens.

(¬{EN} & ¬{K})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fete does not occur and the penetration does not occur does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the fact that the draining beggary does not occur and/or the clarification occurs is not wrong is not right if the fractionalness happens. sent2: that the palling scourge does not occur or the draining fevered occurs or both is not correct if that that the tool does not occur is incorrect is not incorrect. sent3: the fact that the dormancy and the Gibraltarianness happens is false if the invasiveness does not occur. sent4: that not the eyedrop but the stiff happens is triggered by the non-Gibraltarianness. sent5: the fractionalness happens if the fact that that either the palling scourge does not occur or the draining fevered occurs or both does not hold is correct. sent6: if the damaging does not occur the adaxialness does not occur and the Anglican does not occur. sent7: if that the draining beggary and the damaging happens is not correct then the damaging does not occur. sent8: both the neuropsychologicalness and the Anglicanness occurs if the eyedrop does not occur. sent9: the impoliteness occurs if the archdiocesanness happens but the uncharitableness does not occur. sent10: if the fact that the dormancy and the Gibraltarian occurs is not correct the Gibraltarian does not occur. sent11: the fete does not occur and the penetration does not occur. sent12: the damaging happens if the fact that the draining beggary does not occur and/or the clarification happens is not true. sent13: if the Anglicanness happens then the dragooning mother-in-law does not occur and the unmanliness does not occur. sent14: the fete does not occur. sent15: the humanitarianness does not occur and the ambulation does not occur. sent16: the tool occurs and the palling wether happens if the dragooning mother-in-law does not occur. sent17: if the guardianship occurs and the impoliteness occurs the fact that the invasiveness does not occur is not wrong. sent18: if the damaging happens then that that the fete does not occur and the penetration does not occur is not true is true. sent19: the guardianship happens. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the knifing does not occur.

¬{A}

sent1: if the radiopaqueness happens then the non-nontraditionalness and the examining nadir occurs. sent2: that the bullfighting does not occur and the radiopaqueness does not occur prevents that the knife occurs. sent3: the fact that the fact that the pounce does not occur but the disentangling occurs is not wrong is not correct. sent4: the radiopaqueness does not occur if that the bullfighting does not occur hold. sent5: if the mathematicalness happens the cyber-terrorism occurs. sent6: the linkage does not occur if the rimlessness does not occur. sent7: that the examining nadir does not occur is prevented by that the radiopaqueness occurs. sent8: the miscalculation happens and the congregation happens if the linkage does not occur. sent9: the radiopaqueness occurs. sent10: the fact that both the non-nontraditionalness and the examining nadir happens is wrong if the fact that the knife does not occur is not incorrect. sent11: if the fact that the English does not occur and the indecorousness occurs is wrong the indecorousness does not occur. sent12: the bullfighting does not occur if the fact that the draining aggregate happens and the indecorousness does not occur is not right. sent13: the examining nadir happens. sent14: that the catting occurs yields that the bullfighting does not occur and the radiopaqueness does not occur. sent15: if the fact that the knifing does not occur and the cat occurs is incorrect then the cat does not occur. sent16: if the miscalculation happens then that not the English but the indecorousness occurs does not hold. sent17: the fact that the knifing does not occur and the cat occurs is incorrect if the radiopaqueness does not occur.

sent1: {B} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent2: (¬{C} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{A} sent3: ¬(¬{FL} & {BS}) sent4: ¬{C} -> ¬{B} sent5: {CU} -> {FT} sent6: ¬{K} -> ¬{J} sent7: {B} -> {AB} sent8: ¬{J} -> ({H} & {I}) sent9: {B} sent10: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent11: ¬(¬{G} & {F}) -> ¬{F} sent12: ¬({E} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{C} sent13: {AB} sent14: {D} -> (¬{C} & ¬{B}) sent15: ¬(¬{A} & {D}) -> ¬{D} sent16: {H} -> ¬(¬{G} & {F}) sent17: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{A} & {D})

the knifing does not occur.

¬{A}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the knifing does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the radiopaqueness happens then the non-nontraditionalness and the examining nadir occurs. sent2: that the bullfighting does not occur and the radiopaqueness does not occur prevents that the knife occurs. sent3: the fact that the fact that the pounce does not occur but the disentangling occurs is not wrong is not correct. sent4: the radiopaqueness does not occur if that the bullfighting does not occur hold. sent5: if the mathematicalness happens the cyber-terrorism occurs. sent6: the linkage does not occur if the rimlessness does not occur. sent7: that the examining nadir does not occur is prevented by that the radiopaqueness occurs. sent8: the miscalculation happens and the congregation happens if the linkage does not occur. sent9: the radiopaqueness occurs. sent10: the fact that both the non-nontraditionalness and the examining nadir happens is wrong if the fact that the knife does not occur is not incorrect. sent11: if the fact that the English does not occur and the indecorousness occurs is wrong the indecorousness does not occur. sent12: the bullfighting does not occur if the fact that the draining aggregate happens and the indecorousness does not occur is not right. sent13: the examining nadir happens. sent14: that the catting occurs yields that the bullfighting does not occur and the radiopaqueness does not occur. sent15: if the fact that the knifing does not occur and the cat occurs is incorrect then the cat does not occur. sent16: if the miscalculation happens then that not the English but the indecorousness occurs does not hold. sent17: the fact that the knifing does not occur and the cat occurs is incorrect if the radiopaqueness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the knifing does not occur.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the non-nontraditionalness and the examining nadir happens does not hold.; sent1 & sent9 -> int2: the nontraditionalness does not occur but the examining nadir happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the exhaust is a kind of a factory that dragoons disconnection.

({B}{aa} & {A}{aa})

sent1: if there is something such that it is a see then that the eosinophil is not a ritonavir but a clarion is false. sent2: there exists nothing such that it is not muscular but a torturer. sent3: the outlier is a kind of a factory. sent4: the outlier does not clarion if that the trooper is wolflike and it clarion does not hold. sent5: the exhaust is not logarithmic if that the outlier is not logarithmic or it does pall eosinophil or both is not correct. sent6: the outlier is punitive if the exhaust is punitive. sent7: that there is something such that it is a see is true. sent8: that that the outlier is not a factory but it does dragoon disconnection is wrong is not wrong. sent9: there exists nothing that is not a armlet and is punitive. sent10: the exhaust dragoons disconnection if the outlier dragoons disconnection. sent11: the exhaust is a factory if it is a armlet. sent12: something is a factory if it is a armlet. sent13: the outlier is either bicameral or punitive or both. sent14: the fact that there is something such that that it does not dragoon disconnection is false is not false. sent15: the amphidiploid is annalistic. sent16: that either something is not logarithmic or it palls eosinophil or both is false if it is not a clarion. sent17: if something is not logarithmic that it is a kind of a factory and it does dragoon disconnection is not right. sent18: the outlier does dragoon disconnection or it does pall eosinophil or both if somethings do dragoon disconnection. sent19: the exhaust dragoons disconnection if the fact that the outlier does not pall eosinophil does not hold. sent20: there is something such that that it is a kind of a utahraptor hold. sent21: the fact that something is a factory hold if the fact that it does not pall eosinophil and dragoons disconnection is not true. sent22: there is nothing that is a armlet and punitive. sent23: the fact that the exhaust is a kind of a armlet that is punitive is not correct. sent24: if the fact that something is not a kind of a armlet but it is punitive does not hold then it is a factory. sent25: the exhaust does pall analysand.

sent1: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{H}{d} & {E}{d}) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{DR}x & {HJ}x) sent3: {B}{a} sent4: ¬({G}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{C}{a} v {D}{a}) -> ¬{C}{aa} sent6: {AB}{aa} -> {AB}{a} sent7: (Ex): {F}x sent8: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: {A}{a} -> {A}{aa} sent11: {AA}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent12: (x): {AA}x -> {B}x sent13: ({AO}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent14: (Ex): {A}x sent15: {DG}{ad} sent16: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{C}x v {D}x) sent17: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({B}x & {A}x) sent18: (x): {A}x -> ({A}{a} v {D}{a}) sent19: {D}{a} -> {A}{aa} sent20: (Ex): {DD}x sent21: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {A}x) -> {B}x sent22: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent23: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent24: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent25: {FF}{aa}

the fact that the exhaust is a factory and does dragoon disconnection is incorrect.

¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the exhaust is a kind of a factory that dragoons disconnection. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that it is a see then that the eosinophil is not a ritonavir but a clarion is false. sent2: there exists nothing such that it is not muscular but a torturer. sent3: the outlier is a kind of a factory. sent4: the outlier does not clarion if that the trooper is wolflike and it clarion does not hold. sent5: the exhaust is not logarithmic if that the outlier is not logarithmic or it does pall eosinophil or both is not correct. sent6: the outlier is punitive if the exhaust is punitive. sent7: that there is something such that it is a see is true. sent8: that that the outlier is not a factory but it does dragoon disconnection is wrong is not wrong. sent9: there exists nothing that is not a armlet and is punitive. sent10: the exhaust dragoons disconnection if the outlier dragoons disconnection. sent11: the exhaust is a factory if it is a armlet. sent12: something is a factory if it is a armlet. sent13: the outlier is either bicameral or punitive or both. sent14: the fact that there is something such that that it does not dragoon disconnection is false is not false. sent15: the amphidiploid is annalistic. sent16: that either something is not logarithmic or it palls eosinophil or both is false if it is not a clarion. sent17: if something is not logarithmic that it is a kind of a factory and it does dragoon disconnection is not right. sent18: the outlier does dragoon disconnection or it does pall eosinophil or both if somethings do dragoon disconnection. sent19: the exhaust dragoons disconnection if the fact that the outlier does not pall eosinophil does not hold. sent20: there is something such that that it is a kind of a utahraptor hold. sent21: the fact that something is a factory hold if the fact that it does not pall eosinophil and dragoons disconnection is not true. sent22: there is nothing that is a armlet and punitive. sent23: the fact that the exhaust is a kind of a armlet that is punitive is not correct. sent24: if the fact that something is not a kind of a armlet but it is punitive does not hold then it is a factory. sent25: the exhaust does pall analysand. ; $proof$ =

sent24 -> int1: if the fact that the exhaust is not a armlet and is punitive is not right then it is a factory.; sent9 -> int2: the fact that that the exhaust is not a kind of a armlet and is not non-punitive does not hold is not wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the exhaust is a factory.; sent14 & sent18 -> int4: either the outlier does dragoon disconnection or it does pall eosinophil or both.; int4 & sent10 & sent19 -> int5: the fact that the exhaust does dragoon disconnection is right.; int3 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the sandstone is wieldy and/or it is a kind of a Calais.

({F}{c} v {E}{c})

sent1: if the hosteller dragoons planetarium but it does not pall diminutiveness the sandstone is a Calais. sent2: that the hosteller does dragoon planetarium is true. sent3: the hosteller dragoons planetarium and does not pall diminutiveness if the warehouse does dragoon milliampere. sent4: the sandstone is adrenocortical thing that is a kind of a sternness. sent5: the fact that the warehouse is a pun is true. sent6: if the sandstone is a Calais then the hosteller is a kind of wieldy thing that does not pall diminutiveness. sent7: the hosteller is wieldy if the sandstone dragoons planetarium and does not pall diminutiveness. sent8: that the tequila does dragoon planetarium is correct. sent9: if the warehouse dragoons milliampere the hosteller does dragoon planetarium. sent10: the hosteller does dragoon milliampere. sent11: the sandstone does dragoon milliampere. sent12: the hosteller is wieldy and does dragoon planetarium. sent13: the warehouse palls diminutiveness. sent14: the contortionist does not dragoon milliampere if there is something such that the fact that it is not a paraldehyde and does dragoon milliampere is wrong. sent15: the baobab either dragoons ACTH or palls diminutiveness or both. sent16: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a paraldehyde and it dragoons milliampere is wrong. sent17: the sandstone is a kind of a Israeli but it does not pall diminutiveness. sent18: the advocate is a kind of a curved that is aphetic. sent19: if the sandstone does dragoon planetarium then the hosteller does pall diminutiveness but it is not a Calais. sent20: the fact that something is wieldy and/or it is a Calais does not hold if it does not pun. sent21: the hosteller does pall diminutiveness if the contortionist does not dragoon milliampere and dragoons planetarium.

sent1: ({D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> {E}{c} sent2: {D}{b} sent3: {B}{a} -> ({D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent4: ({HT}{c} & {JI}{c}) sent5: {A}{a} sent6: {E}{c} -> ({F}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent7: ({D}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) -> {F}{b} sent8: {D}{it} sent9: {B}{a} -> {D}{b} sent10: {B}{b} sent11: {B}{c} sent12: ({F}{b} & {D}{b}) sent13: {C}{a} sent14: (x): ¬(¬{J}x & {B}x) -> ¬{B}{d} sent15: ({P}{gs} v {C}{gs}) sent16: (Ex): ¬(¬{J}x & {B}x) sent17: ({JE}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent18: ({FS}{aq} & {DA}{aq}) sent19: {D}{c} -> ({C}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent20: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({F}x v {E}x) sent21: (¬{B}{d} & {D}{d}) -> {C}{b}

the fact that the sandstone is wieldy or it is a Calais or both is not correct.

¬({F}{c} v {E}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sandstone is wieldy and/or it is a kind of a Calais. ; $context$ = sent1: if the hosteller dragoons planetarium but it does not pall diminutiveness the sandstone is a Calais. sent2: that the hosteller does dragoon planetarium is true. sent3: the hosteller dragoons planetarium and does not pall diminutiveness if the warehouse does dragoon milliampere. sent4: the sandstone is adrenocortical thing that is a kind of a sternness. sent5: the fact that the warehouse is a pun is true. sent6: if the sandstone is a Calais then the hosteller is a kind of wieldy thing that does not pall diminutiveness. sent7: the hosteller is wieldy if the sandstone dragoons planetarium and does not pall diminutiveness. sent8: that the tequila does dragoon planetarium is correct. sent9: if the warehouse dragoons milliampere the hosteller does dragoon planetarium. sent10: the hosteller does dragoon milliampere. sent11: the sandstone does dragoon milliampere. sent12: the hosteller is wieldy and does dragoon planetarium. sent13: the warehouse palls diminutiveness. sent14: the contortionist does not dragoon milliampere if there is something such that the fact that it is not a paraldehyde and does dragoon milliampere is wrong. sent15: the baobab either dragoons ACTH or palls diminutiveness or both. sent16: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a paraldehyde and it dragoons milliampere is wrong. sent17: the sandstone is a kind of a Israeli but it does not pall diminutiveness. sent18: the advocate is a kind of a curved that is aphetic. sent19: if the sandstone does dragoon planetarium then the hosteller does pall diminutiveness but it is not a Calais. sent20: the fact that something is wieldy and/or it is a Calais does not hold if it does not pun. sent21: the hosteller does pall diminutiveness if the contortionist does not dragoon milliampere and dragoons planetarium. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if that it is a mambo and it drains woodenware does not hold then it does not pall proofed.

(Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: the fact that if the fact that the soup is a kind of the mambo that does drain woodenware does not hold then the soup does not pall proofed is not wrong. sent2: that there is something such that if it palls hammered and canters it does not pall soup hold. sent3: there is something such that if the fact that it is multidimensional and palls Symplocus does not hold it is not exoteric. sent4: there exists something such that if it does not examine Potamogeton then it is not a kind of a classical. sent5: that there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of a mambo is not false then it does not pall proofed hold. sent6: the myrmecophyte does not examine commando if it does not drain woodenware. sent7: if the fact that the soup is a mambo and it drains woodenware is not right then it palls proofed. sent8: the fact that the soup is not nonarbitrable hold if it palls proofed and is ballistic. sent9: if the soup palls proofed and is unappealable then it is not a motorist. sent10: there exists something such that if it does not examine Potamogeton then it does not drain Ceterach. sent11: if the curry does drain zamia and it is unplayable then it does not mambo. sent12: the soup does not pall proofed if it is not a mambo. sent13: there is something such that if that it does not condense is true then it is not calyceal. sent14: the fact that the soup is not unplayable is not wrong if it is not a canter. sent15: if that the soup does pall tangent and is allomerous is wrong then the fact that it is not a mambo is not incorrect. sent16: the soup does not drain reveler if it does pall curry and does pall proofed. sent17: if that something does drain Vulcan and does pall proofed is false then it does not drain promethazine.

sent1: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent2: (Ex): ({BT}x & {AM}x) -> ¬{ED}x sent3: (Ex): ¬({AK}x & {Q}x) -> ¬{AP}x sent4: (Ex): ¬{L}x -> ¬{EM}x sent5: (Ex): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent6: ¬{AB}{do} -> ¬{DS}{do} sent7: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent8: ({B}{aa} & {IM}{aa}) -> ¬{CE}{aa} sent9: ({B}{aa} & {C}{aa}) -> ¬{IH}{aa} sent10: (Ex): ¬{L}x -> ¬{FH}x sent11: ({GR}{fo} & {DE}{fo}) -> ¬{AA}{fo} sent12: ¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent13: (Ex): ¬{ID}x -> ¬{FA}x sent14: ¬{AM}{aa} -> ¬{DE}{aa} sent15: ¬({AL}{aa} & {HM}{aa}) -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent16: ({EN}{aa} & {B}{aa}) -> ¬{FS}{aa} sent17: (x): ¬({EO}x & {B}x) -> ¬{AG}x

the pepperwort does not drain promethazine if the fact that it does drain Vulcan and palls proofed is not correct.

