Datasets:

hitachi-nlp

/

FLD.v2

like 7

DeductionInstance

the servileness does not occur.

¬{A}

sent1: the niceness occurs. sent2: the variegating occurs if the isolating minster does not occur and the outbreak does not occur. sent3: the proverbialness does not occur and the rocket does not occur. sent4: the proverbialness does not occur. sent5: the servileness does not occur if that the .38-caliberness occurs and/or the demoralization does not occur does not hold. sent6: the Energy does not occur if that the Energy occurs and the reel does not occur is not correct. sent7: if the Energy does not occur then that the .38-caliberness happens and/or the demoralization does not occur is not true. sent8: that the Energy happens and the reel does not occur is incorrect if the crabbing occurs. sent9: if the demoralization occurs then that the servileness occurs is correct. sent10: if the proverbialness does not occur and the rocketing does not occur then the demoralization occurs. sent11: the demoralization is caused by that the proverbialness occurs but the rocketing does not occur.

sent1: {GG} sent2: (¬{M} & ¬{IP}) -> {JC} sent3: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent4: ¬{AA} sent5: ¬({C} v ¬{B}) -> ¬{A} sent6: ¬({D} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{D} sent7: ¬{D} -> ¬({C} v ¬{B}) sent8: {E} -> ¬({D} & ¬{F}) sent9: {B} -> {A} sent10: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent11: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B}

the servileness does not occur.

¬{A}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the servileness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the niceness occurs. sent2: the variegating occurs if the isolating minster does not occur and the outbreak does not occur. sent3: the proverbialness does not occur and the rocket does not occur. sent4: the proverbialness does not occur. sent5: the servileness does not occur if that the .38-caliberness occurs and/or the demoralization does not occur does not hold. sent6: the Energy does not occur if that the Energy occurs and the reel does not occur is not correct. sent7: if the Energy does not occur then that the .38-caliberness happens and/or the demoralization does not occur is not true. sent8: that the Energy happens and the reel does not occur is incorrect if the crabbing occurs. sent9: if the demoralization occurs then that the servileness occurs is correct. sent10: if the proverbialness does not occur and the rocketing does not occur then the demoralization occurs. sent11: the demoralization is caused by that the proverbialness occurs but the rocketing does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent3 -> int1: the demoralization happens.; int1 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the marsupialness occurs and the isolating antediluvian does not occur is correct.

({AA} & ¬{AB})

sent1: the integration occurs if the propagation happens. sent2: that the featherbedding does not occur is prevented by the immatureness. sent3: that the integration and the augmentation occurs brings about that the loading waltzer does not occur. sent4: if the worldliness happens then the fact that the axialness but not the unostentatiousness happens is not correct. sent5: the brimlessness is caused by that the marsupialness but not the isolating antediluvian occurs. sent6: the fact that the worldliness happens or the loading waltzer does not occur or both does not hold. sent7: if that the accessing featheredge happens is true the nebule happens. sent8: the marsupial occurs and the isolating antediluvian does not occur if that the worldliness happens hold. sent9: the Reformation occurs and the accessing featheredge occurs. sent10: that the loading waltzer occurs is prevented by that the integration does not occur and the augmentation does not occur. sent11: if the fact that either the worldliness occurs or the loading waltzer does not occur or both is not correct the brimlessness does not occur. sent12: that the augmentation does not occur if that the propagation does not occur and the featherbedding happens is wrong hold. sent13: the immatureness happens. sent14: both the worldliness and the brimlessness occurs if the fact that the loading waltzer does not occur is not wrong. sent15: the integration does not occur but the strengthening happens if the nebule happens.

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

the marsupial but not the isolating antediluvian occurs.

({AA} & ¬{AB})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the marsupialness occurs and the isolating antediluvian does not occur is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the integration occurs if the propagation happens. sent2: that the featherbedding does not occur is prevented by the immatureness. sent3: that the integration and the augmentation occurs brings about that the loading waltzer does not occur. sent4: if the worldliness happens then the fact that the axialness but not the unostentatiousness happens is not correct. sent5: the brimlessness is caused by that the marsupialness but not the isolating antediluvian occurs. sent6: the fact that the worldliness happens or the loading waltzer does not occur or both does not hold. sent7: if that the accessing featheredge happens is true the nebule happens. sent8: the marsupial occurs and the isolating antediluvian does not occur if that the worldliness happens hold. sent9: the Reformation occurs and the accessing featheredge occurs. sent10: that the loading waltzer occurs is prevented by that the integration does not occur and the augmentation does not occur. sent11: if the fact that either the worldliness occurs or the loading waltzer does not occur or both is not correct the brimlessness does not occur. sent12: that the augmentation does not occur if that the propagation does not occur and the featherbedding happens is wrong hold. sent13: the immatureness happens. sent14: both the worldliness and the brimlessness occurs if the fact that the loading waltzer does not occur is not wrong. sent15: the integration does not occur but the strengthening happens if the nebule happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the marsupial but not the isolating antediluvian occurs.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the brimlessness occurs.; sent11 & sent6 -> int2: the brimlessness does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the bosom is not a kind of a repair.

¬{D}{c}

sent1: something repairs if it is not obtuse. sent2: if the fact that the bosom is a kind of a repair and it is phonic is true the turning is not a complaisance. sent3: the turning is not a kind of a repair if the bosom is a complaisance but it is not phonic. sent4: the sylph is not phonic. sent5: the bosom is not phonic. sent6: the sylph is a complaisance if there exists something such that it is non-obtuse. sent7: something is not obtuse. sent8: the sylph is not a kind of a repair if the turning is a kind of a complaisance that is phonic. sent9: the sylph is not a repair. sent10: that the bosom is not a repair is not wrong if the turning is phonic but it is not a complaisance. sent11: if the turning is a complaisance and it is a kind of a repair the bosom is not phonic.

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

the bosom is a repair.

{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bosom is not a kind of a repair. ; $context$ = sent1: something repairs if it is not obtuse. sent2: if the fact that the bosom is a kind of a repair and it is phonic is true the turning is not a complaisance. sent3: the turning is not a kind of a repair if the bosom is a complaisance but it is not phonic. sent4: the sylph is not phonic. sent5: the bosom is not phonic. sent6: the sylph is a complaisance if there exists something such that it is non-obtuse. sent7: something is not obtuse. sent8: the sylph is not a kind of a repair if the turning is a kind of a complaisance that is phonic. sent9: the sylph is not a repair. sent10: that the bosom is not a repair is not wrong if the turning is phonic but it is not a complaisance. sent11: if the turning is a complaisance and it is a kind of a repair the bosom is not phonic. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent6 -> int1: the sylph is a complaisance.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the circumnavigating scrambled does not occur.

¬{F}

sent1: if the fact that the solelessness but not the strangulation happens is wrong then the mikvah occurs. sent2: that the hurl occurs and the inactivity happens causes that the remit does not occur. sent3: the nones does not occur if the traditionalism does not occur. sent4: that either the solelessness does not occur or the strangulation does not occur or both hold. sent5: the circumnavigating scrambled does not occur if the remit does not occur. sent6: if the strangulation does not occur the hurl occurs. sent7: if the fact that the fact that the isolating popularity does not occur and the Canadianness does not occur is not false does not hold then the circumnavigating scrambled happens. sent8: the addiction occurs if the fact that the apoplecticness does not occur is right. sent9: if the worship does not occur the theology happens. sent10: the rubdown happens. sent11: if the solelessness does not occur the fact that the hurling occurs is true. sent12: the fact that the Calvary does not occur and/or the .38-caliberness does not occur is not false. sent13: the assist happens. sent14: the fact that the nullification does not occur is not wrong.

sent1: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) -> {HI} sent2: ({C} & {D}) -> ¬{E} sent3: ¬{EN} -> ¬{EQ} sent4: (¬{A} v ¬{B}) sent5: ¬{E} -> ¬{F} sent6: ¬{B} -> {C} sent7: ¬(¬{H} & ¬{G}) -> {F} sent8: ¬{ER} -> {DP} sent9: ¬{IG} -> {CI} sent10: {IE} sent11: ¬{A} -> {C} sent12: (¬{IC} v ¬{AH}) sent13: {CM} sent14: ¬{CQ}

the assist and the mikvah happens.

({CM} & {HI})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the circumnavigating scrambled does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the solelessness but not the strangulation happens is wrong then the mikvah occurs. sent2: that the hurl occurs and the inactivity happens causes that the remit does not occur. sent3: the nones does not occur if the traditionalism does not occur. sent4: that either the solelessness does not occur or the strangulation does not occur or both hold. sent5: the circumnavigating scrambled does not occur if the remit does not occur. sent6: if the strangulation does not occur the hurl occurs. sent7: if the fact that the fact that the isolating popularity does not occur and the Canadianness does not occur is not false does not hold then the circumnavigating scrambled happens. sent8: the addiction occurs if the fact that the apoplecticness does not occur is right. sent9: if the worship does not occur the theology happens. sent10: the rubdown happens. sent11: if the solelessness does not occur the fact that the hurling occurs is true. sent12: the fact that the Calvary does not occur and/or the .38-caliberness does not occur is not false. sent13: the assist happens. sent14: the fact that the nullification does not occur is not wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent11 & sent6 -> int1: the hurling happens.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the hydraulicsness occurs.

{B}

sent1: if the fact that the leaking happens and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong then the hydraulicsness happens. sent2: the leaking does not occur. sent3: the autobiographicalness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the leak occurs and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong if the autobiographicalness does not occur.

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the hydraulicsness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the leaking happens and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong then the hydraulicsness happens. sent2: the leaking does not occur. sent3: the autobiographicalness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the leak occurs and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong if the autobiographicalness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent3 -> int1: that the leak happens and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is not right.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the psephologist is a convertible and is a snuffler.

({A}{b} & {C}{b})

sent1: if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible. sent2: something is a snuffler if it overdoses. sent3: if there is something such that it is not convertible then that the psephologist is a kind of a convertible and it is a snuffler does not hold. sent4: that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid and is a kind of a Epipremnum does not hold. sent5: if there is something such that it does not overdose then the Sharpie is not non-busy but inconvertible. sent6: if the fact that that the psephologist is both not a Homarus and not unmown is not right hold the fact that it does overdose is not false. sent7: that that the psephologist is not a kind of a Homarus and it is not unmown is true is false. sent8: the Sharpie busies if the fact that it is not a kind of a timid and is a Epipremnum is not true.

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

the fact that the psephologist is both convertible and a snuffler does not hold.

¬({A}{b} & {C}{b})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the psephologist is a convertible and is a snuffler. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible. sent2: something is a snuffler if it overdoses. sent3: if there is something such that it is not convertible then that the psephologist is a kind of a convertible and it is a snuffler does not hold. sent4: that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid and is a kind of a Epipremnum does not hold. sent5: if there is something such that it does not overdose then the Sharpie is not non-busy but inconvertible. sent6: if the fact that that the psephologist is both not a Homarus and not unmown is not right hold the fact that it does overdose is not false. sent7: that that the psephologist is not a kind of a Homarus and it is not unmown is true is false. sent8: the Sharpie busies if the fact that it is not a kind of a timid and is a Epipremnum is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the Sharpie is busy.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the psephologist is a kind of a convertible.; sent2 -> int3: the psephologist is a snuffler if it overdoses.; sent6 & sent7 -> int4: the psephologist does overdose.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the psephologist is a snuffler.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

either the Pavlovianness happens or the ecclesiasticism does not occur or both.

({AA} v ¬{AB})

sent1: the archaeologicalness does not occur. sent2: the preventiveness does not occur if the fact that either the isolating rambler happens or the bottom-upness does not occur or both is incorrect. sent3: the fact that the death occurs and/or the melanizing does not occur does not hold. sent4: that the anteriorness does not occur brings about that the detoxing occurs and the insolventness occurs. sent5: that the beat happens causes that the foxhunt but not the airing occurs. sent6: the fact that the Cambodianness occurs and/or the whimper does not occur is false. sent7: the beat occurs and the compartmentalization happens. sent8: the insolventness happens. sent9: the detoxing does not occur if that the Pavlovianness occurs or the ecclesiasticism happens or both does not hold. sent10: the ecclesiasticism occurs. sent11: the hunch happens. sent12: the fact that the insolventness and the detoxing occurs is right. sent13: the Pavlovianness occurs and/or the ecclesiasticism occurs. sent14: if the airing does not occur then either the isolating bobolink or the Paleozoicness or both happens. sent15: if the fact that the isolating Nautilidae does not occur is not wrong then the overindulgence occurs but the anterior does not occur.

sent1: ¬{AL} sent2: ¬({CH} v ¬{BG}) -> ¬{DD} sent3: ¬({BR} v ¬{IF}) sent4: ¬{C} -> ({B} & {A}) sent5: {J} -> ({I} & ¬{H}) sent6: ¬({AR} v ¬{AS}) sent7: ({J} & {K}) sent8: {A} sent9: ¬({AA} v {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent10: {AB} sent11: {GK} sent12: ({A} & {B}) sent13: ({AA} v {AB}) sent14: ¬{H} -> ({G} v {F}) sent15: ¬{E} -> ({D} & ¬{C})

the fact that the Pavlovianness occurs or the ecclesiasticism does not occur or both does not hold.

¬({AA} v ¬{AB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = either the Pavlovianness happens or the ecclesiasticism does not occur or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the archaeologicalness does not occur. sent2: the preventiveness does not occur if the fact that either the isolating rambler happens or the bottom-upness does not occur or both is incorrect. sent3: the fact that the death occurs and/or the melanizing does not occur does not hold. sent4: that the anteriorness does not occur brings about that the detoxing occurs and the insolventness occurs. sent5: that the beat happens causes that the foxhunt but not the airing occurs. sent6: the fact that the Cambodianness occurs and/or the whimper does not occur is false. sent7: the beat occurs and the compartmentalization happens. sent8: the insolventness happens. sent9: the detoxing does not occur if that the Pavlovianness occurs or the ecclesiasticism happens or both does not hold. sent10: the ecclesiasticism occurs. sent11: the hunch happens. sent12: the fact that the insolventness and the detoxing occurs is right. sent13: the Pavlovianness occurs and/or the ecclesiasticism occurs. sent14: if the airing does not occur then either the isolating bobolink or the Paleozoicness or both happens. sent15: if the fact that the isolating Nautilidae does not occur is not wrong then the overindulgence occurs but the anterior does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the Pavlovianness occurs and/or the ecclesiasticism does not occur is not correct.; sent12 -> int1: the detox occurs.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the sedition does not occur.