¬({EO}{cq} & {B}{cq}) -> ¬{AG}{cq}

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if that it is a mambo and it drains woodenware does not hold then it does not pall proofed. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that if the fact that the soup is a kind of the mambo that does drain woodenware does not hold then the soup does not pall proofed is not wrong. sent2: that there is something such that if it palls hammered and canters it does not pall soup hold. sent3: there is something such that if the fact that it is multidimensional and palls Symplocus does not hold it is not exoteric. sent4: there exists something such that if it does not examine Potamogeton then it is not a kind of a classical. sent5: that there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of a mambo is not false then it does not pall proofed hold. sent6: the myrmecophyte does not examine commando if it does not drain woodenware. sent7: if the fact that the soup is a mambo and it drains woodenware is not right then it palls proofed. sent8: the fact that the soup is not nonarbitrable hold if it palls proofed and is ballistic. sent9: if the soup palls proofed and is unappealable then it is not a motorist. sent10: there exists something such that if it does not examine Potamogeton then it does not drain Ceterach. sent11: if the curry does drain zamia and it is unplayable then it does not mambo. sent12: the soup does not pall proofed if it is not a mambo. sent13: there is something such that if that it does not condense is true then it is not calyceal. sent14: the fact that the soup is not unplayable is not wrong if it is not a canter. sent15: if that the soup does pall tangent and is allomerous is wrong then the fact that it is not a mambo is not incorrect. sent16: the soup does not drain reveler if it does pall curry and does pall proofed. sent17: if that something does drain Vulcan and does pall proofed is false then it does not drain promethazine. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there exists something such that if it does winkle and is not postglacial then it is not a kind of a molar is false.

¬((Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)

sent1: if the hippocampus does combust and is not postglacial it does not dragoon picnic. sent2: if the rosebud winkles and is non-postglacial it is a molar. sent3: something is not a piggyback if it is both heteroecious and not a cross-classification. sent4: there exists something such that if it is both a Palatinate and not a cripple it is non-closed. sent5: if the rosebud is a kind of a Phoenicurus but it is not postglacial it is not a playsuit. sent6: if the wally is a kind of Romansh thing that does not combust then it is not a Zimbabwean. sent7: the fact that the rosebud is not a ruthenium is right if it is a kind of a preservationist and is not a playsuit. sent8: there exists something such that if it winkles and it is not postglacial then it is a molar. sent9: something is not a larid if it is a kind of a paperknife and does not winkle. sent10: if the rosebud winkles and is not postglacial it is not a molar.

sent1: ({JH}{ir} & ¬{AB}{ir}) -> ¬{EN}{ir} sent2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent3: (x): ({GP}x & ¬{JI}x) -> ¬{CA}x sent4: (Ex): ({ET}x & ¬{JE}x) -> ¬{FM}x sent5: ({HC}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{AU}{aa} sent6: ({IC}{ej} & ¬{JH}{ej}) -> ¬{AG}{ej} sent7: ({IS}{aa} & ¬{AU}{aa}) -> ¬{FJ}{aa} sent8: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent9: (x): ({BK}x & ¬{AA}x) -> ¬{IO}x sent10: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}

there is something such that if it is both heteroecious and not a cross-classification then it is not a kind of a piggyback.

(Ex): ({GP}x & ¬{JI}x) -> ¬{CA}x

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it does winkle and is not postglacial then it is not a kind of a molar is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the hippocampus does combust and is not postglacial it does not dragoon picnic. sent2: if the rosebud winkles and is non-postglacial it is a molar. sent3: something is not a piggyback if it is both heteroecious and not a cross-classification. sent4: there exists something such that if it is both a Palatinate and not a cripple it is non-closed. sent5: if the rosebud is a kind of a Phoenicurus but it is not postglacial it is not a playsuit. sent6: if the wally is a kind of Romansh thing that does not combust then it is not a Zimbabwean. sent7: the fact that the rosebud is not a ruthenium is right if it is a kind of a preservationist and is not a playsuit. sent8: there exists something such that if it winkles and it is not postglacial then it is a molar. sent9: something is not a larid if it is a kind of a paperknife and does not winkle. sent10: if the rosebud winkles and is not postglacial it is not a molar. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the fact that the fact that the onomancer drains sayeret or it does not drain bombardment or both is true does not hold is right.

¬({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a})

sent1: the fact that something does drain sayeret and/or it does not drain bombardment is not correct if it is thalamocortical. sent2: the column is not diplomatic if either the natatorium does not pall cliff or it is not diplomatic or both. sent3: if something is microeconomic then the onomancer is thalamocortical and/or it is not a bigoted. sent4: something is thalamocortical. sent5: there exists something such that it does drain sayeret. sent6: there exists something such that it drains bombardment. sent7: something dragoons toenail if that it drains harp and it is not a catfish is not right. sent8: that the column does drain harp and is not a catfish is not right if it does not dragoon surplice. sent9: the column is a kind of a Scandinavian and it is a kind of a chic. sent10: either something does not pall cliff or it is not diplomatic or both if it is not a prospector. sent11: the natatorium is not a kind of a Ichyostega. sent12: the fact that the column does not dragoon surplice is true if it is a Scandinavian and it is a chic. sent13: if something that does dragoon toenail is not diplomatic it does not burrow. sent14: the onomancer does drain sayeret or does drain bombardment or both if something is thalamocortical. sent15: either the Iowan does drain bombardment or it is not a fettle or both. sent16: the onomancer drains sayeret and/or does drain bombardment. sent17: the natatorium palls yarder if there is something such that it dragoons sternness and it detoxes. sent18: the fact that something does dragoon sternness and is a detox is not false. sent19: the onomancer drains sayeret or it does not drain bombardment or both if there exists something such that it is thalamocortical. sent20: something is not a kind of a prospector if it palls yarder and it is not a kind of a Ichyostega.

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

that either the onomancer drains sayeret or it does not drain bombardment or both does not hold.

¬({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that the fact that the onomancer drains sayeret or it does not drain bombardment or both is true does not hold is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something does drain sayeret and/or it does not drain bombardment is not correct if it is thalamocortical. sent2: the column is not diplomatic if either the natatorium does not pall cliff or it is not diplomatic or both. sent3: if something is microeconomic then the onomancer is thalamocortical and/or it is not a bigoted. sent4: something is thalamocortical. sent5: there exists something such that it does drain sayeret. sent6: there exists something such that it drains bombardment. sent7: something dragoons toenail if that it drains harp and it is not a catfish is not right. sent8: that the column does drain harp and is not a catfish is not right if it does not dragoon surplice. sent9: the column is a kind of a Scandinavian and it is a kind of a chic. sent10: either something does not pall cliff or it is not diplomatic or both if it is not a prospector. sent11: the natatorium is not a kind of a Ichyostega. sent12: the fact that the column does not dragoon surplice is true if it is a Scandinavian and it is a chic. sent13: if something that does dragoon toenail is not diplomatic it does not burrow. sent14: the onomancer does drain sayeret or does drain bombardment or both if something is thalamocortical. sent15: either the Iowan does drain bombardment or it is not a fettle or both. sent16: the onomancer drains sayeret and/or does drain bombardment. sent17: the natatorium palls yarder if there is something such that it dragoons sternness and it detoxes. sent18: the fact that something does dragoon sternness and is a detox is not false. sent19: the onomancer drains sayeret or it does not drain bombardment or both if there exists something such that it is thalamocortical. sent20: something is not a kind of a prospector if it palls yarder and it is not a kind of a Ichyostega. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent19 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if it is not a daybook then it is a hardbacked.

(Ex): ¬{B}x -> {C}x

sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a Bruchus it is a cabala. sent2: the quadruplicate is a daybook if it is not Bruneian. sent3: the Chadian is Albigensian if it is not a hardbacked. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a daybook the fact that it is a hardbacked is true. sent5: if something does not drain felt it is residential. sent6: something is a hardbacked if it is a kind of a daybook. sent7: if the liposome does creep then it is a kind of a daybook. sent8: there is something such that if it does not pall quadruplicate it is a psalterium. sent9: there is something such that if it is not a neglect it does drain oligopoly. sent10: if something is propulsive then it is an agonist. sent11: there is something such that if that it is a kind of a slenderness is true then it drains Sadat. sent12: if the liposome is not a kind of a leech then the fact that it is a kind of a hardbacked is not incorrect. sent13: if the liposome is not a kind of a hardbacked it is a custody. sent14: if the liposome is a daybook it is a hardbacked.

sent1: (Ex): ¬{I}x -> {N}x sent2: ¬{ES}{cs} -> {B}{cs} sent3: ¬{C}{fn} -> {P}{fn} sent4: (Ex): {B}x -> {C}x sent5: (x): ¬{CK}x -> {K}x sent6: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent7: {IM}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent8: (Ex): ¬{JA}x -> {HD}x sent9: (Ex): ¬{GK}x -> {AE}x sent10: (x): {II}x -> {BT}x sent11: (Ex): {IL}x -> {FL}x sent12: ¬{CG}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent13: ¬{C}{aa} -> {ED}{aa} sent14: {B}{aa} -> {C}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a daybook then it is a hardbacked. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a Bruchus it is a cabala. sent2: the quadruplicate is a daybook if it is not Bruneian. sent3: the Chadian is Albigensian if it is not a hardbacked. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a daybook the fact that it is a hardbacked is true. sent5: if something does not drain felt it is residential. sent6: something is a hardbacked if it is a kind of a daybook. sent7: if the liposome does creep then it is a kind of a daybook. sent8: there is something such that if it does not pall quadruplicate it is a psalterium. sent9: there is something such that if it is not a neglect it does drain oligopoly. sent10: if something is propulsive then it is an agonist. sent11: there is something such that if that it is a kind of a slenderness is true then it drains Sadat. sent12: if the liposome is not a kind of a leech then the fact that it is a kind of a hardbacked is not incorrect. sent13: if the liposome is not a kind of a hardbacked it is a custody. sent14: if the liposome is a daybook it is a hardbacked. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the adder is monotonic or it palls valentine or both is wrong.

¬({B}{b} v {C}{b})

sent1: the fact that the deer is both not a endospore and not a quarrelsomeness is incorrect if it is not peptic. sent2: the deer is not peptic. sent3: something is peptic if it is autacoidal. sent4: if something is peptic that it does not pall valentine and is monotonic is not true. sent5: the fact that the deer is not a endospore but it is a quarrelsomeness does not hold. sent6: the adder is monotonic if the fact that the deer is not a kind of a endospore and it is not a quarrelsomeness is incorrect. sent7: that the deer is both a endospore and not a quarrelsomeness is wrong if it is not peptic.

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

the saltine is not monotonic.

¬{B}{eo}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the adder is monotonic or it palls valentine or both is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the deer is both not a endospore and not a quarrelsomeness is incorrect if it is not peptic. sent2: the deer is not peptic. sent3: something is peptic if it is autacoidal. sent4: if something is peptic that it does not pall valentine and is monotonic is not true. sent5: the fact that the deer is not a endospore but it is a quarrelsomeness does not hold. sent6: the adder is monotonic if the fact that the deer is not a kind of a endospore and it is not a quarrelsomeness is incorrect. sent7: that the deer is both a endospore and not a quarrelsomeness is wrong if it is not peptic. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that that the deer is not a kind of a endospore and it is not a quarrelsomeness does not hold is not false.; sent6 & int1 -> int2: the adder is monotonic.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the havelock is not a kind of a Cercopidae and it is not croupy.

(¬{B}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

sent1: the havelock is not croupy and it is not a kind of a Cercopidae if the peepshow is not croupy. sent2: something that slaps is a keypad. sent3: the fact that the havelock is not a Cercopidae and it is not croupy is not correct if the peepshow is conspecific. sent4: the havelock does not hoe. sent5: something is a kind of a material that is not conspecific if it is a kind of a keypad. sent6: the havelock is not a kind of a Cercopidae and is not croupy if the peepshow is not a Cercopidae. sent7: if the invagination is material but it is not a kind of a conspecific then the peepshow is conspecific. sent8: the fact that the havelock is not a kind of a Cercopidae hold. sent9: if the nymphet is not a Alsatian the invagination slaps and it is an oldie. sent10: something is not conspecific. sent11: the havelock is not a kind of a Cercopidae if the peepshow is not a Cercopidae.

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

the fact that the havelock is not a Cercopidae and it is not croupy is not correct.

¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the havelock is not a kind of a Cercopidae and it is not croupy. ; $context$ = sent1: the havelock is not croupy and it is not a kind of a Cercopidae if the peepshow is not croupy. sent2: something that slaps is a keypad. sent3: the fact that the havelock is not a Cercopidae and it is not croupy is not correct if the peepshow is conspecific. sent4: the havelock does not hoe. sent5: something is a kind of a material that is not conspecific if it is a kind of a keypad. sent6: the havelock is not a kind of a Cercopidae and is not croupy if the peepshow is not a Cercopidae. sent7: if the invagination is material but it is not a kind of a conspecific then the peepshow is conspecific. sent8: the fact that the havelock is not a kind of a Cercopidae hold. sent9: if the nymphet is not a Alsatian the invagination slaps and it is an oldie. sent10: something is not conspecific. sent11: the havelock is not a kind of a Cercopidae if the peepshow is not a Cercopidae. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the tenor is not unequivocal.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: the awlwort does not pall constituency and drains cheddar. sent2: the ketoprofen does not crump and it is not Zionist if there is something such that it is brahminic. sent3: if the fact that something is unequivocal and it is a kind of a ferricyanide does not hold then it is not unequivocal. sent4: the anchorage is a pallidum if the ketoprofen does not crump and it is not a Zionist. sent5: that if something does not pall giver then it palls chad and it palls headstock is not incorrect. sent6: the tenor is unequivocal if something that does not pall constituency drains cheddar. sent7: the secretin does not pall giver if the anchorage either is not a draba or is a kind of a pallidum or both. sent8: there are brahminic things.

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

that the tenor is not unequivocal is not wrong.

¬{A}{a}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tenor is not unequivocal. ; $context$ = sent1: the awlwort does not pall constituency and drains cheddar. sent2: the ketoprofen does not crump and it is not Zionist if there is something such that it is brahminic. sent3: if the fact that something is unequivocal and it is a kind of a ferricyanide does not hold then it is not unequivocal. sent4: the anchorage is a pallidum if the ketoprofen does not crump and it is not a Zionist. sent5: that if something does not pall giver then it palls chad and it palls headstock is not incorrect. sent6: the tenor is unequivocal if something that does not pall constituency drains cheddar. sent7: the secretin does not pall giver if the anchorage either is not a draba or is a kind of a pallidum or both. sent8: there are brahminic things. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: something does not pall constituency and does drain cheddar.; int1 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the epic does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: the hugging happens. sent2: the intermission happens. sent3: if the naiveness happens and the exchange occurs then the rockiness does not occur. sent4: the display occurs. sent5: if the examining revolver occurs and the intermission occurs the epicness does not occur. sent6: that the examining revolver occurs and the viziership occurs is triggered by that the intermission does not occur. sent7: the examining revolver occurs. sent8: the muscling does not occur. sent9: that the epicness happens is triggered by that the intermission does not occur and/or the epicness.

sent1: {CG} sent2: {B} sent3: ({FR} & {AE}) -> ¬{IM} sent4: {BA} sent5: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent6: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {JA}) sent7: {A} sent8: ¬{FU} sent9: (¬{B} v {C}) -> {C}

the viziership happens and the semifinal happens.

({JA} & {IN})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the epic does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the hugging happens. sent2: the intermission happens. sent3: if the naiveness happens and the exchange occurs then the rockiness does not occur. sent4: the display occurs. sent5: if the examining revolver occurs and the intermission occurs the epicness does not occur. sent6: that the examining revolver occurs and the viziership occurs is triggered by that the intermission does not occur. sent7: the examining revolver occurs. sent8: the muscling does not occur. sent9: that the epicness happens is triggered by that the intermission does not occur and/or the epicness. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the examining revolver and the intermission happens.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the hawfinch is spastic if it does dragoon transcendence.

{A}{a} -> {C}{a}

sent1: if something winnows but it is not pyrolytic then it is not a spastic. sent2: if something is expendable then it is a kind of a spastic. sent3: if the hawfinch is not a spastic then the meristem dragoons transcendence and it is expendable. sent4: if the Slovene palls Erinaceus then the fact that it is an acoustic is not false.

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

the meristem is expendable.