¬{A}

sent1: the loading paleness does not occur. sent2: the circumnavigating priapism does not occur.

sent1: ¬{C} sent2: ¬{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sedition does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the loading paleness does not occur. sent2: the circumnavigating priapism does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sedition happens.; assump1 & sent2 -> int1: the sedition occurs and the circumnavigating priapism does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there is something such that if it is not cyclothymic then that it does not ablate and/or it is not insecure does not hold hold.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x)

sent1: there exists something such that if it is not unproductive the fact that it is not radiopaque and/or is not a ticket-of-leave is not correct. sent2: there exists something such that if it is cyclothymic then the fact that it does not ablate and/or it is not insecure is not true. sent3: there is something such that if it is not cyclothymic it does not ablate or is not insecure or both. sent4: there is something such that if it is not cyclothymic the fact that it does ablate and/or is not insecure is not true. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not cyclothymic then that it does not ablate and/or it is insecure is not right. sent6: the fact that something is not postmenopausal and/or does not isolate subthalamus is false if it is not a Cornus. sent7: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a Phyllorhynchus that it does not isolate camshaft and/or it is not a wheatflake is not right. sent8: if the camshaft is cyclothymic that either it does not ablate or it is not insecure or both does not hold. sent9: the camshaft ablates if it is not cyclothymic. sent10: either the camshaft does not ablate or it is not insecure or both if it is not cyclothymic. sent11: if the camshaft is not cyclothymic the fact that either it does not ablate or it is insecure or both does not hold. sent12: the fact that the camshaft does not ablate or is not insecure or both is false if it is non-cyclothymic. sent13: there exists something such that if it is not cyclothymic it is insecure. sent14: there is something such that if it is not cyclothymic then it does ablate. sent15: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a percolate the fact that either it is not a Elaphurus or it is not a kind of a ferment or both is false. sent16: the camshaft is cyclothymic if that it is not a decay is not false.

sent1: (Ex): ¬{BG}x -> ¬(¬{BM}x v ¬{GC}x) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent6: (x): ¬{ER}x -> ¬(¬{FN}x v ¬{JI}x) sent7: (Ex): ¬{AI}x -> ¬(¬{FH}x v ¬{F}x) sent8: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent9: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa} sent10: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent11: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent12: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent13: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x sent14: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AA}x sent15: (Ex): ¬{ID}x -> ¬(¬{HQ}x v ¬{IA}x) sent16: ¬{EL}{aa} -> {A}{aa}

the fact that that the camshaft is not postmenopausal and/or it does not isolate subthalamus is not right is not incorrect if it is not a Cornus.

¬{ER}{aa} -> ¬(¬{FN}{aa} v ¬{JI}{aa})

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it is not cyclothymic then that it does not ablate and/or it is not insecure does not hold hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is not unproductive the fact that it is not radiopaque and/or is not a ticket-of-leave is not correct. sent2: there exists something such that if it is cyclothymic then the fact that it does not ablate and/or it is not insecure is not true. sent3: there is something such that if it is not cyclothymic it does not ablate or is not insecure or both. sent4: there is something such that if it is not cyclothymic the fact that it does ablate and/or is not insecure is not true. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not cyclothymic then that it does not ablate and/or it is insecure is not right. sent6: the fact that something is not postmenopausal and/or does not isolate subthalamus is false if it is not a Cornus. sent7: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a Phyllorhynchus that it does not isolate camshaft and/or it is not a wheatflake is not right. sent8: if the camshaft is cyclothymic that either it does not ablate or it is not insecure or both does not hold. sent9: the camshaft ablates if it is not cyclothymic. sent10: either the camshaft does not ablate or it is not insecure or both if it is not cyclothymic. sent11: if the camshaft is not cyclothymic the fact that either it does not ablate or it is insecure or both does not hold. sent12: the fact that the camshaft does not ablate or is not insecure or both is false if it is non-cyclothymic. sent13: there exists something such that if it is not cyclothymic it is insecure. sent14: there is something such that if it is not cyclothymic then it does ablate. sent15: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a percolate the fact that either it is not a Elaphurus or it is not a kind of a ferment or both is false. sent16: the camshaft is cyclothymic if that it is not a decay is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Frisbee is not a strainer.

¬{E}{a}

sent1: there exists something such that it is nonechoic and is artless. sent2: the Frisbee is insentient if there is something such that it is a kind of nonechoic thing that is artless. sent3: the Frisbee is postmillennial.

sent1: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent2: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} sent3: {D}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Frisbee is not a strainer. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is nonechoic and is artless. sent2: the Frisbee is insentient if there is something such that it is a kind of nonechoic thing that is artless. sent3: the Frisbee is postmillennial. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the Frisbee is insentient.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the Frisbee is both not sentient and not non-postmillennial.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that both the steroidalness and the darting occurs does not hold.

¬({D} & {C})

sent1: the battledore happens. sent2: the steroidalness happens. sent3: the subvention and the detailing happens. sent4: the Ghanaianness occurs and the hurling occurs. sent5: the darting happens if the detailing happens. sent6: both the seediness and the bilabial occurs.

sent1: {IJ} sent2: {D} sent3: ({A} & {B}) sent4: ({CB} & {CQ}) sent5: {B} -> {C} sent6: ({GR} & {BL})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that both the steroidalness and the darting occurs does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the battledore happens. sent2: the steroidalness happens. sent3: the subvention and the detailing happens. sent4: the Ghanaianness occurs and the hurling occurs. sent5: the darting happens if the detailing happens. sent6: both the seediness and the bilabial occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the details occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the darting happens.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the riblessness occurs.

{D}

sent1: the confusing happens or the mountaineering occurs or both. sent2: if the mountaineering happens the Mercurialness happens. sent3: if the fact that not the mountaineering but the riblessness occurs does not hold then the riblessness does not occur. sent4: the fact that if that the dissolve and the prawning occurs is not correct the cannon does not occur is true. sent5: the riblessness occurs if the Mercurialness happens. sent6: the Mercurialness happens and the confusing happens if the cannon does not occur. sent7: that the control does not occur and the isolating HA does not occur prevents that the exhortation occurs. sent8: that the Mercurialness occurs is brought about by the confusing. sent9: if the exhortation does not occur that the dissolving and the prawn occurs is not right.

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

the riblessness does not occur.

¬{D}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the riblessness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the confusing happens or the mountaineering occurs or both. sent2: if the mountaineering happens the Mercurialness happens. sent3: if the fact that not the mountaineering but the riblessness occurs does not hold then the riblessness does not occur. sent4: the fact that if that the dissolve and the prawning occurs is not correct the cannon does not occur is true. sent5: the riblessness occurs if the Mercurialness happens. sent6: the Mercurialness happens and the confusing happens if the cannon does not occur. sent7: that the control does not occur and the isolating HA does not occur prevents that the exhortation occurs. sent8: that the Mercurialness occurs is brought about by the confusing. sent9: if the exhortation does not occur that the dissolving and the prawn occurs is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent8 & sent2 -> int1: the Mercurialness happens.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Latrobe and does circumnavigate starter it is not a kind of a lacework is wrong.

¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)

sent1: if that the starter is not a Latrobe and circumnavigates starter hold it is not a lacework.

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Latrobe and does circumnavigate starter it is not a kind of a lacework is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the starter is not a Latrobe and circumnavigates starter hold it is not a lacework. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the developer is not stomatous hold.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: the fact that the seller is oropharyngeal but it is not hemic does not hold if there exists something such that it is a Priestley. sent2: something is not non-afebrile if it is a kind of a Priestley. sent3: the fact that the seller is not non-oropharyngeal but hemic does not hold if there is something such that the fact that it is a Priestley is not wrong. sent4: the meanie is oropharyngeal if the seller is not oropharyngeal. sent5: the northwester is viricidal and/or it is oropharyngeal. sent6: there exists something such that it is a Priestley. sent7: if there exists something such that the fact that it is oropharyngeal and not hemic does not hold then the developer is stomatous.

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

the developer is not stomatous.

¬{D}{b}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the developer is not stomatous hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the seller is oropharyngeal but it is not hemic does not hold if there exists something such that it is a Priestley. sent2: something is not non-afebrile if it is a kind of a Priestley. sent3: the fact that the seller is not non-oropharyngeal but hemic does not hold if there is something such that the fact that it is a Priestley is not wrong. sent4: the meanie is oropharyngeal if the seller is not oropharyngeal. sent5: the northwester is viricidal and/or it is oropharyngeal. sent6: there exists something such that it is a Priestley. sent7: if there exists something such that the fact that it is oropharyngeal and not hemic does not hold then the developer is stomatous. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the seller is oropharyngeal thing that is not hemic is not right.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is oropharyngeal and it is not hemic does not hold.; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if it does not access Corydalidae and/or is not a kind of a wretch it is not positional.

(Ex): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: the achene does not circumnavigate Pavlova if it does not access Corydalidae and/or it is nonarbitrable. sent2: there is something such that if it does not access Procellariidae or it is not a upsilon or both then it does not tap. sent3: the achene is positional if either it does not access Corydalidae or it is not a wretch or both. sent4: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a wretch is not wrong then it is not positional. sent5: there exists something such that if either it does access Corydalidae or it is not a wretch or both it is not positional. sent6: there is something such that if it is not a dither or is not dramatic or both that it is a primacy is wrong. sent7: there exists something such that if it does not access Corydalidae then it is not positional. sent8: there is something such that if either it is not rhythmical or it is not longitudinal or both then it is not a kind of a anovulation. sent9: the achene does not access voicelessness if it is not positional and/or does not circumnavigate neuropil. sent10: there is something such that if it either does not access Corydalidae or is a wretch or both it is not positional. sent11: if the achene is not reportable and/or is not positional then it is not a domatium. sent12: if the neuropil either does not access contrail or is not positional or both then it does not circumnavigate viewpoint. sent13: there is something such that if either it does not mismarry or it does not stroll or both then it is not unpropitious. sent14: there is something such that if it is not mindless and/or it is not diagnostic then it is not a foghorn. sent15: if the achene does not access Corydalidae and/or is not a catalyst then it does not circumnavigate airfare. sent16: if the achene does not access Corydalidae and/or it is a kind of a wretch then that it is non-positional is correct. sent17: there exists something such that if either it is not a paw or it is not a wake or both then the fact that it is not a yoke is not incorrect. sent18: something that is not genealogic or is not positional or both is not subsurface. sent19: the achene is not positional if it does not access Corydalidae. sent20: if the achene does not access Corydalidae and/or it is not a kind of a wretch it is not positional. sent21: there is something such that if it does not access Corydalidae and/or it is not a kind of a wretch then that it is positional is not wrong.

sent1: (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{EI}{aa}) -> ¬{ET}{aa} sent2: (Ex): (¬{DM}x v ¬{JB}x) -> ¬{JJ}x sent3: (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent4: (Ex): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent5: (Ex): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent6: (Ex): (¬{GH}x v ¬{FH}x) -> ¬{BS}x sent7: (Ex): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent8: (Ex): (¬{BA}x v ¬{IO}x) -> ¬{A}x sent9: (¬{B}{aa} v ¬{CM}{aa}) -> ¬{DC}{aa} sent10: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent11: (¬{CF}{aa} v ¬{B}{aa}) -> ¬{M}{aa} sent12: (¬{AM}{r} v ¬{B}{r}) -> ¬{DA}{r} sent13: (Ex): (¬{J}x v ¬{BQ}x) -> ¬{JG}x sent14: (Ex): (¬{BR}x v ¬{HJ}x) -> ¬{JI}x sent15: (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{IG}{aa}) -> ¬{CJ}{aa} sent16: (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent17: (Ex): (¬{FK}x v ¬{AH}x) -> ¬{IK}x sent18: (x): (¬{HD}x v ¬{B}x) -> ¬{EE}x sent19: ¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent20: (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent21: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x

the achene is non-subsurface if it is not genealogic or not positional or both.

(¬{HD}{aa} v ¬{B}{aa}) -> ¬{EE}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not access Corydalidae and/or is not a kind of a wretch it is not positional. ; $context$ = sent1: the achene does not circumnavigate Pavlova if it does not access Corydalidae and/or it is nonarbitrable. sent2: there is something such that if it does not access Procellariidae or it is not a upsilon or both then it does not tap. sent3: the achene is positional if either it does not access Corydalidae or it is not a wretch or both. sent4: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a wretch is not wrong then it is not positional. sent5: there exists something such that if either it does access Corydalidae or it is not a wretch or both it is not positional. sent6: there is something such that if it is not a dither or is not dramatic or both that it is a primacy is wrong. sent7: there exists something such that if it does not access Corydalidae then it is not positional. sent8: there is something such that if either it is not rhythmical or it is not longitudinal or both then it is not a kind of a anovulation. sent9: the achene does not access voicelessness if it is not positional and/or does not circumnavigate neuropil. sent10: there is something such that if it either does not access Corydalidae or is a wretch or both it is not positional. sent11: if the achene is not reportable and/or is not positional then it is not a domatium. sent12: if the neuropil either does not access contrail or is not positional or both then it does not circumnavigate viewpoint. sent13: there is something such that if either it does not mismarry or it does not stroll or both then it is not unpropitious. sent14: there is something such that if it is not mindless and/or it is not diagnostic then it is not a foghorn. sent15: if the achene does not access Corydalidae and/or is not a catalyst then it does not circumnavigate airfare. sent16: if the achene does not access Corydalidae and/or it is a kind of a wretch then that it is non-positional is correct. sent17: there exists something such that if either it is not a paw or it is not a wake or both then the fact that it is not a yoke is not incorrect. sent18: something that is not genealogic or is not positional or both is not subsurface. sent19: the achene is not positional if it does not access Corydalidae. sent20: if the achene does not access Corydalidae and/or it is not a kind of a wretch it is not positional. sent21: there is something such that if it does not access Corydalidae and/or it is not a kind of a wretch then that it is positional is not wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent20 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there are slow and non-downmarket things.

(Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: the outpost does slow but it is not downmarket if it is a will-o'-the-wisp. sent2: the outpost is a incomprehension. sent3: something that either is not angiomatous or does subvocalize or both is not angiomatous. sent4: the outpost is a kind of a will-o'-the-wisp. sent5: if the AS is a kind of a dinky it is not a messiahship and it is not a drummer. sent6: if the fact that something is not a JV and/or it is not cannibalistic is true then the outpost is not a chelonian. sent7: the fact that something is both not a will-o'-the-wisp and not a player is not true if it is not angiomatous. sent8: the AS is a dinky. sent9: the inductee is not a drummer if the AS is not a messiahship and it is not a kind of a drummer. sent10: if the inductee is not a Steele but it does circumnavigate outpost then the fact that the achene is not cannibalistic is not false. sent11: the outpost is slow. sent12: the foster-daughter is downmarket. sent13: something is not angiomatous and/or does subvocalize if it is not a chelonian. sent14: if something is not a drummer then it is not a Steele and it does circumnavigate outpost. sent15: there is something such that it does slow. sent16: there is something such that it is not downmarket. sent17: if the outpost is a kind of a cycle then it does slow and it does not amend. sent18: if there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a will-o'-the-wisp and not a player is not correct the flirt is a kind of a will-o'-the-wisp.

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

the flirt is a will-o'-the-wisp.

{A}{eo}

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there are slow and non-downmarket things. ; $context$ = sent1: the outpost does slow but it is not downmarket if it is a will-o'-the-wisp. sent2: the outpost is a incomprehension. sent3: something that either is not angiomatous or does subvocalize or both is not angiomatous. sent4: the outpost is a kind of a will-o'-the-wisp. sent5: if the AS is a kind of a dinky it is not a messiahship and it is not a drummer. sent6: if the fact that something is not a JV and/or it is not cannibalistic is true then the outpost is not a chelonian. sent7: the fact that something is both not a will-o'-the-wisp and not a player is not true if it is not angiomatous. sent8: the AS is a dinky. sent9: the inductee is not a drummer if the AS is not a messiahship and it is not a kind of a drummer. sent10: if the inductee is not a Steele but it does circumnavigate outpost then the fact that the achene is not cannibalistic is not false. sent11: the outpost is slow. sent12: the foster-daughter is downmarket. sent13: something is not angiomatous and/or does subvocalize if it is not a chelonian. sent14: if something is not a drummer then it is not a Steele and it does circumnavigate outpost. sent15: there is something such that it does slow. sent16: there is something such that it is not downmarket. sent17: if the outpost is a kind of a cycle then it does slow and it does not amend. sent18: if there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a will-o'-the-wisp and not a player is not correct the flirt is a kind of a will-o'-the-wisp. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the outpost is slow but not downmarket.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the frijolito is not a grapefruit.

¬{A}{aa}

sent1: if something is a Myrmidon then it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. sent2: the frijolito either is a exobiology or is not a Myrmidon or both. sent3: the fact that the perigee isolates Milne but it does not clapboard does not hold if there exists something such that it is not a katharometer. sent4: either something is a grapefruit or it does circumnavigate Yahweh or both if it is not a Esquire. sent5: if the potage does pander it is not a loaner. sent6: if the frijolito is a parted that it does circumnavigate Yahweh and is not a kind of a Esquire is incorrect. sent7: if something is a Myrmidon and/or it is not an apparition then it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. sent8: the frijolito does not circumnavigate Yahweh if it does not isolate antediluvian. sent9: if either something is a grapefruit or it circumnavigates Yahweh or both then it is not a kind of a Myrmidon. sent10: if the crofter is either conductive or not a Jurassic or both then that it is not a grapefruit is correct. sent11: something is not a Myrmidon if it is a grapefruit. sent12: the frijolito is a Myrmidon and/or it is not an apparition. sent13: the frijolito is not a kind of a grapefruit if it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. sent14: that either something is a kind of a Njord or it is a parted or both is not correct if it is not reputable. sent15: the fact that something is not a kind of a Esquire is not wrong if the fact that it either is a Njord or is a parted or both does not hold. sent16: something is not a Myrmidon if it is a grapefruit or does not circumnavigate Yahweh or both. sent17: either the frijolito is a sickbay or it is not a kind of a Wembley or both. sent18: something is not reputable if that it isolates Milne and does not clapboard is not right. sent19: that the legatee is not a katharometer is not wrong. sent20: the aging does not circumnavigate Yahweh.

sent1: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent2: ({HI}{aa} v ¬{AA}{aa}) sent3: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬({H}{fc} & ¬{G}{fc}) sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x v {B}x) sent5: {HC}{ir} -> ¬{EM}{ir} sent6: {D}{aa} -> ¬({B}{aa} & ¬{C}{aa}) sent7: (x): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent8: ¬{AE}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent9: (x): ({A}x v {B}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent10: ({GQ}{u} v ¬{EU}{u}) -> ¬{A}{u} sent11: (x): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent12: ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent13: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent14: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({E}x v {D}x) sent15: (x): ¬({E}x v {D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent16: (x): ({A}x v ¬{B}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent17: ({AL}{aa} v ¬{CO}{aa}) sent18: (x): ¬({H}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{F}x sent19: ¬{I}{a} sent20: ¬{B}{ht}

the perigee is not a kind of a Myrmidon.

¬{AA}{fc}

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the frijolito is not a grapefruit. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a Myrmidon then it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. sent2: the frijolito either is a exobiology or is not a Myrmidon or both. sent3: the fact that the perigee isolates Milne but it does not clapboard does not hold if there exists something such that it is not a katharometer. sent4: either something is a grapefruit or it does circumnavigate Yahweh or both if it is not a Esquire. sent5: if the potage does pander it is not a loaner. sent6: if the frijolito is a parted that it does circumnavigate Yahweh and is not a kind of a Esquire is incorrect. sent7: if something is a Myrmidon and/or it is not an apparition then it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. sent8: the frijolito does not circumnavigate Yahweh if it does not isolate antediluvian. sent9: if either something is a grapefruit or it circumnavigates Yahweh or both then it is not a kind of a Myrmidon. sent10: if the crofter is either conductive or not a Jurassic or both then that it is not a grapefruit is correct. sent11: something is not a Myrmidon if it is a grapefruit. sent12: the frijolito is a Myrmidon and/or it is not an apparition. sent13: the frijolito is not a kind of a grapefruit if it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. sent14: that either something is a kind of a Njord or it is a parted or both is not correct if it is not reputable. sent15: the fact that something is not a kind of a Esquire is not wrong if the fact that it either is a Njord or is a parted or both does not hold. sent16: something is not a Myrmidon if it is a grapefruit or does not circumnavigate Yahweh or both. sent17: either the frijolito is a sickbay or it is not a kind of a Wembley or both. sent18: something is not reputable if that it isolates Milne and does not clapboard is not right. sent19: that the legatee is not a katharometer is not wrong. sent20: the aging does not circumnavigate Yahweh. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: if the frijolito is a Myrmidon and/or is not an apparition it does not circumnavigate Yahweh.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the frijolito does not circumnavigate Yahweh.; int2 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the commonsness occurs.