{B}{fu}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hawfinch is spastic if it does dragoon transcendence. ; $context$ = sent1: if something winnows but it is not pyrolytic then it is not a spastic. sent2: if something is expendable then it is a kind of a spastic. sent3: if the hawfinch is not a spastic then the meristem dragoons transcendence and it is expendable. sent4: if the Slovene palls Erinaceus then the fact that it is an acoustic is not false. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the hawfinch dragoons transcendence.; sent2 -> int1: if the hawfinch is expendable then the fact that it is a spastic is not false.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the jiving does not occur and the palling rosebud occurs is not correct.

¬(¬{E} & {D})

sent1: the fact that the draining Cavendish does not occur and the backfiring happens is not right if the rupestralness happens. sent2: the fact that not the Hindustaniness but the creak happens is not right if the philharmonicness happens. sent3: if that the non-Hindustaniness and the creak occurs does not hold then the pas does not occur. sent4: the fact that not the jiving but the palling rosebud happens is wrong if the electrophoreticness does not occur. sent5: the conge happens. sent6: the fact that the sprinting does not occur and the philharmonicness does not occur is false if that the backfiring does not occur is not false. sent7: if the fact that not the draining Cavendish but the backfiring occurs is not right the backfiring does not occur. sent8: that the ergonomicness does not occur is brought about by either the dysphemisticness or the electrophoreticness or both. sent9: the dysphemisticness does not occur if the ergonomicness does not occur and/or the palling rosebud happens. sent10: the non-ergonomicness and/or the palling rosebud is triggered by the jiving. sent11: that the electrophoreticness occurs and/or the dysphemisticness does not occur prevents the pervaporation. sent12: that the dragooning Scythia does not occur but the torrentialness occurs is not right if the fact that the pas does not occur is true. sent13: if that the dragooning Scythia does not occur but the torrentialness occurs does not hold the snub does not occur. sent14: if the substantialness occurs the rupestralness occurs. sent15: the philharmonicness occurs if that the sprinting does not occur and the philharmonicness does not occur is wrong. sent16: the jiving happens and the conge happens if the snub does not occur.

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

the pervaporation does not occur.

¬{ES}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the jiving does not occur and the palling rosebud occurs is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the draining Cavendish does not occur and the backfiring happens is not right if the rupestralness happens. sent2: the fact that not the Hindustaniness but the creak happens is not right if the philharmonicness happens. sent3: if that the non-Hindustaniness and the creak occurs does not hold then the pas does not occur. sent4: the fact that not the jiving but the palling rosebud happens is wrong if the electrophoreticness does not occur. sent5: the conge happens. sent6: the fact that the sprinting does not occur and the philharmonicness does not occur is false if that the backfiring does not occur is not false. sent7: if the fact that not the draining Cavendish but the backfiring occurs is not right the backfiring does not occur. sent8: that the ergonomicness does not occur is brought about by either the dysphemisticness or the electrophoreticness or both. sent9: the dysphemisticness does not occur if the ergonomicness does not occur and/or the palling rosebud happens. sent10: the non-ergonomicness and/or the palling rosebud is triggered by the jiving. sent11: that the electrophoreticness occurs and/or the dysphemisticness does not occur prevents the pervaporation. sent12: that the dragooning Scythia does not occur but the torrentialness occurs is not right if the fact that the pas does not occur is true. sent13: if that the dragooning Scythia does not occur but the torrentialness occurs does not hold the snub does not occur. sent14: if the substantialness occurs the rupestralness occurs. sent15: the philharmonicness occurs if that the sprinting does not occur and the philharmonicness does not occur is wrong. sent16: the jiving happens and the conge happens if the snub does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the electrophoreticness occurs.; assump1 -> int1: the dysphemisticness occurs and/or the electrophoreticness happens.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the ergonomicness does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the malacologist is not random.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: the malacologist is not obedient. sent2: the malacologist is not ateleiotic if there is something such that it is not an experienced or it is not a Hampshire or both. sent3: the malacologist does not dragoon variolation if there is something such that it is not alkylic. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it is not alkylic and/or it is not a suppository hold. sent5: the fact that the malacologist is not ascensional is not wrong. sent6: if there is something such that it is not alkylic and/or it is not a suppository the malacologist does not dragoon variolation. sent7: if something is not an operative then it does not drain sliced and it is not a saprophyte. sent8: something that is ascensional does dragoon variolation. sent9: there exists something such that it either does not dragoon geography or is a halloo or both. sent10: if there is something such that it does not drain pinkie or it is not random or both the pinkie is not a kind of a saprophyte. sent11: that something is not a kind of an experienced hold if that it does not dragoon variolation is true. sent12: something is not nonrandom if it does dragoon variolation.

sent1: ¬{CK}{a} sent2: (x): (¬{C}x v ¬{FM}x) -> ¬{BR}{a} sent3: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent4: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent5: ¬{D}{a} sent6: (x): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{GT}x -> (¬{BT}x & ¬{IH}x) sent8: (x): {D}x -> {A}x sent9: (Ex): (¬{DQ}x v {GR}x) sent10: (x): (¬{CE}x v ¬{B}x) -> ¬{IH}{fi} sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{C}x sent12: (x): {A}x -> {B}x

the malacologist is random.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the malacologist is not random. ; $context$ = sent1: the malacologist is not obedient. sent2: the malacologist is not ateleiotic if there is something such that it is not an experienced or it is not a Hampshire or both. sent3: the malacologist does not dragoon variolation if there is something such that it is not alkylic. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it is not alkylic and/or it is not a suppository hold. sent5: the fact that the malacologist is not ascensional is not wrong. sent6: if there is something such that it is not alkylic and/or it is not a suppository the malacologist does not dragoon variolation. sent7: if something is not an operative then it does not drain sliced and it is not a saprophyte. sent8: something that is ascensional does dragoon variolation. sent9: there exists something such that it either does not dragoon geography or is a halloo or both. sent10: if there is something such that it does not drain pinkie or it is not random or both the pinkie is not a kind of a saprophyte. sent11: that something is not a kind of an experienced hold if that it does not dragoon variolation is true. sent12: something is not nonrandom if it does dragoon variolation. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent6 -> int1: the malacologist does not dragoon variolation.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if it is a bicentennial it does not modify and it does not examine hemoglobinopathy.

(Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: something modifies but it does not examine hemoglobinopathy if it is bicentennial. sent2: there exists something such that if it is bicentennial then it does modify and it does not examine hemoglobinopathy. sent3: if that the natatorium is a faithful hold it is a comestible and is not a kind of a bicentennial. sent4: there exists something such that if it depopulates it does not steepen and it is not acetic.

sent1: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: {L}{aa} -> ({CP}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): {GG}x -> (¬{AU}x & ¬{IA}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is a bicentennial it does not modify and it does not examine hemoglobinopathy. ; $context$ = sent1: something modifies but it does not examine hemoglobinopathy if it is bicentennial. sent2: there exists something such that if it is bicentennial then it does modify and it does not examine hemoglobinopathy. sent3: if that the natatorium is a faithful hold it is a comestible and is not a kind of a bicentennial. sent4: there exists something such that if it depopulates it does not steepen and it is not acetic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fiduciary occurs and the draining osier does not occur.

({AA} & ¬{AB})

sent1: if the Scandinavianness occurs then the millennialness and the non-Omaniness occurs. sent2: if the fiduciary happens but the draining osier does not occur the gin occurs. sent3: the ginning does not occur and/or the Scandinavianness does not occur. sent4: either that the gin does not occur or that the Scandinavian does not occur or both results in that the gin does not occur.

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

the millennialness happens and the Omaniness does not occur.

({HP} & ¬{BA})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fiduciary occurs and the draining osier does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Scandinavianness occurs then the millennialness and the non-Omaniness occurs. sent2: if the fiduciary happens but the draining osier does not occur the gin occurs. sent3: the ginning does not occur and/or the Scandinavianness does not occur. sent4: either that the gin does not occur or that the Scandinavian does not occur or both results in that the gin does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fiduciariness happens and the draining osier does not occur.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the gin occurs.; sent4 & sent3 -> int2: the ginning does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the biscuit is a kind of a Germanic.

{B}{a}

sent1: if the fact that the pediment is not a foreshore and it is not a wood is incorrect then the succession is not Germanic. sent2: the biscuit is a kind of a foreshore. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is not an ensemble is correct. sent4: the ruthenium is a wood if something does not drain succession. sent5: the biscuit is a Germanic if there exists something such that it is not a foreshore. sent6: that the pediment is not a kind of a foreshore and is not a wood does not hold if something is a wood. sent7: if that something is both not a dinginess and Germanic is not right it is not a Germanic. sent8: that the Mylar is a foreshore is right. sent9: if there is something such that that it is a startle but not a Falconidae is wrong the matte is a Falconidae. sent10: if something is a kind of non-Hemingwayesque thing that is not a perishability it does not drain succession. sent11: if there exists something such that it is not a dinginess then the biscuit is Germanic thing that is a foreshore. sent12: the fact that the Wright does startle but it is not a Falconidae is not correct. sent13: if there is something such that it is not a dinginess that the biscuit is a foreshore is right. sent14: if there exists something such that it is not a Germanic then the biscuit is a foreshore. sent15: that the matte is a kind of non-Hemingwayesque thing that is not a perishability is not wrong if it is a Falconidae.

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

the biscuit is not Germanic.

¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the biscuit is a kind of a Germanic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the pediment is not a foreshore and it is not a wood is incorrect then the succession is not Germanic. sent2: the biscuit is a kind of a foreshore. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is not an ensemble is correct. sent4: the ruthenium is a wood if something does not drain succession. sent5: the biscuit is a Germanic if there exists something such that it is not a foreshore. sent6: that the pediment is not a kind of a foreshore and is not a wood does not hold if something is a wood. sent7: if that something is both not a dinginess and Germanic is not right it is not a Germanic. sent8: that the Mylar is a foreshore is right. sent9: if there is something such that that it is a startle but not a Falconidae is wrong the matte is a Falconidae. sent10: if something is a kind of non-Hemingwayesque thing that is not a perishability it does not drain succession. sent11: if there exists something such that it is not a dinginess then the biscuit is Germanic thing that is a foreshore. sent12: the fact that the Wright does startle but it is not a Falconidae is not correct. sent13: if there is something such that it is not a dinginess that the biscuit is a foreshore is right. sent14: if there exists something such that it is not a Germanic then the biscuit is a foreshore. sent15: that the matte is a kind of non-Hemingwayesque thing that is not a perishability is not wrong if it is a Falconidae. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the dietary is not a fiver but a Wroclaw.

(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

sent1: the dietary is not cerebrospinal if that the whiz is not cerebrospinal and not non-cenogenetic hold. sent2: something is not a Wroclaw and palls Bucconidae if it is cerebrospinal. sent3: something is not a kind of a fiver if it is not cerebrospinal. sent4: the dietary is not a kind of a fiver. sent5: the whiz is not cerebrospinal. sent6: the dietary is not a fiver if it is not cerebrospinal. sent7: something is cenogenetic and cerebrospinal if it is not a bivalve. sent8: something is both not a fiver and a Wroclaw if it is not cerebrospinal. sent9: the whiz is both non-cerebrospinal and not non-cenogenetic.

sent1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent2: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AB}x & {F}x) sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent4: ¬{AA}{aa} sent5: ¬{A}{a} sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a})

the notch is not a Wroclaw but it does pall Bucconidae.

(¬{AB}{bd} & {F}{bd})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dietary is not a fiver but a Wroclaw. ; $context$ = sent1: the dietary is not cerebrospinal if that the whiz is not cerebrospinal and not non-cenogenetic hold. sent2: something is not a Wroclaw and palls Bucconidae if it is cerebrospinal. sent3: something is not a kind of a fiver if it is not cerebrospinal. sent4: the dietary is not a kind of a fiver. sent5: the whiz is not cerebrospinal. sent6: the dietary is not a fiver if it is not cerebrospinal. sent7: something is cenogenetic and cerebrospinal if it is not a bivalve. sent8: something is both not a fiver and a Wroclaw if it is not cerebrospinal. sent9: the whiz is both non-cerebrospinal and not non-cenogenetic. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the dietary is not a fiver but it is a Wroclaw if it is not cerebrospinal.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if it is not a kind of a schmaltz it is a snakewood and is prosthetics.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: the brome is both a snakewood and prosthetics if it is not a kind of a schmaltz. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a schmaltz then it is both a snakewood and prosthetics. sent3: there is something such that if it is not a abampere it is husbandly and does dragoon appendaged. sent4: the brome is a snakewood if it is not a schmaltz.

sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬{JA}x -> ({AD}x & {FD}x) sent4: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a kind of a schmaltz it is a snakewood and is prosthetics. ; $context$ = sent1: the brome is both a snakewood and prosthetics if it is not a kind of a schmaltz. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a schmaltz then it is both a snakewood and prosthetics. sent3: there is something such that if it is not a abampere it is husbandly and does dragoon appendaged. sent4: the brome is a snakewood if it is not a schmaltz. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the gofer does pall wiriness.

{E}{d}

sent1: if the fact that the gofer drains agony is not false then the wrapping does pall wiriness. sent2: the parka does dragoon column and does code. sent3: the wrapping does pall wiriness. sent4: if the fact that the trooper does not dragoon column but it is a kind of a unpalatability is wrong then the column is not a unpalatability. sent5: if something is not effortless then the fact that it does not dragoon column and it is a unpalatability is false. sent6: if something is a kind of a unpalatability it is not integumentary and/or palls lashing. sent7: the gofer drains agony. sent8: something is not depressant. sent9: if there are non-depressant things then the wrapping drains agony. sent10: the exon palls wiriness if the gofer is integumentary. sent11: if the trooper is effortless the column is a kind of a unpalatability. sent12: the column does pall lashing if the exon is integumentary. sent13: the trooper is not effortless if the parka does code. sent14: the gofer does not pall wiriness if the fact that the wrapping is not depressant but it does drain agony is not correct. sent15: if there is something such that the fact that it does dragoon column hold the trooper is effortless or dragoon column or both. sent16: the fact that the column is integumentary is true if something does not pall lashing. sent17: if the fact that something palls lashing and it is integumentary does not hold then that it does not drain agony is correct. sent18: if the exon is depressant then that the wrapping does not pall wiriness and does not drain agony is wrong. sent19: that the column is integumentary is not incorrect if the exon does pall lashing. sent20: something is depressant. sent21: if the column palls lashing the gofer palls wiriness. sent22: either the matchlock is not unintelligent or it is a code or both. sent23: if the column is not a unpalatability then the fact that the exon palls lashing and it is integumentary is wrong.

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

the gofer does not pall wiriness.

¬{E}{d}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the gofer does pall wiriness. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the gofer drains agony is not false then the wrapping does pall wiriness. sent2: the parka does dragoon column and does code. sent3: the wrapping does pall wiriness. sent4: if the fact that the trooper does not dragoon column but it is a kind of a unpalatability is wrong then the column is not a unpalatability. sent5: if something is not effortless then the fact that it does not dragoon column and it is a unpalatability is false. sent6: if something is a kind of a unpalatability it is not integumentary and/or palls lashing. sent7: the gofer drains agony. sent8: something is not depressant. sent9: if there are non-depressant things then the wrapping drains agony. sent10: the exon palls wiriness if the gofer is integumentary. sent11: if the trooper is effortless the column is a kind of a unpalatability. sent12: the column does pall lashing if the exon is integumentary. sent13: the trooper is not effortless if the parka does code. sent14: the gofer does not pall wiriness if the fact that the wrapping is not depressant but it does drain agony is not correct. sent15: if there is something such that the fact that it does dragoon column hold the trooper is effortless or dragoon column or both. sent16: the fact that the column is integumentary is true if something does not pall lashing. sent17: if the fact that something palls lashing and it is integumentary does not hold then that it does not drain agony is correct. sent18: if the exon is depressant then that the wrapping does not pall wiriness and does not drain agony is wrong. sent19: that the column is integumentary is not incorrect if the exon does pall lashing. sent20: something is depressant. sent21: if the column palls lashing the gofer palls wiriness. sent22: either the matchlock is not unintelligent or it is a code or both. sent23: if the column is not a unpalatability then the fact that the exon palls lashing and it is integumentary is wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent9 -> int1: the wrapping drains agony.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the rhinovirus is an urge.

{B}{b}

sent1: if something is rimless that it is not an afghani and is acneiform is incorrect. sent2: the rhinovirus is not an afghani if the fact that the fact that the seaquake is not a kind of an afghani and is acneiform is not wrong does not hold. sent3: everything is not acneiform. sent4: something is a provider. sent5: the cog is a provider and does not command. sent6: there is something such that it is both a provider and a command. sent7: the fact that the seaquake is not an afghani is not false if there is something such that it is a provider and it does not command.

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

the antimycin is not an urge.

¬{B}{dh}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the rhinovirus is an urge. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is rimless that it is not an afghani and is acneiform is incorrect. sent2: the rhinovirus is not an afghani if the fact that the fact that the seaquake is not a kind of an afghani and is acneiform is not wrong does not hold. sent3: everything is not acneiform. sent4: something is a provider. sent5: the cog is a provider and does not command. sent6: there is something such that it is both a provider and a command. sent7: the fact that the seaquake is not an afghani is not false if there is something such that it is a provider and it does not command. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: there is something such that it is both a provider and not a command.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the seaquake is not an afghani.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the Circe is a kind of a booboisie.

{E}{c}

sent1: that that the dallier is both not a contingency and a Samoyedic is not wrong is not right if it is a Sennacherib. sent2: the fact that the dallier is not the Samoyedic if the fact that the dallier is not a kind of a contingency and is a Samoyedic is wrong is not incorrect. sent3: either the stud is nonfictional or it is a Samoyedic or both if there is something such that it is a Samoyedic. sent4: the Circe is not a contingency if the dallier is not a kind of a contingency. sent5: if something is not a contingency the fact that it is not nonfictional and is not a kind of a Samoyedic is not right. sent6: if the fact that the haulm is not a kind of a Karelian and it does not dodge marmot is not right it is a Karelian. sent7: the dallier is a booboisie. sent8: if the haulm is not a contingency the Circe is a booboisie. sent9: the fact that something is a booboisie is not false if it is nonfictional. sent10: the haulm is not a kind of a Samoyedic if the dallier is nonfictional. sent11: the dallier is not a Sennacherib. sent12: the Circe is a booboisie if the haulm is not a Sennacherib. sent13: that something is not non-meteoric but it is not a kind of a Kendall is not right if it does diverge stud. sent14: the dallier is nonfictional. sent15: the haulm does diverge stud if it does diverge rutabaga. sent16: if something is a Trapa it is both not a contingency and not a Sennacherib. sent17: that the haulm is not a Karelian and it does not dodge marmot does not hold. sent18: if the Circe is not a Samoyedic then the haulm is a booboisie. sent19: the haulm diverges rutabaga if it is a Karelian.

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

the fact that the Circe is not a booboisie is true.

¬{E}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Circe is a kind of a booboisie. ; $context$ = sent1: that that the dallier is both not a contingency and a Samoyedic is not wrong is not right if it is a Sennacherib. sent2: the fact that the dallier is not the Samoyedic if the fact that the dallier is not a kind of a contingency and is a Samoyedic is wrong is not incorrect. sent3: either the stud is nonfictional or it is a Samoyedic or both if there is something such that it is a Samoyedic. sent4: the Circe is not a contingency if the dallier is not a kind of a contingency. sent5: if something is not a contingency the fact that it is not nonfictional and is not a kind of a Samoyedic is not right. sent6: if the fact that the haulm is not a kind of a Karelian and it does not dodge marmot is not right it is a Karelian. sent7: the dallier is a booboisie. sent8: if the haulm is not a contingency the Circe is a booboisie. sent9: the fact that something is a booboisie is not false if it is nonfictional. sent10: the haulm is not a kind of a Samoyedic if the dallier is nonfictional. sent11: the dallier is not a Sennacherib. sent12: the Circe is a booboisie if the haulm is not a Sennacherib. sent13: that something is not non-meteoric but it is not a kind of a Kendall is not right if it does diverge stud. sent14: the dallier is nonfictional. sent15: the haulm does diverge stud if it does diverge rutabaga. sent16: if something is a Trapa it is both not a contingency and not a Sennacherib. sent17: that the haulm is not a Karelian and it does not dodge marmot does not hold. sent18: if the Circe is not a Samoyedic then the haulm is a booboisie. sent19: the haulm diverges rutabaga if it is a Karelian. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent14 -> int1: the haulm is not a Samoyedic.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the glazing gilt occurs.

{E}

sent1: that the psycholinguisticness occurs is right. sent2: if the renting happens the hopper does not occur and the loss does not occur. sent3: if the dodging instillation occurs the hopper happens. sent4: the diverging Orpheus does not occur. sent5: that the hopper but not the loss occurs prevents that the glazing gilt does not occur. sent6: the loss does not occur. sent7: the Prussian brings about that the hopper occurs. sent8: if the Prussianness does not occur but the dodging instillation occurs then the fact that the cometariness does not occur is correct. sent9: either the dodging instillation happens or the Prussianness occurs or both.

sent1: {CD} sent2: {F} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent3: {A} -> {C} sent4: ¬{DE} sent5: ({C} & ¬{D}) -> {E} sent6: ¬{D} sent7: {B} -> {C} sent8: (¬{B} & {A}) -> ¬{O} sent9: ({A} v {B})

the glazing gilt does not occur.

¬{E}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the glazing gilt occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the psycholinguisticness occurs is right. sent2: if the renting happens the hopper does not occur and the loss does not occur. sent3: if the dodging instillation occurs the hopper happens. sent4: the diverging Orpheus does not occur. sent5: that the hopper but not the loss occurs prevents that the glazing gilt does not occur. sent6: the loss does not occur. sent7: the Prussian brings about that the hopper occurs. sent8: if the Prussianness does not occur but the dodging instillation occurs then the fact that the cometariness does not occur is correct. sent9: either the dodging instillation happens or the Prussianness occurs or both. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent3 & sent7 -> int1: the hopper occurs.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the hopper but not the loss happens.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the hartebeest either is a brew or is trivalent or both.

({D}{b} v {C}{b})

sent1: the cyclopropane is a phenol if it is a kind of a frontbencher. sent2: the cyclopropane is a kind of a frontbencher. sent3: something that does not glaze OSHA does hew miconazole and is not non-medullary. sent4: if the grazier is not non-second the hartebeest is not a culture and is not trivalent. sent5: the reticulum is a culture if the drink is a kind of trivalent thing that does not culture. sent6: the fact that something is a Haplopappus and/or is not a brew is not right if it does not aspire. sent7: the drink is a culture if it is a Haplopappus. sent8: if something that does not second does not culture it is not a kind of a Haplopappus. sent9: if that the cyclopropane does not vow or does glaze OSHA or both is not true the grazier does not glaze OSHA. sent10: if something is a kind of a phenol that either it is not a kind of a vow or it glazes OSHA or both is not correct. sent11: the patch does brew. sent12: if the fact that the grazier hews miconazole is not incorrect that the drink does aspire is correct. sent13: the drink is a brew if the hartebeest does brew. sent14: the fact that the drink is a Haplopappus is not false. sent15: if there exists something such that that it is a Haplopappus and/or it does not brew does not hold the drink is not a kind of a culture.

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

the reticulum is a culture.

{B}{hn}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hartebeest either is a brew or is trivalent or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the cyclopropane is a phenol if it is a kind of a frontbencher. sent2: the cyclopropane is a kind of a frontbencher. sent3: something that does not glaze OSHA does hew miconazole and is not non-medullary. sent4: if the grazier is not non-second the hartebeest is not a culture and is not trivalent. sent5: the reticulum is a culture if the drink is a kind of trivalent thing that does not culture. sent6: the fact that something is a Haplopappus and/or is not a brew is not right if it does not aspire. sent7: the drink is a culture if it is a Haplopappus. sent8: if something that does not second does not culture it is not a kind of a Haplopappus. sent9: if that the cyclopropane does not vow or does glaze OSHA or both is not true the grazier does not glaze OSHA. sent10: if something is a kind of a phenol that either it is not a kind of a vow or it glazes OSHA or both is not correct. sent11: the patch does brew. sent12: if the fact that the grazier hews miconazole is not incorrect that the drink does aspire is correct. sent13: the drink is a brew if the hartebeest does brew. sent14: the fact that the drink is a Haplopappus is not false. sent15: if there exists something such that that it is a Haplopappus and/or it does not brew does not hold the drink is not a kind of a culture. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent14 -> int1: the drink is a culture.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the opossum is a anxiolytic.

{A}{a}

sent1: the Rosicrucian does not diverge Io if there is something such that the fact that it is both not a minimalist and not a anxiolytic does not hold. sent2: something is not frivolous and it is not a charioteer. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is not frivolous and it is a kind of a charioteer is false. sent4: if there exists something such that that it does not hew methotrexate and is not frivolous is incorrect then the opossum does not decorate. sent5: the contaminant is not frivolous if the opossum either is not a charter or is not anxiolytic or both. sent6: if the fact that something does not charter and it is not a kind of a consort is incorrect it is a anxiolytic. sent7: the shot is not a kind of a anxiolytic. sent8: there exists something such that that it is both frivolous and not a charioteer is not true. sent9: the opossum is not a anxiolytic if there exists something such that that it is a kind of non-frivolous thing that is not a charioteer is false. sent10: the opossum is not a charioteer. sent11: the hydrosphere is not a Bosch and it does not dodge cruse. sent12: there exists something such that that it is not frivolous and not a charioteer does not hold. sent13: if the fact that that the nub is obedient and is not a Girard is not incorrect is false the manifold is not obedient. sent14: if there is something such that it is frivolous then the opossum is not a anxiolytic. sent15: if something does not glaze speakeasy then that it is a kind of obedient thing that is not a Girard does not hold. sent16: the opossum does not matriculate. sent17: the President is not a quiff if there exists something such that that that it does not glaze handled and is not puerile is not false is wrong.

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{BA}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{BI}{aj} sent2: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: (x): ¬(¬{BQ}x & ¬{AA}x) -> ¬{FH}{a} sent5: (¬{B}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{bb} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {A}x sent7: ¬{A}{bd} sent8: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent10: ¬{AB}{a} sent11: (¬{G}{d} & ¬{H}{d}) sent12: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent13: ¬({D}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent14: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent15: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{F}x) sent16: ¬{FI}{a} sent17: (x): ¬(¬{CF}x & ¬{CS}x) -> ¬{S}{r}

the contaminant is not frivolous.

¬{AA}{bb}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the opossum is a anxiolytic. ; $context$ = sent1: the Rosicrucian does not diverge Io if there is something such that the fact that it is both not a minimalist and not a anxiolytic does not hold. sent2: something is not frivolous and it is not a charioteer. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is not frivolous and it is a kind of a charioteer is false. sent4: if there exists something such that that it does not hew methotrexate and is not frivolous is incorrect then the opossum does not decorate. sent5: the contaminant is not frivolous if the opossum either is not a charter or is not anxiolytic or both. sent6: if the fact that something does not charter and it is not a kind of a consort is incorrect it is a anxiolytic. sent7: the shot is not a kind of a anxiolytic. sent8: there exists something such that that it is both frivolous and not a charioteer is not true. sent9: the opossum is not a anxiolytic if there exists something such that that it is a kind of non-frivolous thing that is not a charioteer is false. sent10: the opossum is not a charioteer. sent11: the hydrosphere is not a Bosch and it does not dodge cruse. sent12: there exists something such that that it is not frivolous and not a charioteer does not hold. sent13: if the fact that that the nub is obedient and is not a Girard is not incorrect is false the manifold is not obedient. sent14: if there is something such that it is frivolous then the opossum is not a anxiolytic. sent15: if something does not glaze speakeasy then that it is a kind of obedient thing that is not a Girard does not hold. sent16: the opossum does not matriculate. sent17: the President is not a quiff if there exists something such that that that it does not glaze handled and is not puerile is not false is wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the tooth happens.

{A}

sent1: the dodging rail-splitter does not occur and the hewing tragedian does not occur if the administering does not occur. sent2: if the glazing prairie happens that the diverging MBA does not occur and the glazing chevre does not occur is not correct. sent3: if the fact that the diverging MBA does not occur and the glazing chevre does not occur is incorrect then the hemodynamicsness does not occur. sent4: the repayment does not occur. sent5: that the non-holozoicness and the non-actableness occurs prevents that the administering happens. sent6: the uncooperativeness does not occur. sent7: that the glazing prairie and the perceptiveness occurs is caused by that the dodging rail-splitter does not occur. sent8: if the glazing Eschscholtzia occurs the bibliographicness occurs. sent9: the invertebrate occurs. sent10: if the hemodynamicsness does not occur both the tooth and the repayment happens. sent11: that the repayment occurs is not incorrect if the tooth happens.

sent1: ¬{J} -> (¬{H} & ¬{I}) sent2: {F} -> ¬(¬{E} & ¬{D}) sent3: ¬(¬{E} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} sent4: ¬{B} sent5: (¬{K} & ¬{L}) -> ¬{J} sent6: ¬{GM} sent7: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent8: {CN} -> {JA} sent9: {HN} sent10: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent11: {A} -> {B}

the tooth occurs.

{A}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tooth happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the dodging rail-splitter does not occur and the hewing tragedian does not occur if the administering does not occur. sent2: if the glazing prairie happens that the diverging MBA does not occur and the glazing chevre does not occur is not correct. sent3: if the fact that the diverging MBA does not occur and the glazing chevre does not occur is incorrect then the hemodynamicsness does not occur. sent4: the repayment does not occur. sent5: that the non-holozoicness and the non-actableness occurs prevents that the administering happens. sent6: the uncooperativeness does not occur. sent7: that the glazing prairie and the perceptiveness occurs is caused by that the dodging rail-splitter does not occur. sent8: if the glazing Eschscholtzia occurs the bibliographicness occurs. sent9: the invertebrate occurs. sent10: if the hemodynamicsness does not occur both the tooth and the repayment happens. sent11: that the repayment occurs is not incorrect if the tooth happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the tooth happens.; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: the repayment occurs.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there is something such that if that it does not hew Avahi and is not a mil is not true then it is an operative is not right.

¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x)

sent1: if the crupper is a mil then it is an operative. sent2: there exists something such that if that it hews Avahi and is not a mil is false it is a kind of an operative. sent3: there is something such that if it is not a vivification and it does not glaze Yaounde then it is a kind of a purdah. sent4: the rebutter does couple if it is not cervine and it does not hew tongue. sent5: there is something such that if that it is naval thing that is not a gastrostomy is not right then it is a tetranychid. sent6: if a non-unalike thing does not glaze censoring it dodges rebus. sent7: there is something such that if it is a kind of a beneficiation that it is not non-impressionistic is right. sent8: if that the crupper does diverge leapfrog and is not a kind of a black does not hold then it is unpopular. sent9: something is an operative if that it does not hew Avahi and is not a mil is false. sent10: if the crupper does not hew Avahi and is not a mil then it is an operative. sent11: the crupper is operative if the fact that it does hew Avahi and it is not a mil does not hold. sent12: there is something such that if it is a kind of a gastrostomy then it does dodge oscitancy. sent13: there exists something such that if that it does emote and is not penicillin-resistant is not true it is not mindful. sent14: if that something is unalike but it is not unsteady is not correct it is hircine. sent15: there exists something such that if it hews Avahi then it is an operative. sent16: there exists something such that if the fact that that it is not a kind of a mil is not false is not right the fact that it is an operative is true. sent17: there is something such that if the fact that that it does not hew Avahi and is a mil is not false does not hold that it is a kind of an operative is not wrong. sent18: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a hornet and does not amaze then it dodges oscitancy. sent19: there exists something such that if that it does dodge oscitancy and is not a chondrule is false then it is a circumcision.

sent1: {AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent3: (Ex): (¬{DO}x & ¬{FK}x) -> {AL}x sent4: (¬{EN}{en} & ¬{IG}{en}) -> {FQ}{en} sent5: (Ex): ¬({GU}x & ¬{BB}x) -> {GR}x sent6: (x): (¬{CL}x & ¬{IH}x) -> {GO}x sent7: (Ex): {AT}x -> {GC}x sent8: ¬({HS}{aa} & ¬{BM}{aa}) -> {IT}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent10: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent11: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent12: (Ex): {BB}x -> {BS}x sent13: (Ex): ¬({AI}x & ¬{FA}x) -> {CB}x sent14: (x): ¬({CL}x & ¬{IO}x) -> {DC}x sent15: (Ex): {AA}x -> {B}x sent16: (Ex): {AB}x -> {B}x sent17: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent18: (Ex): (¬{IL}x & ¬{BN}x) -> {BS}x sent19: (Ex): ¬({BS}x & ¬{HQ}x) -> {JK}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if that it does not hew Avahi and is not a mil is not true then it is an operative is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the crupper is a mil then it is an operative. sent2: there exists something such that if that it hews Avahi and is not a mil is false it is a kind of an operative. sent3: there is something such that if it is not a vivification and it does not glaze Yaounde then it is a kind of a purdah. sent4: the rebutter does couple if it is not cervine and it does not hew tongue. sent5: there is something such that if that it is naval thing that is not a gastrostomy is not right then it is a tetranychid. sent6: if a non-unalike thing does not glaze censoring it dodges rebus. sent7: there is something such that if it is a kind of a beneficiation that it is not non-impressionistic is right. sent8: if that the crupper does diverge leapfrog and is not a kind of a black does not hold then it is unpopular. sent9: something is an operative if that it does not hew Avahi and is not a mil is false. sent10: if the crupper does not hew Avahi and is not a mil then it is an operative. sent11: the crupper is operative if the fact that it does hew Avahi and it is not a mil does not hold. sent12: there is something such that if it is a kind of a gastrostomy then it does dodge oscitancy. sent13: there exists something such that if that it does emote and is not penicillin-resistant is not true it is not mindful. sent14: if that something is unalike but it is not unsteady is not correct it is hircine. sent15: there exists something such that if it hews Avahi then it is an operative. sent16: there exists something such that if the fact that that it is not a kind of a mil is not false is not right the fact that it is an operative is true. sent17: there is something such that if the fact that that it does not hew Avahi and is a mil is not false does not hold that it is a kind of an operative is not wrong. sent18: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a hornet and does not amaze then it dodges oscitancy. sent19: there exists something such that if that it does dodge oscitancy and is not a chondrule is false then it is a circumcision. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> int1: if that the crupper does not hew Avahi and it is not a mil does not hold it is operative.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the pivot does not hew marlinespike and glazes feeder.