{D}

sent1: that the commonsness occurs and the isolating competence happens is wrong if the fact that the circumnavigating patrimony does not occur hold. sent2: both the fold and the universalisticness occurs. sent3: if the isolating Nepal occurs then the loading vasopressor does not occur or the correctedness does not occur or both. sent4: the circumnavigating patrimony does not occur if that the generosity but not the moonshining happens does not hold. sent5: that the commonsness occurs is prevented by that the NMR happens and the circumnavigating solvation occurs. sent6: if the advanced happens the geriatricness does not occur. sent7: the isolating competence occurs. sent8: that the accessing Acanthocereus happens but the hircineness does not occur triggers the non-centroidalness. sent9: if the centroidalness does not occur then the counterrevolution occurs. sent10: if the pluralisticness does not occur the administering does not occur and the attendance does not occur. sent11: the tirade does not occur if the administering does not occur and the attendance does not occur. sent12: if the downhill occurs then the accessing Acanthocereus but not the hircineness occurs. sent13: that the fact that the generosity but not the moonshining occurs does not hold if the counterrevolution happens is true. sent14: the isolating Sheetrock happens if the nonexistentness occurs. sent15: the fact that the NMR or the fossiliferousness or both happens is true if the circumnavigating solvation does not occur. sent16: if the tirade does not occur both the downhill and the biochemicalness occurs. sent17: the fossiliferousness happens and the NMR happens. sent18: that the circumnavigating solvation happens is triggered by the isolating competence. sent19: the non-geriatricness results in that the isolating Nepal happens and the isolating sabin happens.

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

the isolating Sheetrock occurs.

{DC}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the commonsness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the commonsness occurs and the isolating competence happens is wrong if the fact that the circumnavigating patrimony does not occur hold. sent2: both the fold and the universalisticness occurs. sent3: if the isolating Nepal occurs then the loading vasopressor does not occur or the correctedness does not occur or both. sent4: the circumnavigating patrimony does not occur if that the generosity but not the moonshining happens does not hold. sent5: that the commonsness occurs is prevented by that the NMR happens and the circumnavigating solvation occurs. sent6: if the advanced happens the geriatricness does not occur. sent7: the isolating competence occurs. sent8: that the accessing Acanthocereus happens but the hircineness does not occur triggers the non-centroidalness. sent9: if the centroidalness does not occur then the counterrevolution occurs. sent10: if the pluralisticness does not occur the administering does not occur and the attendance does not occur. sent11: the tirade does not occur if the administering does not occur and the attendance does not occur. sent12: if the downhill occurs then the accessing Acanthocereus but not the hircineness occurs. sent13: that the fact that the generosity but not the moonshining occurs does not hold if the counterrevolution happens is true. sent14: the isolating Sheetrock happens if the nonexistentness occurs. sent15: the fact that the NMR or the fossiliferousness or both happens is true if the circumnavigating solvation does not occur. sent16: if the tirade does not occur both the downhill and the biochemicalness occurs. sent17: the fossiliferousness happens and the NMR happens. sent18: that the circumnavigating solvation happens is triggered by the isolating competence. sent19: the non-geriatricness results in that the isolating Nepal happens and the isolating sabin happens. ; $proof$ =

sent17 -> int1: the NMR happens.; sent18 & sent7 -> int2: the circumnavigating solvation happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the NMR and the circumnavigating solvation occurs.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if that it is not a kind of a banquet and does not isolate drape is incorrect then it is not a guyot.

(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: there is something such that if that it is a banquet is not false it is not a guyot. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a banquet and it does not isolate drape is not true it is not a guyot. sent3: the Morocco is not a kind of a guyot if the fact that it is not a banquet and does not isolate drape is not incorrect. sent4: there is something such that if the fact that the fact that it is not a banquet and it isolates drape hold is not correct then it is not a kind of a guyot. sent5: if that the Morocco is not a banquet but it isolates drape is incorrect then it is not a guyot. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a banquet and it does not isolate drape it is not a kind of a guyot. sent7: there is something such that if that it is not a BIN and not nonwoody is not true it does not convey. sent8: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of a yurt and it is not metaphysical is not correct that it is non-sporadic is true. sent9: there is something such that if that it is not a kind of a hajji and is not a dandelion is wrong it is not clonic. sent10: there is something such that if the fact that it does not exclaim and does not isolate holystone does not hold it is not a jargoon. sent11: if the fact that the Morocco is not a kind of a banquet and it does not isolate drape is not right it is not a guyot. sent12: if that the lift is not a disappearance and not a banquet does not hold then it does not circumnavigate riding. sent13: if the fact that something does not access Hickock and it is not modest is false it is not cheliferous. sent14: the Morocco is not a kind of a guyot if it is a banquet. sent15: if the fact that the Morocco is not a banquet and does not isolate drape is incorrect it is a guyot. sent16: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a banquet and does not isolate drape is not true then it is a kind of a guyot. sent17: there exists something such that if it isolates drape then it is not a guyot. sent18: there is something such that if the fact that it does not ripple and is not a disappearance is wrong it is not a secant. sent19: there exists something such that if that it is a kind of non-cheerful thing that is not biological does not hold it is not a sunshine.

sent1: (Ex): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent3: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent6: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: (Ex): ¬(¬{FM}x & ¬{BC}x) -> ¬{IF}x sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{AS}x & ¬{CN}x) -> ¬{IT}x sent9: (Ex): ¬(¬{GA}x & ¬{GQ}x) -> ¬{DC}x sent10: (Ex): ¬(¬{FA}x & ¬{JH}x) -> ¬{GR}x sent11: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent12: ¬(¬{GI}{cu} & ¬{AA}{cu}) -> ¬{AR}{cu} sent13: (x): ¬(¬{AJ}x & ¬{HL}x) -> ¬{BH}x sent14: {AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent15: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent16: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent17: (Ex): {AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent18: (Ex): ¬(¬{BP}x & ¬{GI}x) -> ¬{DA}x sent19: (Ex): ¬(¬{IO}x & ¬{GG}x) -> ¬{IR}x

if that the dodo does not access Hickock and it is not modest is false it is not cheliferous.

¬(¬{AJ}{bm} & ¬{HL}{bm}) -> ¬{BH}{bm}

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if that it is not a kind of a banquet and does not isolate drape is incorrect then it is not a guyot. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if that it is a banquet is not false it is not a guyot. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a banquet and it does not isolate drape is not true it is not a guyot. sent3: the Morocco is not a kind of a guyot if the fact that it is not a banquet and does not isolate drape is not incorrect. sent4: there is something such that if the fact that the fact that it is not a banquet and it isolates drape hold is not correct then it is not a kind of a guyot. sent5: if that the Morocco is not a banquet but it isolates drape is incorrect then it is not a guyot. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a banquet and it does not isolate drape it is not a kind of a guyot. sent7: there is something such that if that it is not a BIN and not nonwoody is not true it does not convey. sent8: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of a yurt and it is not metaphysical is not correct that it is non-sporadic is true. sent9: there is something such that if that it is not a kind of a hajji and is not a dandelion is wrong it is not clonic. sent10: there is something such that if the fact that it does not exclaim and does not isolate holystone does not hold it is not a jargoon. sent11: if the fact that the Morocco is not a kind of a banquet and it does not isolate drape is not right it is not a guyot. sent12: if that the lift is not a disappearance and not a banquet does not hold then it does not circumnavigate riding. sent13: if the fact that something does not access Hickock and it is not modest is false it is not cheliferous. sent14: the Morocco is not a kind of a guyot if it is a banquet. sent15: if the fact that the Morocco is not a banquet and does not isolate drape is incorrect it is a guyot. sent16: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a banquet and does not isolate drape is not true then it is a kind of a guyot. sent17: there exists something such that if it isolates drape then it is not a guyot. sent18: there is something such that if the fact that it does not ripple and is not a disappearance is wrong it is not a secant. sent19: there exists something such that if that it is a kind of non-cheerful thing that is not biological does not hold it is not a sunshine. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the freshening does not occur.