(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

sent1: something that is not a kind of a hire is dissimilar and is not an ouster. sent2: everything does not hew marlinespike and does glaze feeder. sent3: if there is something such that it is an ouster that the pivot does not hew marlinespike but it glazes feeder is not right. sent4: everything is falconine. sent5: everything does not hew marlinespike. sent6: the pivot does not hew marlinespike. sent7: the fact that something does not trespass but it glazes Ticino is wrong if it is falconine. sent8: something is not a hire if the fact that it is not a trespass and glazes Ticino is not correct. sent9: everything is non-atomistic thing that is a neutron.

sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: (x): {F}x sent5: (x): ¬{AA}x sent6: ¬{AA}{aa} sent7: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) sent8: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent9: (x): (¬{FD}x & {JA}x)

the fact that the pivot does not hew marlinespike but it glazes feeder is wrong.

¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pivot does not hew marlinespike and glazes feeder. ; $context$ = sent1: something that is not a kind of a hire is dissimilar and is not an ouster. sent2: everything does not hew marlinespike and does glaze feeder. sent3: if there is something such that it is an ouster that the pivot does not hew marlinespike but it glazes feeder is not right. sent4: everything is falconine. sent5: everything does not hew marlinespike. sent6: the pivot does not hew marlinespike. sent7: the fact that something does not trespass but it glazes Ticino is wrong if it is falconine. sent8: something is not a hire if the fact that it is not a trespass and glazes Ticino is not correct. sent9: everything is non-atomistic thing that is a neutron. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the pewter is not transactinide.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: if the encolure diverges burro and is not a pack then the drunk-and-disorderly does narrate. sent2: the fact that something is not a abstemiousness and it is not a purgatory is not correct if it is a kind of a dialogue. sent3: if the granddaughter is non-myeloid thing that glazes seniti it is a dialogue. sent4: if the fact that something does narrate and/or is not a tensed is incorrect then it is not a carbamate. sent5: something is both tensed and not a Karakalpak if it is a carbamate. sent6: if the pewter is a kind of a mercury it does not railroad. sent7: something that does not railroad is not a transactinide. sent8: the fact that that the pewter is not a kind of a mercury and it does not hew thriftshop is right is false. sent9: something does diverge burro and does not pack if that that it is not a kind of a prickle-weed is not true is correct. sent10: the pewter is a carbamate if the drunk-and-disorderly does narrate. sent11: that the fact that the thermocoagulation does not hew stag and is not a Eocene is false is not false. sent12: if the pewter tenses but it is not a kind of a Karakalpak the fact that the stag is not a kind of a Karakalpak is not wrong. sent13: something does railroad and it is a transactinide if it is not a kind of a Karakalpak. sent14: the granddaughter is not myeloid and glazes seniti. sent15: if something that is not a kind of a transactinide is not a kind of a railroading it does not hew thriftshop. sent16: if something is not a kind of a Karakalpak it is not a transactinide and it does not railroad.

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

the pewter is transactinide.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pewter is not transactinide. ; $context$ = sent1: if the encolure diverges burro and is not a pack then the drunk-and-disorderly does narrate. sent2: the fact that something is not a abstemiousness and it is not a purgatory is not correct if it is a kind of a dialogue. sent3: if the granddaughter is non-myeloid thing that glazes seniti it is a dialogue. sent4: if the fact that something does narrate and/or is not a tensed is incorrect then it is not a carbamate. sent5: something is both tensed and not a Karakalpak if it is a carbamate. sent6: if the pewter is a kind of a mercury it does not railroad. sent7: something that does not railroad is not a transactinide. sent8: the fact that that the pewter is not a kind of a mercury and it does not hew thriftshop is right is false. sent9: something does diverge burro and does not pack if that that it is not a kind of a prickle-weed is not true is correct. sent10: the pewter is a carbamate if the drunk-and-disorderly does narrate. sent11: that the fact that the thermocoagulation does not hew stag and is not a Eocene is false is not false. sent12: if the pewter tenses but it is not a kind of a Karakalpak the fact that the stag is not a kind of a Karakalpak is not wrong. sent13: something does railroad and it is a transactinide if it is not a kind of a Karakalpak. sent14: the granddaughter is not myeloid and glazes seniti. sent15: if something that is not a kind of a transactinide is not a kind of a railroading it does not hew thriftshop. sent16: if something is not a kind of a Karakalpak it is not a transactinide and it does not railroad. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: if the pewter is not a kind of a railroading it is not a kind of a transactinide.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the shillelagh is a kind of a croak.

{B}{c}

sent1: the shillelagh does unbosom if there exists something such that that it is a Kama or it does croak or both is wrong. sent2: something is a Afghan. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is a footballer and it is servile is incorrect. sent4: if something does unbosom and/or it does not hew IPO then it does unbosom. sent5: the tovarich is not a mid-water if it is not top-down and does diverge alprazolam. sent6: that the semen does not unbosom is not incorrect if the tovarich is not a Kama. sent7: something does unbosom or it is a Kama or both. sent8: there exists something such that it is not a Kama. sent9: something is not tegular. sent10: the semen is a croak if there is something such that the fact that it does unbosom or it is a Kama or both does not hold. sent11: that the semen does unbosom or it is a Kama or both is wrong if the tovarich is not a Kama. sent12: there is something such that it does not unbosom. sent13: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Afghan and it is not tegular. sent14: if there exists something such that it is a Afghan that is not tegular then the tovarich is not a Kama. sent15: the semen does not unbosom or it is a kind of a mid-water or both. sent16: either something unbosoms or it does not hew IPO or both if it is not a mid-water. sent17: the tovarich is a Kama if there exists something such that the fact that it croaks or does unbosom or both is not correct. sent18: the tovarich is not a footballer if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a footballer and it is servile does not hold. sent19: that the semen does not unbosom is right. sent20: the shillelagh is not a Kama. sent21: if something is not a kind of a footballer then it is a kind of non-top-down thing that diverges alprazolam. sent22: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a croak or it is a Kama or both does not hold. sent23: there is something such that it is a Afghan and is tegular.

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

the shillelagh does not croak.

¬{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the shillelagh is a kind of a croak. ; $context$ = sent1: the shillelagh does unbosom if there exists something such that that it is a Kama or it does croak or both is wrong. sent2: something is a Afghan. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is a footballer and it is servile is incorrect. sent4: if something does unbosom and/or it does not hew IPO then it does unbosom. sent5: the tovarich is not a mid-water if it is not top-down and does diverge alprazolam. sent6: that the semen does not unbosom is not incorrect if the tovarich is not a Kama. sent7: something does unbosom or it is a Kama or both. sent8: there exists something such that it is not a Kama. sent9: something is not tegular. sent10: the semen is a croak if there is something such that the fact that it does unbosom or it is a Kama or both does not hold. sent11: that the semen does unbosom or it is a Kama or both is wrong if the tovarich is not a Kama. sent12: there is something such that it does not unbosom. sent13: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Afghan and it is not tegular. sent14: if there exists something such that it is a Afghan that is not tegular then the tovarich is not a Kama. sent15: the semen does not unbosom or it is a kind of a mid-water or both. sent16: either something unbosoms or it does not hew IPO or both if it is not a mid-water. sent17: the tovarich is a Kama if there exists something such that the fact that it croaks or does unbosom or both is not correct. sent18: the tovarich is not a footballer if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a footballer and it is servile does not hold. sent19: that the semen does not unbosom is right. sent20: the shillelagh is not a Kama. sent21: if something is not a kind of a footballer then it is a kind of non-top-down thing that diverges alprazolam. sent22: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a croak or it is a Kama or both does not hold. sent23: there is something such that it is a Afghan and is tegular. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent14 -> int1: the tovarich is not a Kama.; sent11 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the semen unbosoms and/or it is a kind of a Kama does not hold.; int2 -> int3: there is something such that the fact that it does unbosom and/or it is a kind of a Kama is incorrect.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the hewing parasailing occurs.

{A}

sent1: the hewing parasailing results in the flashing. sent2: the diverging dyewood occurs and/or the experientialness does not occur. sent3: the flashing does not occur or the decimalization does not occur or both. sent4: the glazing strongman occurs. sent5: the coursing happens. sent6: that the glazing handled does not occur is brought about by that not the dodging clouded but the wettingness occurs. sent7: the alkalimetry does not occur if not the glazing handled but the precession happens. sent8: if that the alkalimetry does not occur is correct then both the backflow and the vibrato occurs. sent9: the doctrinalness does not occur if that the hewing parasailing happens but the flash does not occur is not right. sent10: the aldehydicness does not occur. sent11: the decimalization does not occur if the backflow occurs. sent12: not the dodging clouded but the wettingness happens. sent13: if the decimalization does not occur then the fact that the hewing parasailing but not the flashing happens does not hold. sent14: if the flashing does not occur or the decimalization does not occur or both the flashing does not occur. sent15: the dodging bellwort occurs. sent16: the harmony does not occur.

sent1: {A} -> {B} sent2: ({BA} v ¬{AP}) sent3: (¬{B} v ¬{C}) sent4: {GF} sent5: {EI} sent6: (¬{K} & {J}) -> ¬{H} sent7: (¬{H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent8: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent9: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{BG} sent10: ¬{EH} sent11: {D} -> ¬{C} sent12: (¬{K} & {J}) sent13: ¬{C} -> ¬({A} & ¬{B}) sent14: (¬{B} v ¬{C}) -> ¬{B} sent15: {HT} sent16: ¬{IF}

the doctrinalness does not occur.

¬{BG}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hewing parasailing occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the hewing parasailing results in the flashing. sent2: the diverging dyewood occurs and/or the experientialness does not occur. sent3: the flashing does not occur or the decimalization does not occur or both. sent4: the glazing strongman occurs. sent5: the coursing happens. sent6: that the glazing handled does not occur is brought about by that not the dodging clouded but the wettingness occurs. sent7: the alkalimetry does not occur if not the glazing handled but the precession happens. sent8: if that the alkalimetry does not occur is correct then both the backflow and the vibrato occurs. sent9: the doctrinalness does not occur if that the hewing parasailing happens but the flash does not occur is not right. sent10: the aldehydicness does not occur. sent11: the decimalization does not occur if the backflow occurs. sent12: not the dodging clouded but the wettingness happens. sent13: if the decimalization does not occur then the fact that the hewing parasailing but not the flashing happens does not hold. sent14: if the flashing does not occur or the decimalization does not occur or both the flashing does not occur. sent15: the dodging bellwort occurs. sent16: the harmony does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the hewing parasailing occurs.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the flash happens.; sent14 & sent3 -> int2: the flashing does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the cooter does not glaze vellum is correct.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: the pheromone glazes cooter. sent2: the cooter glazes vellum if that the pheromone glazes vellum hold. sent3: the fact that the pheromone glazes vellum and does not glaze Atreus is false. sent4: if the cooter does glaze cooter then the pheromone glazes vellum and does not glaze Atreus. sent5: if the cooter glazes vellum the pheromone does glaze cooter. sent6: there is something such that it glazes Atreus. sent7: the cooter does glaze cooter and does not glaze Atreus if the pheromone glazes vellum. sent8: the fact that the elitist is an oleaster and is a otherworld does not hold. sent9: if the cooter does glaze vellum then the pheromone does glaze cooter but it does not glaze Atreus. sent10: if the cooter glazes Atreus then the pheromone does glaze cooter but it does not glaze vellum. sent11: the cooter does glaze Atreus but it does not glaze cooter if the pheromone does glaze vellum. sent12: the fact that the pheromone is not a otherworld is not false if there exists something such that the fact that it is an oleaster and it is a otherworld is false. sent13: if there is something such that it is not a otherworld the cooter does not glaze hilum but it is a Cebus. sent14: the fact that if the cooter glazes Atreus the pheromone glazes vellum but it does not glaze cooter is right. sent15: if the cooter does glaze cooter the pheromone does glaze Atreus but it does not glaze vellum.

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

the desertification does glaze cooter.

{AA}{cf}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the cooter does not glaze vellum is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the pheromone glazes cooter. sent2: the cooter glazes vellum if that the pheromone glazes vellum hold. sent3: the fact that the pheromone glazes vellum and does not glaze Atreus is false. sent4: if the cooter does glaze cooter then the pheromone glazes vellum and does not glaze Atreus. sent5: if the cooter glazes vellum the pheromone does glaze cooter. sent6: there is something such that it glazes Atreus. sent7: the cooter does glaze cooter and does not glaze Atreus if the pheromone glazes vellum. sent8: the fact that the elitist is an oleaster and is a otherworld does not hold. sent9: if the cooter does glaze vellum then the pheromone does glaze cooter but it does not glaze Atreus. sent10: if the cooter glazes Atreus then the pheromone does glaze cooter but it does not glaze vellum. sent11: the cooter does glaze Atreus but it does not glaze cooter if the pheromone does glaze vellum. sent12: the fact that the pheromone is not a otherworld is not false if there exists something such that the fact that it is an oleaster and it is a otherworld is false. sent13: if there is something such that it is not a otherworld the cooter does not glaze hilum but it is a Cebus. sent14: the fact that if the cooter glazes Atreus the pheromone glazes vellum but it does not glaze cooter is right. sent15: if the cooter does glaze cooter the pheromone does glaze Atreus but it does not glaze vellum. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cooter glazes vellum.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the pheromone does glaze cooter and does not glaze Atreus.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the lory is a kind of unhelpful thing that does not glaze metrification does not hold.

¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

sent1: the educationist constipates. sent2: something is unhelpful but it does not glaze metrification if it constipates. sent3: the lory is thermohydrometric but it does not diverge panchayat. sent4: that the cesium constipates hold. sent5: the lory does constipate. sent6: if the fact that the lory constipates is right then it is unhelpful.

sent1: {A}{fp} sent2: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: ({EA}{aa} & ¬{DS}{aa}) sent4: {A}{bf} sent5: {A}{aa} sent6: {A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the lory is a kind of unhelpful thing that does not glaze metrification does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the educationist constipates. sent2: something is unhelpful but it does not glaze metrification if it constipates. sent3: the lory is thermohydrometric but it does not diverge panchayat. sent4: that the cesium constipates hold. sent5: the lory does constipate. sent6: if the fact that the lory constipates is right then it is unhelpful. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the lory is unhelpful but it does not glaze metrification if that it constipates is right.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there exists something such that if the fact that it is larval and is unprophetic is false then it is not a kind of a shipyard is not correct.

¬((Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)

sent1: something is not ventilatory if the fact that it is a kind of a sapphirine and diverges Madoqua is not correct. sent2: if the fact that the sharksucker is larval and it is unprophetic is wrong the fact that it is a kind of a shipyard is true. sent3: the sharksucker does not hew witching if that it is a kind of a Chinook and is larval is not correct. sent4: if that something is a kind of a carafe and it is cochlear does not hold it does not waft. sent5: there exists something such that if that it is earless and submissive does not hold it is not a kind of a Bhutanese. sent6: there exists something such that if it is larval and it is unprophetic then it is not a shipyard. sent7: the sharksucker is not a shipyard if it is not unprophetic. sent8: the sharksucker is not a shipyard if the fact that it is larval and it is unprophetic is right. sent9: there exists something such that if that it is larval thing that is unprophetic is false then it is a shipyard. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not unprophetic it is not a kind of a shipyard. sent11: if that the sharksucker is larval and it is unprophetic is wrong it is not a shipyard. sent12: there exists something such that if it is not larval it is not a kind of a shipyard.

sent1: (x): ¬({GS}x & {DL}x) -> ¬{DU}x sent2: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent3: ¬({BH}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) -> ¬{HF}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬({BG}x & {T}x) -> ¬{EM}x sent5: (Ex): ¬({DN}x & {BK}x) -> ¬{DK}x sent6: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent8: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent9: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent11: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent12: (Ex): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x

there exists something such that if the fact that it is a carafe and it is not non-cochlear does not hold then it does not waft.

(Ex): ¬({BG}x & {T}x) -> ¬{EM}x

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if the fact that it is larval and is unprophetic is false then it is not a kind of a shipyard is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not ventilatory if the fact that it is a kind of a sapphirine and diverges Madoqua is not correct. sent2: if the fact that the sharksucker is larval and it is unprophetic is wrong the fact that it is a kind of a shipyard is true. sent3: the sharksucker does not hew witching if that it is a kind of a Chinook and is larval is not correct. sent4: if that something is a kind of a carafe and it is cochlear does not hold it does not waft. sent5: there exists something such that if that it is earless and submissive does not hold it is not a kind of a Bhutanese. sent6: there exists something such that if it is larval and it is unprophetic then it is not a shipyard. sent7: the sharksucker is not a shipyard if it is not unprophetic. sent8: the sharksucker is not a shipyard if the fact that it is larval and it is unprophetic is right. sent9: there exists something such that if that it is larval thing that is unprophetic is false then it is a shipyard. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not unprophetic it is not a kind of a shipyard. sent11: if that the sharksucker is larval and it is unprophetic is wrong it is not a shipyard. sent12: there exists something such that if it is not larval it is not a kind of a shipyard. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the exception does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: the chinking happens. sent2: if the carvel-builtness happens then the diverging mulligan happens. sent3: the commission occurs. sent4: the carvel-builtness happens. sent5: that the electrocautery occurs and the diverging mulligan occurs causes that the exception does not occur. sent6: the electrocautery and the diverging chime occurs.

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the exception does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the chinking happens. sent2: if the carvel-builtness happens then the diverging mulligan happens. sent3: the commission occurs. sent4: the carvel-builtness happens. sent5: that the electrocautery occurs and the diverging mulligan occurs causes that the exception does not occur. sent6: the electrocautery and the diverging chime occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the diverging mulligan happens.; sent6 -> int2: the electrocautery happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the electrocautery occurs and the diverging mulligan happens.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the rampart does diverge deactivation and glares.

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

sent1: that the brocket is a contact and gallivants does not hold if the ceriman is not a farmstead. sent2: if the infiltration does not gallivant the rampart is both not a glare and not wearable. sent3: the infiltration does not gallivant if the fact that the brocket is a contact and does gallivant is not true. sent4: something is a contact and/or does not gallivant if it is not a farmstead. sent5: there is something such that that it is not wearable and gallivants is wrong. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is not wearable and does not gallivant does not hold. sent7: the groundsel is technological. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does not glaze Eck and is not a kind of a fellow does not hold. sent9: the groundsel does glaze Eck. sent10: there exists something such that it is a koumiss. sent11: something that is not a glare is a kind of a koumiss and does diverge deactivation. sent12: if there exists something such that that it does not glaze Eck and it is not a fellow does not hold then the brocket is not a kind of a farmstead. sent13: there is something such that that it is non-categorematic a barter does not hold. sent14: the potassium is not a brim and is a koumiss. sent15: something is not wearable if that it is both wearable and not a fellow is not correct. sent16: if there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is not wearable and it does not gallivant is right is not true then the rampart is a glare. sent17: that the infiltration is wearable but it is not a kind of a fellow does not hold if the type does flag. sent18: the type does flag if there exists something such that that the fact that it is non-categorematic and it does barter is not false is not correct.

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

that the rampart diverges deactivation and glares does not hold.

¬({A}{a} & {B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the rampart does diverge deactivation and glares. ; $context$ = sent1: that the brocket is a contact and gallivants does not hold if the ceriman is not a farmstead. sent2: if the infiltration does not gallivant the rampart is both not a glare and not wearable. sent3: the infiltration does not gallivant if the fact that the brocket is a contact and does gallivant is not true. sent4: something is a contact and/or does not gallivant if it is not a farmstead. sent5: there is something such that that it is not wearable and gallivants is wrong. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is not wearable and does not gallivant does not hold. sent7: the groundsel is technological. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does not glaze Eck and is not a kind of a fellow does not hold. sent9: the groundsel does glaze Eck. sent10: there exists something such that it is a koumiss. sent11: something that is not a glare is a kind of a koumiss and does diverge deactivation. sent12: if there exists something such that that it does not glaze Eck and it is not a fellow does not hold then the brocket is not a kind of a farmstead. sent13: there is something such that that it is non-categorematic a barter does not hold. sent14: the potassium is not a brim and is a koumiss. sent15: something is not wearable if that it is both wearable and not a fellow is not correct. sent16: if there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is not wearable and it does not gallivant is right is not true then the rampart is a glare. sent17: that the infiltration is wearable but it is not a kind of a fellow does not hold if the type does flag. sent18: the type does flag if there exists something such that that the fact that it is non-categorematic and it does barter is not false is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent14 -> int1: there exists something such that it is not a brim and it is a kind of a koumiss.; sent6 & sent16 -> int2: the rampart is a glare.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the infection does not hew presumption hold.

¬{C}{a}

sent1: if either the rheumatic is not non-Cyrillic or it scrubs or both the infection does not hew presumption. sent2: if the larkspur is a kind of a Cyrillic then the personification is a kind of a Cyrillic. sent3: something is a scrub if the fact that it is not a resale and it is not a kind of a songbird is false. sent4: if the personification is not non-Cyrillic that that the rain-wash does not hew presumption and it does not scrub is not true hold.

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

the infection does hew presumption.

{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the infection does not hew presumption hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if either the rheumatic is not non-Cyrillic or it scrubs or both the infection does not hew presumption. sent2: if the larkspur is a kind of a Cyrillic then the personification is a kind of a Cyrillic. sent3: something is a scrub if the fact that it is not a resale and it is not a kind of a songbird is false. sent4: if the personification is not non-Cyrillic that that the rain-wash does not hew presumption and it does not scrub is not true hold. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the rheumatic scrubs if that it is not a resale and it is not a songbird is incorrect.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the sibyl is not a snowmobile.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: the fact that the hornpout quarters but it is not a kind of a rockabilly is not right. sent2: if the nacelle does snowmobile then the sibyl is not a kind of a snowmobile. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a quarter that is not a kind of a rockabilly is not correct then the sibyl is seedy. sent4: if the sibyl is seedy it does snowmobile. sent5: the pulsation is seedy.

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

the sibyl does not snowmobile.

¬{B}{a}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sibyl is not a snowmobile. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the hornpout quarters but it is not a kind of a rockabilly is not right. sent2: if the nacelle does snowmobile then the sibyl is not a kind of a snowmobile. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a quarter that is not a kind of a rockabilly is not correct then the sibyl is seedy. sent4: if the sibyl is seedy it does snowmobile. sent5: the pulsation is seedy. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a quarter that is not a kind of a rockabilly does not hold.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the sibyl is seedy.; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the spellbinder is non-suburban.

¬{C}{d}

sent1: if something is not a kind of a proturan that it glazes viscountcy and does glaze dreamer is false. sent2: if something is not an embolism it is suburban and it is not starry. sent3: something is morphophonemics and is a kind of a Libreville if it is not a colleen. sent4: everything is not a proturan. sent5: the star is not an embolism if there exists something such that the fact that it glazes viscountcy and it does glaze dreamer is incorrect. sent6: the star does not diverge cynancum. sent7: if the chimneysweeper is a kind of a colleen the tandem is a kind of a Libreville. sent8: the star is not confident. sent9: if the chimneysweeper is suburban then the spellbinder is not a colleen. sent10: the spellbinder is not suburban if the tandem is a Libreville. sent11: the star does not diverge cynancum and is not morphophonemics. sent12: if the star is suburban thing that is non-starry the fact that the tiger is not a colleen is not wrong.

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

the tiger is morphophonemics.

{AB}{au}

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the spellbinder is non-suburban. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a kind of a proturan that it glazes viscountcy and does glaze dreamer is false. sent2: if something is not an embolism it is suburban and it is not starry. sent3: something is morphophonemics and is a kind of a Libreville if it is not a colleen. sent4: everything is not a proturan. sent5: the star is not an embolism if there exists something such that the fact that it glazes viscountcy and it does glaze dreamer is incorrect. sent6: the star does not diverge cynancum. sent7: if the chimneysweeper is a kind of a colleen the tandem is a kind of a Libreville. sent8: the star is not confident. sent9: if the chimneysweeper is suburban then the spellbinder is not a colleen. sent10: the spellbinder is not suburban if the tandem is a Libreville. sent11: the star does not diverge cynancum and is not morphophonemics. sent12: if the star is suburban thing that is non-starry the fact that the tiger is not a colleen is not wrong. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the quadrant is multiform.

{E}{b}

sent1: if the fact that the grazier is amethystine but not a peso does not hold the calcium is not textual. sent2: if the Washingtonian is not a kind of a ruminant but it is a Phanerozoic then the grazier is not a blitz. sent3: something that is not a Lysimachus is both not ruminant and a Phanerozoic. sent4: the calcium is a wanderer. sent5: something is amethystine if it is a peso. sent6: that the quadrant is multiform is not incorrect if the calcium is amethystine. sent7: either something is not multiform or it is not a wanderer or both if it is not textual. sent8: the calcium is textual thing that is a wanderer.

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

the quadrant is not multiform.

¬{E}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the quadrant is multiform. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the grazier is amethystine but not a peso does not hold the calcium is not textual. sent2: if the Washingtonian is not a kind of a ruminant but it is a Phanerozoic then the grazier is not a blitz. sent3: something that is not a Lysimachus is both not ruminant and a Phanerozoic. sent4: the calcium is a wanderer. sent5: something is amethystine if it is a peso. sent6: that the quadrant is multiform is not incorrect if the calcium is amethystine. sent7: either something is not multiform or it is not a wanderer or both if it is not textual. sent8: the calcium is textual thing that is a wanderer. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the calcium is textual.; sent5 -> int2: the calcium is amethystine if it is a peso.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the glowworm is Hispaniolan and it diverges assassin.

({B}{c} & {C}{c})

sent1: the fact that the Spark begs but it is not a kind of a gametoecium is wrong. sent2: the glowworm is Hispaniolan if the fact that the drunk-and-disorderly is a gametoecium is true. sent3: the fact that something is Hispaniolan and it does diverge assassin is not right if it does not beg. sent4: the fact that the drunk-and-disorderly diverges U and is a gametoecium does not hold. sent5: if the drunk-and-disorderly does diverge mercaptopurine it is electromechanical. sent6: the cosy is not a kind of a gametoecium if it does not beg. sent7: the glowworm is Hispaniolan if that the drunk-and-disorderly diverges U but it is not a gametoecium is wrong. sent8: the fact that that the drunk-and-disorderly does diverge U and is not a kind of a gametoecium is not true is not incorrect if the Spark does not beg. sent9: the glowworm does diverge assassin. sent10: The assassin does diverge glowworm.

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

that the glowworm is Hispaniolan and does diverge assassin does not hold.

¬({B}{c} & {C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the glowworm is Hispaniolan and it diverges assassin. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Spark begs but it is not a kind of a gametoecium is wrong. sent2: the glowworm is Hispaniolan if the fact that the drunk-and-disorderly is a gametoecium is true. sent3: the fact that something is Hispaniolan and it does diverge assassin is not right if it does not beg. sent4: the fact that the drunk-and-disorderly diverges U and is a gametoecium does not hold. sent5: if the drunk-and-disorderly does diverge mercaptopurine it is electromechanical. sent6: the cosy is not a kind of a gametoecium if it does not beg. sent7: the glowworm is Hispaniolan if that the drunk-and-disorderly diverges U but it is not a gametoecium is wrong. sent8: the fact that that the drunk-and-disorderly does diverge U and is not a kind of a gametoecium is not true is not incorrect if the Spark does not beg. sent9: the glowworm does diverge assassin. sent10: The assassin does diverge glowworm. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the soporific is a epicureanism.

{C}{b}

sent1: the soporific is not a epicureanism if the Israeli is a nutshell and/or bodily. sent2: the soporific is a epicureanism if the Israeli is a epicureanism. sent3: if that something is not a nutshell and it is not a epicureanism does not hold it is bodily. sent4: the Israeli is bodily.

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

the soporific is a epicureanism.

{C}{b}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the soporific is a epicureanism. ; $context$ = sent1: the soporific is not a epicureanism if the Israeli is a nutshell and/or bodily. sent2: the soporific is a epicureanism if the Israeli is a epicureanism. sent3: if that something is not a nutshell and it is not a epicureanism does not hold it is bodily. sent4: the Israeli is bodily. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: either the Israeli is a nutshell or it is bodily or both.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that something is not equitable is not right.

¬((Ex): ¬{B}x)

sent1: if the saxhorn is agrologic but it is not procedural then it is not a ampulla. sent2: a subtrahend that is not a welcher is not procedural. sent3: if something does intersect but it is not bicameral it does not glaze novelty. sent4: The yardman diverges berm. sent5: the berm diverges yardman. sent6: there exists something such that it is equitable. sent7: there is something such that it shelters. sent8: if something is a kind of a shelter then the fact that the sandbox is a kind of nontechnical a step does not hold. sent9: the berm is not procedural. sent10: the Pathan is not procedural if the Bluegrass is not equitable and it is not procedural. sent11: the novelty does not diverge yardman. sent12: there exists something such that it is unattributable. sent13: if something diverges yardman but it is not procedural it is not equitable. sent14: the Bluegrass is not equitable if the oboe is not responsive.

sent1: ({L}{aq} & ¬{AB}{aq}) -> ¬{CR}{aq} sent2: (x): ({C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent3: (x): ({DU}x & ¬{GC}x) -> ¬{AK}x sent4: {AC}{ab} sent5: {AA}{aa} sent6: (Ex): {B}x sent7: (Ex): {G}x sent8: (x): {G}x -> ¬(¬{E}{c} & {F}{c}) sent9: ¬{AB}{aa} sent10: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{bk} sent11: ¬{AA}{ej} sent12: (Ex): {I}x sent13: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent14: ¬{H}{d} -> ¬{B}{a}

the Pathan is not procedural.

¬{AB}{bk}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that something is not equitable is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the saxhorn is agrologic but it is not procedural then it is not a ampulla. sent2: a subtrahend that is not a welcher is not procedural. sent3: if something does intersect but it is not bicameral it does not glaze novelty. sent4: The yardman diverges berm. sent5: the berm diverges yardman. sent6: there exists something such that it is equitable. sent7: there is something such that it shelters. sent8: if something is a kind of a shelter then the fact that the sandbox is a kind of nontechnical a step does not hold. sent9: the berm is not procedural. sent10: the Pathan is not procedural if the Bluegrass is not equitable and it is not procedural. sent11: the novelty does not diverge yardman. sent12: there exists something such that it is unattributable. sent13: if something diverges yardman but it is not procedural it is not equitable. sent14: the Bluegrass is not equitable if the oboe is not responsive. ; $proof$ =

sent13 -> int1: if the berm diverges yardman but it is not procedural then it is not equitable.; sent5 & sent9 -> int2: the berm does diverge yardman and is not procedural.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the berm is not equitable hold.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the pupil does not glaze bathyscaphe.

¬{C}{a}

sent1: everything is non-cross-sentential. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not instructional and it is a subcontractor is not correct. sent3: that something is both not an incubation and a alpinist is not correct if it is not a subcontractor. sent4: if the fact that something is not an incubation but it is a alpinist is false then it is not a kind of a alpinist. sent5: if something is non-mortuary and it is not agronomic it does not diverge roundhouse. sent6: something is premenopausal if the fact that the fact that it is not a siderite and diverges roundhouse is correct is incorrect. sent7: if there is something such that that it is not instructional but a subcontractor does not hold the banquette is not a subcontractor. sent8: the Saracen is not mortuary and not agronomic if the banquette is not a kind of a alpinist. sent9: if something diverges sperm that it does not glaze bathyscaphe and it is not premenopausal is not correct. sent10: if something is non-cross-sentential and diverges synset it does not diverge sperm. sent11: if the ferricyanide does not diverge sperm and is premenopausal then the pupil does not glaze bathyscaphe. sent12: if that something does not glaze bathyscaphe and is not premenopausal is not right then it glaze bathyscaphe. sent13: that the ferricyanide is not a siderite and diverges roundhouse is incorrect if it is not agronomic. sent14: if the aspen is a kind of a siderite the pupil does diverge sperm. sent15: if the ferricyanide is a siderite then it is premenopausal. sent16: the fact that something is premenopausal is not false if it is a siderite. sent17: everything does not hew feeder and it does dangle. sent18: everything is not cross-sentential and it diverges synset.

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

the pupil does glaze bathyscaphe.

{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pupil does not glaze bathyscaphe. ; $context$ = sent1: everything is non-cross-sentential. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not instructional and it is a subcontractor is not correct. sent3: that something is both not an incubation and a alpinist is not correct if it is not a subcontractor. sent4: if the fact that something is not an incubation but it is a alpinist is false then it is not a kind of a alpinist. sent5: if something is non-mortuary and it is not agronomic it does not diverge roundhouse. sent6: something is premenopausal if the fact that the fact that it is not a siderite and diverges roundhouse is correct is incorrect. sent7: if there is something such that that it is not instructional but a subcontractor does not hold the banquette is not a subcontractor. sent8: the Saracen is not mortuary and not agronomic if the banquette is not a kind of a alpinist. sent9: if something diverges sperm that it does not glaze bathyscaphe and it is not premenopausal is not correct. sent10: if something is non-cross-sentential and diverges synset it does not diverge sperm. sent11: if the ferricyanide does not diverge sperm and is premenopausal then the pupil does not glaze bathyscaphe. sent12: if that something does not glaze bathyscaphe and is not premenopausal is not right then it glaze bathyscaphe. sent13: that the ferricyanide is not a siderite and diverges roundhouse is incorrect if it is not agronomic. sent14: if the aspen is a kind of a siderite the pupil does diverge sperm. sent15: if the ferricyanide is a siderite then it is premenopausal. sent16: the fact that something is premenopausal is not false if it is a siderite. sent17: everything does not hew feeder and it does dangle. sent18: everything is not cross-sentential and it diverges synset. ; $proof$ =

sent18 -> int1: the ferricyanide is non-cross-sentential and does diverge synset.; sent10 -> int2: the ferricyanide does not diverge sperm if it is not cross-sentential and diverges synset.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the ferricyanide does not diverge sperm.; sent6 -> int4: the ferricyanide is premenopausal if the fact that it is not a siderite and it does diverge roundhouse is not right.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there is something such that if it does not glaze ejaculation it is a stringency is incorrect.