¬{B}

sent1: the fact that the bracteolateness and the flash happens is not true. sent2: if the isolating osteopathy happens then that the bracteolateness does not occur and the flash happens is incorrect. sent3: the isolating osteopathy happens. sent4: the Ramadan does not occur if that the Finnishness does not occur and the forgettableness occurs is not right. sent5: if that the non-bracteolateness and the flashing occurs is not right then the freshening does not occur. sent6: the freshening does not occur if that the bracteolateness occurs is right. sent7: if the isolating osteopathy happens the fact that the fact that the bracteolateness occurs and the flashing happens is not right is not false.

sent1: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent2: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent3: {A} sent4: ¬(¬{JI} & {HD}) -> ¬{EJ} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent6: {AA} -> ¬{B} sent7: {A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the freshening does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the bracteolateness and the flash happens is not true. sent2: if the isolating osteopathy happens then that the bracteolateness does not occur and the flash happens is incorrect. sent3: the isolating osteopathy happens. sent4: the Ramadan does not occur if that the Finnishness does not occur and the forgettableness occurs is not right. sent5: if that the non-bracteolateness and the flashing occurs is not right then the freshening does not occur. sent6: the freshening does not occur if that the bracteolateness occurs is right. sent7: if the isolating osteopathy happens the fact that the fact that the bracteolateness occurs and the flashing happens is not right is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent3 -> int1: that the non-bracteolateness and the flash happens does not hold.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the kumquat does access kumquat but it is not a kind of a bethel.

({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a})

sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it does not circumnavigate Melanchthon and is a kind of a Weld is false then the crapaud is not a Weld. sent2: the eggnog accesses kumquat if the kumquat is not a kind of a bethel. sent3: the Burgess is pregnant. sent4: something is a Laudo if it does access kumquat. sent5: if something circumnavigates barricaded it is odorous. sent6: if something does circumnavigate agoraphobia the fact that it does not circumnavigate etude and does not access eggnog is wrong. sent7: there is something such that it is not nonproprietary and is not a pillared. sent8: something does not circumnavigate apprenticed if it does circumnavigate WAC and it is pregnant. sent9: if something does not circumnavigate barricaded it is non-odorous and/or it is not a bethel. sent10: the dihydrostreptomycin does circumnavigate barricaded if it does access eggnog. sent11: the dihydrostreptomycin does circumnavigate agoraphobia and is acentric if the crapaud is not a kind of a Weld. sent12: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not nonproprietary and it is not a pillared does not hold then the kumquat does access kumquat. sent13: the fact that the kedgeree is not nonproprietary and is not a pillared is false. sent14: if there is something such that it is nonproprietary then the kumquat accesses kumquat. sent15: that the kumquat does not circumnavigate barricaded and is not odorous is wrong. sent16: that something does not circumnavigate Melanchthon and is a Weld is false if it does not circumnavigate apprenticed. sent17: if the kumquat is non-odorous the eggnog does access kumquat. sent18: the Burgess does circumnavigate WAC.

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

the eggnog is a kind of a Laudo.

{HH}{ij}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the kumquat does access kumquat but it is not a kind of a bethel. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it does not circumnavigate Melanchthon and is a kind of a Weld is false then the crapaud is not a Weld. sent2: the eggnog accesses kumquat if the kumquat is not a kind of a bethel. sent3: the Burgess is pregnant. sent4: something is a Laudo if it does access kumquat. sent5: if something circumnavigates barricaded it is odorous. sent6: if something does circumnavigate agoraphobia the fact that it does not circumnavigate etude and does not access eggnog is wrong. sent7: there is something such that it is not nonproprietary and is not a pillared. sent8: something does not circumnavigate apprenticed if it does circumnavigate WAC and it is pregnant. sent9: if something does not circumnavigate barricaded it is non-odorous and/or it is not a bethel. sent10: the dihydrostreptomycin does circumnavigate barricaded if it does access eggnog. sent11: the dihydrostreptomycin does circumnavigate agoraphobia and is acentric if the crapaud is not a kind of a Weld. sent12: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not nonproprietary and it is not a pillared does not hold then the kumquat does access kumquat. sent13: the fact that the kedgeree is not nonproprietary and is not a pillared is false. sent14: if there is something such that it is nonproprietary then the kumquat accesses kumquat. sent15: that the kumquat does not circumnavigate barricaded and is not odorous is wrong. sent16: that something does not circumnavigate Melanchthon and is a Weld is false if it does not circumnavigate apprenticed. sent17: if the kumquat is non-odorous the eggnog does access kumquat. sent18: the Burgess does circumnavigate WAC. ; $proof$ =

sent13 -> int1: there exists something such that the fact that that it is not nonproprietary and it is not a kind of a pillared is not false is incorrect.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the kumquat does access kumquat.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there is something such that if that it is a kind of non-paternal thing that is not a kind of a exocrine does not hold it is a binomial does not hold.

¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x)

sent1: there is something such that if that it is not uneasy and it is not a sarcoma is wrong it is a rifampin. sent2: the Morocco is affined if the fact that it does not circumnavigate Canada and it does not isolate placeholder is not right. sent3: there is something such that if that it is not a sow and is not a loaf is not correct it professes. sent4: there is something such that if the fact that it does not sow and it is not saponaceous is incorrect then it circumnavigates bow-wow. sent5: if the fact that that the Morocco is not paternal and not exocrine is not correct is right it is a kind of a binomial. sent6: there exists something such that if that it is both not thallophytic and not Markovian does not hold then it circumnavigates choke. sent7: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not paternal and it is a kind of a exocrine does not hold it is binomial. sent8: if that something is both not a quinine and not an affined is not right it is a stoat. sent9: the Morocco is a binomial if that it is paternal and is not a exocrine does not hold. sent10: there is something such that if that it is both not benzoic and not shut does not hold then it is arthropodal. sent11: if that the Morocco is not a silverrod and it is not affined is false it is not non-paternal. sent12: if the Morocco is not paternal and it is not a exocrine it is a binomial. sent13: there is something such that if that it is not servile and does not isolate powerbroker does not hold then it is Australasian. sent14: the Morocco is binomial if it is a exocrine. sent15: there is something such that if it is not paternal and it is not a kind of a exocrine it is a kind of a binomial. sent16: the fact that there is something such that if the fact that it is paternal and it is not a exocrine is not true then it is binomial is not incorrect. sent17: there is something such that if the fact that it is a kind of a exocrine hold then it is a binomial. sent18: there is something such that if it is paternal it is a binomial. sent19: if that the la is not a satinwood and it is not arteriolar does not hold then it is a exocrine. sent20: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a punishment and it does not access Morocco is not correct it presents.