¬((Ex): ¬{B}x -> {C}x)

sent1: if that the adder does not diverge corrugation is not wrong it is archival. sent2: something is a Guam if it is not a kind of a pogonophoran. sent3: there is something such that if it is not a Pomolobus then it is a disinfestation. sent4: if the reticulum is not testamentary it blinds. sent5: if that the suture is a curse is not false then it glazes ejaculation. sent6: the adder humors if it does glaze ejaculation. sent7: there is something such that if it is dangerous then the fact that it is a stand hold. sent8: if the adder does not glaze ejaculation it is a stringency. sent9: that the adder is joyful hold if it diverges naturalization.

sent1: ¬{JG}{aa} -> {BD}{aa} sent2: (x): ¬{S}x -> {IK}x sent3: (Ex): ¬{GA}x -> {AC}x sent4: ¬{HR}{dr} -> {HS}{dr} sent5: {BA}{ji} -> {B}{ji} sent6: {B}{aa} -> {HE}{aa} sent7: (Ex): {DT}x -> {IT}x sent8: ¬{B}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent9: {DE}{aa} -> {F}{aa}

there is something such that if it is not a pogonophoran it is a Guam.

(Ex): ¬{S}x -> {IK}x

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it does not glaze ejaculation it is a stringency is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the adder does not diverge corrugation is not wrong it is archival. sent2: something is a Guam if it is not a kind of a pogonophoran. sent3: there is something such that if it is not a Pomolobus then it is a disinfestation. sent4: if the reticulum is not testamentary it blinds. sent5: if that the suture is a curse is not false then it glazes ejaculation. sent6: the adder humors if it does glaze ejaculation. sent7: there is something such that if it is dangerous then the fact that it is a stand hold. sent8: if the adder does not glaze ejaculation it is a stringency. sent9: that the adder is joyful hold if it diverges naturalization. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there exists something such that if it is tonsorial it is a crocheting and not an inside is not true.

¬((Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x))

sent1: something is Mercurial and does not diverge scandalmonger if it diverges flagship. sent2: that the woodwork is not an inside is right if it is tonsorial. sent3: there exists something such that if it dodges tough then it is a contents that is bacteriostatic. sent4: there is something such that if it is tonsorial the fact that it is a crocheting hold. sent5: the woodwork is a kind of a crocheting that is not an inside if it is tonsorial.

sent1: (x): {HR}x -> ({DP}x & ¬{GM}x) sent2: {A}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent3: (Ex): {DI}x -> ({HT}x & {HK}x) sent4: (Ex): {A}x -> {AA}x sent5: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

there is something such that if it diverges flagship then it is Mercurial and it does not diverge scandalmonger.

(Ex): {HR}x -> ({DP}x & ¬{GM}x)

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is tonsorial it is a crocheting and not an inside is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: something is Mercurial and does not diverge scandalmonger if it diverges flagship. sent2: that the woodwork is not an inside is right if it is tonsorial. sent3: there exists something such that if it dodges tough then it is a contents that is bacteriostatic. sent4: there is something such that if it is tonsorial the fact that it is a crocheting hold. sent5: the woodwork is a kind of a crocheting that is not an inside if it is tonsorial. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the suricate is not felicitous is not false.

¬{E}{d}

sent1: the suricate is not felicitous if the uncle does jell. sent2: that the carbide does not jell and it is not distributional is wrong if it is not felicitous. sent3: if the carbide is not distributional the suricate is felicitous and it does dodge Picidae. sent4: if that the uncle does not diverge Centrarchidae and does not jell is incorrect the suricate is not felicitous. sent5: that that the uncle does not diverge Centrarchidae but it gels is true is not right if the fact that the eel does dodge Picidae is not wrong. sent6: something that gels is a kind of non-distributional thing that diverges Centrarchidae. sent7: the eel is distributional if the carbide is not a transgression but it is not easy. sent8: the carbide is both not a transgression and uneasy. sent9: if that something does not hew Anglicization and/or it is crystalline does not hold it is not felicitous. sent10: if something dodges Picidae it does diverge Centrarchidae. sent11: the carbide is uneasy. sent12: something that is distributional does dodge Picidae. sent13: the fact that the uncle does not diverge Centrarchidae but it gels is not right.

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

the suricate is felicitous.

{E}{d}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the suricate is not felicitous is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the suricate is not felicitous if the uncle does jell. sent2: that the carbide does not jell and it is not distributional is wrong if it is not felicitous. sent3: if the carbide is not distributional the suricate is felicitous and it does dodge Picidae. sent4: if that the uncle does not diverge Centrarchidae and does not jell is incorrect the suricate is not felicitous. sent5: that that the uncle does not diverge Centrarchidae but it gels is true is not right if the fact that the eel does dodge Picidae is not wrong. sent6: something that gels is a kind of non-distributional thing that diverges Centrarchidae. sent7: the eel is distributional if the carbide is not a transgression but it is not easy. sent8: the carbide is both not a transgression and uneasy. sent9: if that something does not hew Anglicization and/or it is crystalline does not hold it is not felicitous. sent10: if something dodges Picidae it does diverge Centrarchidae. sent11: the carbide is uneasy. sent12: something that is distributional does dodge Picidae. sent13: the fact that the uncle does not diverge Centrarchidae but it gels is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the eel is distributional.; sent12 -> int2: if the eel is distributional it dodges Picidae.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the eel dodges Picidae.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the attack is a formation and not opened is not true.

¬({E}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

sent1: if something does not diverge clouded then it is not joyous. sent2: the ten is a muscle and is a surfacing. sent3: something does not open if that the fact that it is a muscle or it is not sternal or both is not incorrect is not right. sent4: if the workhorse is not an opened then the fact that the attack is a formation and does not opened is incorrect. sent5: something that is sternal and does not surface muscles. sent6: something that is a muscle is a formation that does not open. sent7: there exists something such that that it is not a tamale and diverges clouded is not right.

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

the attack is a kind of a formation but it does not open.

({E}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the attack is a formation and not opened is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not diverge clouded then it is not joyous. sent2: the ten is a muscle and is a surfacing. sent3: something does not open if that the fact that it is a muscle or it is not sternal or both is not incorrect is not right. sent4: if the workhorse is not an opened then the fact that the attack is a formation and does not opened is incorrect. sent5: something that is sternal and does not surface muscles. sent6: something that is a muscle is a formation that does not open. sent7: there exists something such that that it is not a tamale and diverges clouded is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the ten is a muscle.; sent3 -> int2: the workhorse is not a kind of an opened if the fact that it is a muscle and/or it is not sternal is wrong.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the Roman does not occur but the whipping happens.

(¬{A} & {B})

sent1: if the fact that not the dodging like but the unchristianness happens is not correct the unchristianness does not occur. sent2: that the print does not occur brings about that the electromechanicalness and the dodging Crex occurs. sent3: if the unchristianness does not occur then the fact that the Romanness does not occur and the whipping happens does not hold. sent4: the whipping happens. sent5: that the fact that both the crosstalk and the non-superficialness occurs is not right is true if the dodging Crex occurs. sent6: the argument happens. sent7: if the fact that both the crosstalk and the non-superficialness occurs is false then the glazing exocrine does not occur. sent8: if the unchristianness does not occur then the whipping does not occur or the Roman does not occur or both. sent9: if the glazing exocrine does not occur that the dodging like does not occur but the unchristianness happens is incorrect. sent10: the Roman does not occur.

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

the fact that not the Romanness but the whipping occurs is not right.

¬(¬{A} & {B})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Roman does not occur but the whipping happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that not the dodging like but the unchristianness happens is not correct the unchristianness does not occur. sent2: that the print does not occur brings about that the electromechanicalness and the dodging Crex occurs. sent3: if the unchristianness does not occur then the fact that the Romanness does not occur and the whipping happens does not hold. sent4: the whipping happens. sent5: that the fact that both the crosstalk and the non-superficialness occurs is not right is true if the dodging Crex occurs. sent6: the argument happens. sent7: if the fact that both the crosstalk and the non-superficialness occurs is false then the glazing exocrine does not occur. sent8: if the unchristianness does not occur then the whipping does not occur or the Roman does not occur or both. sent9: if the glazing exocrine does not occur that the dodging like does not occur but the unchristianness happens is incorrect. sent10: the Roman does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the hydrographicness does not occur is not incorrect.

¬{C}

sent1: that the scandal occurs and the easiness does not occur is not right. sent2: the hydrographicness does not occur if the fact that the pitter-patter does not occur and the diverging Zostera does not occur is not correct. sent3: the fact that the diverging locksmith does not occur but the suffocating occurs is false. sent4: that the pitter-patter happens results in the hydrographicness.

sent1: ¬({EL} & ¬{HR}) sent2: ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{C} sent3: ¬(¬{FO} & {FB}) sent4: {A} -> {C}

the hydrographicness happens.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the hydrographicness does not occur is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the scandal occurs and the easiness does not occur is not right. sent2: the hydrographicness does not occur if the fact that the pitter-patter does not occur and the diverging Zostera does not occur is not correct. sent3: the fact that the diverging locksmith does not occur but the suffocating occurs is false. sent4: that the pitter-patter happens results in the hydrographicness. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pitter-patter does not occur and the diverging Zostera does not occur.; assump1 -> int1: the diverging Zostera does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the schlock is a kind of a Epictetus.

{B}{b}

sent1: the Bantu invests if there is something such that that it is not nonphotosynthetic and it is not a Kendall is not right. sent2: if the Bantu invests the schlock is a kind of a Epictetus.

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the schlock is a kind of a Epictetus. ; $context$ = sent1: the Bantu invests if there is something such that that it is not nonphotosynthetic and it is not a Kendall is not right. sent2: if the Bantu invests the schlock is a kind of a Epictetus. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the survivor does repine.

{A}{aa}

sent1: something does repine if that it is not a folio and it does not diverge wit does not hold. sent2: the survivor does boogie. sent3: there exists nothing such that it is not a folio and does not diverge wit. sent4: that something does dodge pilferage or is not a Madoqua or both does not hold if it is a basic. sent5: there exists nothing such that it hews chime and it is not a viper. sent6: something is a folio if the fact that it is not a osteocyte and does not diverge proclamation does not hold. sent7: if the fact that something dodges pilferage and/or it is not a Madoqua is incorrect then it does not repine. sent8: that the fact that the survivor is a folio that does not diverge wit does not hold hold. sent9: there exists nothing such that it is not low-level and it does not glaze smoulder. sent10: there exists nothing such that it is necrotic and it is not a correlation.

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}x sent2: {GU}{aa} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: (x): {D}x -> ¬({B}x v ¬{C}x) sent5: (x): ¬({HS}x & ¬{GI}x) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{BB}x & ¬{EH}x) -> {AA}x sent7: (x): ¬({B}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent8: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{FT}x & ¬{FP}x) sent10: (x): ¬({EQ}x & ¬{FK}x)

that the survivor does not repine is not incorrect.

¬{A}{aa}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the survivor does repine. ; $context$ = sent1: something does repine if that it is not a folio and it does not diverge wit does not hold. sent2: the survivor does boogie. sent3: there exists nothing such that it is not a folio and does not diverge wit. sent4: that something does dodge pilferage or is not a Madoqua or both does not hold if it is a basic. sent5: there exists nothing such that it hews chime and it is not a viper. sent6: something is a folio if the fact that it is not a osteocyte and does not diverge proclamation does not hold. sent7: if the fact that something dodges pilferage and/or it is not a Madoqua is incorrect then it does not repine. sent8: that the fact that the survivor is a folio that does not diverge wit does not hold hold. sent9: there exists nothing such that it is not low-level and it does not glaze smoulder. sent10: there exists nothing such that it is necrotic and it is not a correlation. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the fact that the survivor is not a folio and it does not diverge wit is not right.; sent1 -> int2: if that the survivor is not a folio and it does not diverge wit does not hold it does repine.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it does not diverge Handy.

(Ex): ¬{A}x

sent1: there are unworldly things. sent2: something is not a piper and does not list if it diverges Handy. sent3: the sentimentalist does not diverge Handy if there exists something such that that it is not a seafront and is not normotensive hold. sent4: the skull is not a seafront and it is not normotensive. sent5: there are non-normotensive things. sent6: the skull does not hew skull.

sent1: (Ex): ¬{GB}x sent2: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AG}x & ¬{AK}x) sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent4: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent5: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent6: ¬{EE}{aa}

there is something such that it is not a kind of a piper and it does not list.

(Ex): (¬{AG}x & ¬{AK}x)

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it does not diverge Handy. ; $context$ = sent1: there are unworldly things. sent2: something is not a piper and does not list if it diverges Handy. sent3: the sentimentalist does not diverge Handy if there exists something such that that it is not a seafront and is not normotensive hold. sent4: the skull is not a seafront and it is not normotensive. sent5: there are non-normotensive things. sent6: the skull does not hew skull. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: something is both not a seafront and not normotensive.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the sentimentalist does not diverge Handy.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the yardman moors and/or is a measured.

({B}{a} v {A}{a})

sent1: if the fact that the almanac does diverge yardman but it is not rosaceous is false then the strongman does not diverge yardman. sent2: if something does not diverge yardman that the fact that it does not glaze introduction and it does diverge Spica is correct is false. sent3: the yardman is not a Wilkinson. sent4: if something diverges Spica then it is a Carpinus. sent5: the mews does diverge Spica if the fact that the strongman does not glaze introduction but it diverge Spica is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the yardman is not a mooring but it measures is wrong if it is a Carpinus. sent7: if the mews is a kind of a Carpinus the yardman is a Carpinus. sent8: if something is not a Wilkinson and it does not diverge anticipation the yardman does measure. sent9: the almanac is rosaceous thing that diverges yardman. sent10: either the strongman does not diverge Spica or it glazes introduction or both if something diverges yardman.

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

that either the yardman does moor or it measures or both is not correct.

¬({B}{a} v {A}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the yardman moors and/or is a measured. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the almanac does diverge yardman but it is not rosaceous is false then the strongman does not diverge yardman. sent2: if something does not diverge yardman that the fact that it does not glaze introduction and it does diverge Spica is correct is false. sent3: the yardman is not a Wilkinson. sent4: if something diverges Spica then it is a Carpinus. sent5: the mews does diverge Spica if the fact that the strongman does not glaze introduction but it diverge Spica is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the yardman is not a mooring but it measures is wrong if it is a Carpinus. sent7: if the mews is a kind of a Carpinus the yardman is a Carpinus. sent8: if something is not a Wilkinson and it does not diverge anticipation the yardman does measure. sent9: the almanac is rosaceous thing that diverges yardman. sent10: either the strongman does not diverge Spica or it glazes introduction or both if something diverges yardman. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the coax does not hew dolor.

¬{E}{c}

sent1: if something is not catalytic and does glaze detail then it is not a Samaritan. sent2: that the raglan does not glaze exercise and does not shuck does not hold. sent3: if that the teletypewriter is a Samaritan and it is a angwantibo is incorrect the extremity is not a angwantibo. sent4: the grease-gun glazes detail. sent5: the borrower does not dodge extremity. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it is non-abranchiate a Gyrinidae is false then the fluorine does glaze doweling. sent7: if something does not dodge clouded the fact that it is a Samaritan and is a angwantibo is false. sent8: the grease-gun does glaze courtliness but it is not an inverse if the fact that the fluorine glazes doweling is right. sent9: something is not a Samaritan if it dodges clouded. sent10: something is instructive if it does not diverge Brobdingnag. sent11: the fact that the marjoram is not abranchiate but it is a Gyrinidae is incorrect if there are instructive things. sent12: something is not a Samaritan if it is a angwantibo. sent13: that the grease-gun is not catalytic and dodges clouded is not correct. sent14: the teletypewriter is a angwantibo. sent15: that the teletypewriter does not glaze courtliness and hews dolor is incorrect if the fact that the grease-gun glazes doweling is right. sent16: a pelvic thing is instructive. sent17: if there exists something such that it does not dodge extremity the zero is pelvic and/or it does not diverge Brobdingnag. sent18: something does not hew dolor if that it does not dodge clouded and it is not an inverse is not true. sent19: the fact that the coax does not dodge clouded and is not an inverse is incorrect if the grease-gun is not a Samaritan. sent20: if the grease-gun glazes courtliness but it is not an inverse then the fact that the teletypewriter dodges clouded is correct.

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

the extremity is a kind of an inverse.

{D}{an}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the coax does not hew dolor. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not catalytic and does glaze detail then it is not a Samaritan. sent2: that the raglan does not glaze exercise and does not shuck does not hold. sent3: if that the teletypewriter is a Samaritan and it is a angwantibo is incorrect the extremity is not a angwantibo. sent4: the grease-gun glazes detail. sent5: the borrower does not dodge extremity. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it is non-abranchiate a Gyrinidae is false then the fluorine does glaze doweling. sent7: if something does not dodge clouded the fact that it is a Samaritan and is a angwantibo is false. sent8: the grease-gun does glaze courtliness but it is not an inverse if the fact that the fluorine glazes doweling is right. sent9: something is not a Samaritan if it dodges clouded. sent10: something is instructive if it does not diverge Brobdingnag. sent11: the fact that the marjoram is not abranchiate but it is a Gyrinidae is incorrect if there are instructive things. sent12: something is not a Samaritan if it is a angwantibo. sent13: that the grease-gun is not catalytic and dodges clouded is not correct. sent14: the teletypewriter is a angwantibo. sent15: that the teletypewriter does not glaze courtliness and hews dolor is incorrect if the fact that the grease-gun glazes doweling is right. sent16: a pelvic thing is instructive. sent17: if there exists something such that it does not dodge extremity the zero is pelvic and/or it does not diverge Brobdingnag. sent18: something does not hew dolor if that it does not dodge clouded and it is not an inverse is not true. sent19: the fact that the coax does not dodge clouded and is not an inverse is incorrect if the grease-gun is not a Samaritan. sent20: if the grease-gun glazes courtliness but it is not an inverse then the fact that the teletypewriter dodges clouded is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: if the grease-gun is not catalytic and does glaze detail then it is not a Samaritan.; sent18 -> int2: if that the coax does not dodge clouded and is not a kind of an inverse is wrong then it does not hew dolor.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the dumping does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: the hewing gibibit does not occur if the fact that both the hewing gibibit and the disproportionateness occurs is not right. sent2: the hewing gibibit happens. sent3: the dump is prevented by that the hewing boss and the hewing gibibit occurs. sent4: if the Washingtonian happens the fact that the hewing gibibit but not the proportionateness occurs is wrong.

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

the dump occurs.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dumping does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the hewing gibibit does not occur if the fact that both the hewing gibibit and the disproportionateness occurs is not right. sent2: the hewing gibibit happens. sent3: the dump is prevented by that the hewing boss and the hewing gibibit occurs. sent4: if the Washingtonian happens the fact that the hewing gibibit but not the proportionateness occurs is wrong. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

both the justification and the freighting occurs.

({C} & {B})

sent1: the apogeanness happens. sent2: that both the justification and the freighting occurs is not right if the diverging cruse does not occur. sent3: if the dichotomization does not occur and the uneventfulness happens the diverging cruse does not occur. sent4: the project happens. sent5: the dodging quavering happens. sent6: the hewing Craigie occurs. sent7: the diverging cruse happens. sent8: if the diverging cruse occurs the freighting happens. sent9: the genitourinariness happens. sent10: that the caucus occurs hold. sent11: both the justification and the dichotomization occurs.

sent1: {GB} sent2: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {B}) sent3: (¬{D} & {E}) -> ¬{A} sent4: {HJ} sent5: {AP} sent6: {Q} sent7: {A} sent8: {A} -> {B} sent9: {CD} sent10: {IE} sent11: ({C} & {D})

that both the justification and the freight occurs does not hold.

¬({C} & {B})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the justification and the freighting occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the apogeanness happens. sent2: that both the justification and the freighting occurs is not right if the diverging cruse does not occur. sent3: if the dichotomization does not occur and the uneventfulness happens the diverging cruse does not occur. sent4: the project happens. sent5: the dodging quavering happens. sent6: the hewing Craigie occurs. sent7: the diverging cruse happens. sent8: if the diverging cruse occurs the freighting happens. sent9: the genitourinariness happens. sent10: that the caucus occurs hold. sent11: both the justification and the dichotomization occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent7 -> int1: the freighting occurs.; sent11 -> int2: the justification occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Iberian does not hew chrysomelid.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: the chrysomelid is not cytophotometric if it glazes isthmus and it is syllogistic. sent2: the chrysomelid does not water but it glazes isthmus if the Iberian does not glazes isthmus. sent3: if the chrysomelid is not cytophotometric then the Iberian does not water but it is cytophotometric. sent4: the chrysomelid is not outward but a waters. sent5: the fact that the Iberian is a rape and it diverges inhomogeneity hold. sent6: the flip waters. sent7: the chrysomelid is not a waters but syllogistic if the Iberian is not syllogistic. sent8: something hews chrysomelid if it is a kind of a waters. sent9: if the fact that the chrysomelid does not hew chrysomelid is true then the Iberian hew chrysomelid. sent10: the Iberian does not water if the chrysomelid is not cytophotometric. sent11: the Iberian does not hew chrysomelid if it waters and it is cytophotometric. sent12: the Iberian is not a kind of a waters but it is syllogistic. sent13: the monolingual is cytophotometric. sent14: the chrysomelid glazes isthmus and it is syllogistic.

sent1: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: ¬{AA}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent3: ¬{B}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent4: (¬{EU}{a} & {A}{a}) sent5: ({FS}{b} & {EL}{b}) sent6: {A}{eq} sent7: ¬{AB}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent8: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent9: ¬{C}{a} -> {C}{b} sent10: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{A}{b} sent11: ({A}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent12: (¬{A}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent13: {B}{fi} sent14: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a})

the Iberian hews chrysomelid.

{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Iberian does not hew chrysomelid. ; $context$ = sent1: the chrysomelid is not cytophotometric if it glazes isthmus and it is syllogistic. sent2: the chrysomelid does not water but it glazes isthmus if the Iberian does not glazes isthmus. sent3: if the chrysomelid is not cytophotometric then the Iberian does not water but it is cytophotometric. sent4: the chrysomelid is not outward but a waters. sent5: the fact that the Iberian is a rape and it diverges inhomogeneity hold. sent6: the flip waters. sent7: the chrysomelid is not a waters but syllogistic if the Iberian is not syllogistic. sent8: something hews chrysomelid if it is a kind of a waters. sent9: if the fact that the chrysomelid does not hew chrysomelid is true then the Iberian hew chrysomelid. sent10: the Iberian does not water if the chrysomelid is not cytophotometric. sent11: the Iberian does not hew chrysomelid if it waters and it is cytophotometric. sent12: the Iberian is not a kind of a waters but it is syllogistic. sent13: the monolingual is cytophotometric. sent14: the chrysomelid glazes isthmus and it is syllogistic. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent14 -> int1: the chrysomelid is not cytophotometric.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the Iberian does not water but it is cytophotometric.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it is not a tidbit that it is sober thing that is not antiquarian is wrong.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: if the bow-wow is not a tidbit then the fact that it is sober thing that is not non-antiquarian is not true. sent2: there is something such that if it is not a tidbit the fact that it does sober and is antiquarian does not hold. sent3: that the bow-wow is sober but not antiquarian is incorrect if it is not a tidbit. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a tidbit then the fact that it is both not non-sober and non-antiquarian is not right. sent5: that that something is a Ozawa but not a sandal is not false is incorrect if the fact that it is not a angularity is correct. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not chancrous that it is instructional and it is not epizoan is not correct. sent7: if the bow-wow is not a tidbit then it sobers and it is not antiquarian. sent8: there is something such that if it is not a tidbit then it does sober and it is not antiquarian. sent9: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a pyrrhic that it does quicken and it is not a kind of a Benny is wrong.

sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: (x): ¬{FQ}x -> ¬({GU}x & ¬{ER}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬{EB}x -> ¬({IR}x & ¬{DS}x) sent7: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬{IP}x -> ¬({U}x & ¬{BL}x)

there exists something such that if that it is not a angularity is not wrong then the fact that it is a Ozawa and not a sandal is not right.

(Ex): ¬{FQ}x -> ¬({GU}x & ¬{ER}x)

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not a tidbit that it is sober thing that is not antiquarian is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bow-wow is not a tidbit then the fact that it is sober thing that is not non-antiquarian is not true. sent2: there is something such that if it is not a tidbit the fact that it does sober and is antiquarian does not hold. sent3: that the bow-wow is sober but not antiquarian is incorrect if it is not a tidbit. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a tidbit then the fact that it is both not non-sober and non-antiquarian is not right. sent5: that that something is a Ozawa but not a sandal is not false is incorrect if the fact that it is not a angularity is correct. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not chancrous that it is instructional and it is not epizoan is not correct. sent7: if the bow-wow is not a tidbit then it sobers and it is not antiquarian. sent8: there is something such that if it is not a tidbit then it does sober and it is not antiquarian. sent9: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a pyrrhic that it does quicken and it is not a kind of a Benny is wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the God is not unintrusive.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: the fact that something is an instruction and far is wrong if it is not a steam. sent2: something is a chute-the-chute if that it is not chlamydial and it is not a chute-the-chute is wrong. sent3: the poultryman is not chlamydial if it bunks and it reeks. sent4: the onion is not indexical but a moated if the sesamoid is bivalent. sent5: if something glazes cough the fact that it is both chlamydial and not a chute-the-chute is not correct. sent6: if the fact that the fact that something glazes cough and is a chute-the-chute is not false is not correct then it is not unintrusive. sent7: the fact that the poultryman does bunk and it glazes cough is not correct. sent8: the cottonmouth is not a steam if there is something such that the fact that it is a dialectic and it is not adnate is wrong. sent9: the God is not unintrusive if it does not glaze cough. sent10: if the cottonmouth hews gymnosophy then the dockside is colonic. sent11: if something hews gymnosophy it is bivalent. sent12: if the poultryman is a chute-the-chute then the God is unintrusive. sent13: the God is not a kind of a bunk if it glazes cough and it does reek. sent14: the cottonmouth does hew gymnosophy. sent15: the poultryman does reek. sent16: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a dialectic and it is not adnate is not right. sent17: if the onion is not indexical the God glazes cough and is unintrusive. sent18: if the poultryman is not chlamydial then the fact that the God glazes cough and it is a chute-the-chute is not right. sent19: that the dockside is not chlamydial and it is not a chute-the-chute is incorrect if something is chlamydial. sent20: a non-indexical thing that is a kind of a moated does glaze cough. sent21: if the sesamoid is bivalent but not a moated then the onion is not indexical.

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

the dockside is a kind of a chute-the-chute and is a colonic.

({A}{ei} & {GO}{ei})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the God is not unintrusive. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is an instruction and far is wrong if it is not a steam. sent2: something is a chute-the-chute if that it is not chlamydial and it is not a chute-the-chute is wrong. sent3: the poultryman is not chlamydial if it bunks and it reeks. sent4: the onion is not indexical but a moated if the sesamoid is bivalent. sent5: if something glazes cough the fact that it is both chlamydial and not a chute-the-chute is not correct. sent6: if the fact that the fact that something glazes cough and is a chute-the-chute is not false is not correct then it is not unintrusive. sent7: the fact that the poultryman does bunk and it glazes cough is not correct. sent8: the cottonmouth is not a steam if there is something such that the fact that it is a dialectic and it is not adnate is wrong. sent9: the God is not unintrusive if it does not glaze cough. sent10: if the cottonmouth hews gymnosophy then the dockside is colonic. sent11: if something hews gymnosophy it is bivalent. sent12: if the poultryman is a chute-the-chute then the God is unintrusive. sent13: the God is not a kind of a bunk if it glazes cough and it does reek. sent14: the cottonmouth does hew gymnosophy. sent15: the poultryman does reek. sent16: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a dialectic and it is not adnate is not right. sent17: if the onion is not indexical the God glazes cough and is unintrusive. sent18: if the poultryman is not chlamydial then the fact that the God glazes cough and it is a chute-the-chute is not right. sent19: that the dockside is not chlamydial and it is not a chute-the-chute is incorrect if something is chlamydial. sent20: a non-indexical thing that is a kind of a moated does glaze cough. sent21: if the sesamoid is bivalent but not a moated then the onion is not indexical. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: the God is not unintrusive if that it does glaze cough and it is a kind of a chute-the-chute is false.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it is cooperative and is not a Balthazar then it is ferromagnetic.

(Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x

sent1: there exists something such that if it is a stomp and does not hew Aetobatus then it is lithomantic. sent2: something that is fabian but not a footfall is a legume. sent3: if something is a kind of an injection but it is not a niceness then it is a kind of a sniffler. sent4: if something that is a kerion is non-quincentennial it is lithomantic. sent5: if the lawman is Cameroonian but it is not a Balthazar it is a portwatcher. sent6: there is something such that if the fact that it glazes astronomer and is non-nautical is not incorrect then it dodges synset. sent7: there is something such that if it ejaculates and is not a kind of a legume then it is extracellular. sent8: if the river is univalent but it is not nautical it is ferromagnetic. sent9: there is something such that if it is a beta-carotene and it does not glaze doweling it is a kind of a fluidity. sent10: if the astronomer is a kind of a cooperative and is not alike then it is a persiflage. sent11: there is something such that if it is a kind of a cooperative and is a Balthazar then it is ferromagnetic. sent12: there exists something such that if it is a sugarplum and does not glaze guilder then it is a model. sent13: there exists something such that if it is both a diarist and not a Fungia it dodges synset. sent14: the chorizo is a kind of a coydog if it is a Balthazar and it does not gang-rape. sent15: there exists something such that if it diverges hideousness and is not impious it diverges lukewarmness. sent16: if the chorizo is a cooperative and it is a Balthazar then it is ferromagnetic. sent17: if the chorizo is a cooperative but it is not a Balthazar then it is ferromagnetic. sent18: if that the chorizo is both not non-plural and non-ferromagnetic is not incorrect it hews perpetuity. sent19: if the chorizo is ferromagnetic but it is not a gymnosophy then it is a quincentennial.

sent1: (Ex): ({GI}x & ¬{AR}x) -> {CS}x sent2: (x): ({AT}x & ¬{JG}x) -> {CM}x sent3: (x): ({JJ}x & ¬{EQ}x) -> {CK}x sent4: (x): ({FL}x & ¬{DM}x) -> {CS}x sent5: ({CJ}{fg} & ¬{AB}{fg}) -> {BM}{fg} sent6: (Ex): ({FO}x & ¬{IA}x) -> {FC}x sent7: (Ex): ({BB}x & ¬{CM}x) -> {GD}x sent8: ({DT}{dc} & ¬{IA}{dc}) -> {B}{dc} sent9: (Ex): ({EF}x & ¬{IN}x) -> {EJ}x sent10: ({AA}{gh} & ¬{GA}{gh}) -> {HH}{gh} sent11: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent12: (Ex): ({IP}x & ¬{JD}x) -> {FA}x sent13: (Ex): ({EE}x & ¬{CB}x) -> {FC}x sent14: ({AB}{aa} & ¬{IH}{aa}) -> {DB}{aa} sent15: (Ex): ({HU}x & ¬{CO}x) -> {DJ}x sent16: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent17: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent18: ({CG}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) -> {IO}{aa} sent19: ({B}{aa} & ¬{DL}{aa}) -> {DM}{aa}

there is something such that if the fact that it is a kind of an injection that is not a kind of a niceness is correct it is a sniffler.

(Ex): ({JJ}x & ¬{EQ}x) -> {CK}x

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is cooperative and is not a Balthazar then it is ferromagnetic. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is a stomp and does not hew Aetobatus then it is lithomantic. sent2: something that is fabian but not a footfall is a legume. sent3: if something is a kind of an injection but it is not a niceness then it is a kind of a sniffler. sent4: if something that is a kerion is non-quincentennial it is lithomantic. sent5: if the lawman is Cameroonian but it is not a Balthazar it is a portwatcher. sent6: there is something such that if the fact that it glazes astronomer and is non-nautical is not incorrect then it dodges synset. sent7: there is something such that if it ejaculates and is not a kind of a legume then it is extracellular. sent8: if the river is univalent but it is not nautical it is ferromagnetic. sent9: there is something such that if it is a beta-carotene and it does not glaze doweling it is a kind of a fluidity. sent10: if the astronomer is a kind of a cooperative and is not alike then it is a persiflage. sent11: there is something such that if it is a kind of a cooperative and is a Balthazar then it is ferromagnetic. sent12: there exists something such that if it is a sugarplum and does not glaze guilder then it is a model. sent13: there exists something such that if it is both a diarist and not a Fungia it dodges synset. sent14: the chorizo is a kind of a coydog if it is a Balthazar and it does not gang-rape. sent15: there exists something such that if it diverges hideousness and is not impious it diverges lukewarmness. sent16: if the chorizo is a cooperative and it is a Balthazar then it is ferromagnetic. sent17: if the chorizo is a cooperative but it is not a Balthazar then it is ferromagnetic. sent18: if that the chorizo is both not non-plural and non-ferromagnetic is not incorrect it hews perpetuity. sent19: if the chorizo is ferromagnetic but it is not a gymnosophy then it is a quincentennial. ; $proof$ =

sent17 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__