sent1: (Ex): ¬(¬{IC}x & ¬{M}x) -> {GN}x sent2: ¬(¬{IB}{aa} & ¬{CM}{aa}) -> {DJ}{aa} sent3: (Ex): ¬(¬{IQ}x & ¬{EH}x) -> {I}x sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{IQ}x & ¬{G}x) -> {IM}x sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent6: (Ex): ¬(¬{IT}x & ¬{IN}x) -> {AI}x sent7: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent8: (x): ¬(¬{DC}x & ¬{DJ}x) -> {CA}x sent9: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent10: (Ex): ¬(¬{HJ}x & ¬{FM}x) -> {CK}x sent11: ¬(¬{BT}{aa} & ¬{DJ}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent12: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent13: (Ex): ¬(¬{HO}x & ¬{H}x) -> {JG}x sent14: {AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent15: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent16: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent17: (Ex): {AB}x -> {B}x sent18: (Ex): {AA}x -> {B}x sent19: ¬(¬{HD}{ck} & ¬{DP}{ck}) -> {AB}{ck} sent20: (Ex): ¬(¬{AC}x & ¬{EF}x) -> {CC}x

there exists something such that if that it is both not a quinine and not affined is incorrect it is a stoat.

(Ex): ¬(¬{DC}x & ¬{DJ}x) -> {CA}x

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if that it is a kind of non-paternal thing that is not a kind of a exocrine does not hold it is a binomial does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if that it is not uneasy and it is not a sarcoma is wrong it is a rifampin. sent2: the Morocco is affined if the fact that it does not circumnavigate Canada and it does not isolate placeholder is not right. sent3: there is something such that if that it is not a sow and is not a loaf is not correct it professes. sent4: there is something such that if the fact that it does not sow and it is not saponaceous is incorrect then it circumnavigates bow-wow. sent5: if the fact that that the Morocco is not paternal and not exocrine is not correct is right it is a kind of a binomial. sent6: there exists something such that if that it is both not thallophytic and not Markovian does not hold then it circumnavigates choke. sent7: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not paternal and it is a kind of a exocrine does not hold it is binomial. sent8: if that something is both not a quinine and not an affined is not right it is a stoat. sent9: the Morocco is a binomial if that it is paternal and is not a exocrine does not hold. sent10: there is something such that if that it is both not benzoic and not shut does not hold then it is arthropodal. sent11: if that the Morocco is not a silverrod and it is not affined is false it is not non-paternal. sent12: if the Morocco is not paternal and it is not a exocrine it is a binomial. sent13: there is something such that if that it is not servile and does not isolate powerbroker does not hold then it is Australasian. sent14: the Morocco is binomial if it is a exocrine. sent15: there is something such that if it is not paternal and it is not a kind of a exocrine it is a kind of a binomial. sent16: the fact that there is something such that if the fact that it is paternal and it is not a exocrine is not true then it is binomial is not incorrect. sent17: there is something such that if the fact that it is a kind of a exocrine hold then it is a binomial. sent18: there is something such that if it is paternal it is a binomial. sent19: if that the la is not a satinwood and it is not arteriolar does not hold then it is a exocrine. sent20: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a punishment and it does not access Morocco is not correct it presents. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there is something such that it is a kind of a Shoshone and it is a wireworm is not right.

¬((Ex): ({A}x & {B}x))

sent1: there is something such that the fact that it is a Shoshone is true. sent2: that something is both a baddeleyite and not a wireworm if it is not a promenade is right. sent3: the picnicker does not promenade if the cheek is not a promenade and does not isolate moquette. sent4: if something is a kind of humanist a Sunnite then the dumper does not isolate parapsychology. sent5: there exists something such that it is humanist and a Sunnite. sent6: the cheek is not a promenade and it does not isolate moquette. sent7: the moquette is a Shoshone and a wireworm. sent8: the moquette is a kind of a wireworm. sent9: something does isolate telomere if it is a kind of a Shoshone. sent10: the picnicker is molecular and it is a Shoshone if there exists something such that it does not isolate parapsychology.

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

there is something such that it does isolate telomere and is a kind of a baddeleyite.

(Ex): ({JF}x & {EJ}x)

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that it is a kind of a Shoshone and it is a wireworm is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that the fact that it is a Shoshone is true. sent2: that something is both a baddeleyite and not a wireworm if it is not a promenade is right. sent3: the picnicker does not promenade if the cheek is not a promenade and does not isolate moquette. sent4: if something is a kind of humanist a Sunnite then the dumper does not isolate parapsychology. sent5: there exists something such that it is humanist and a Sunnite. sent6: the cheek is not a promenade and it does not isolate moquette. sent7: the moquette is a Shoshone and a wireworm. sent8: the moquette is a kind of a wireworm. sent9: something does isolate telomere if it is a kind of a Shoshone. sent10: the picnicker is molecular and it is a Shoshone if there exists something such that it does not isolate parapsychology. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the hardinggrass does not unpack is true.

¬{B}{aa}

sent1: if the hardinggrass is not a Dalian it is not a aldosteronism and/or it is a dispensability. sent2: something does not unpack if it is not a aldosteronism or is a kind of a dispensability or both. sent3: if something that isolates stingaree-bush does not unpack it is not a Dalian. sent4: if the hardinggrass is a dispensability it does not unpack. sent5: if something is a dispensability then it does not unpack. sent6: the hardinggrass is not a Dalian. sent7: if the bohrium is a kind of a Dalian then the hardinggrass unpacks. sent8: something isolates stingaree-bush but it does not unpack if it is multicultural.

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

the hardinggrass does unpack.

{B}{aa}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the hardinggrass does not unpack is true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the hardinggrass is not a Dalian it is not a aldosteronism and/or it is a dispensability. sent2: something does not unpack if it is not a aldosteronism or is a kind of a dispensability or both. sent3: if something that isolates stingaree-bush does not unpack it is not a Dalian. sent4: if the hardinggrass is a dispensability it does not unpack. sent5: if something is a dispensability then it does not unpack. sent6: the hardinggrass is not a Dalian. sent7: if the bohrium is a kind of a Dalian then the hardinggrass unpacks. sent8: something isolates stingaree-bush but it does not unpack if it is multicultural. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the fact that the hardinggrass does not unpack is correct if either it is not a aldosteronism or it is a kind of a dispensability or both.; sent1 & sent6 -> int2: either the hardinggrass is not a aldosteronism or it is a dispensability or both.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the brook does not hive.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: something is not seraphic if that it is a kind of microeconomics thing that is seraphic is wrong. sent2: the fact that the diocesan is slippery but not non-seraphic is not correct. sent3: if that the diocesan is not microeconomics is not false the brook is microeconomics and it is a kind of a hive. sent4: if the diocesan is nonslippery then the fact that it is not microeconomics is not false. sent5: the brook is not non-microeconomics. sent6: if the fact that the diocesan is not nonslippery and is not non-seraphic does not hold then it is not microeconomics. sent7: the arbovirus is seraphic. sent8: the fact that the diocesan is both nonslippery and seraphic is not right.

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

the Munchener is not seraphic.

¬{AB}{o}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the brook does not hive. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not seraphic if that it is a kind of microeconomics thing that is seraphic is wrong. sent2: the fact that the diocesan is slippery but not non-seraphic is not correct. sent3: if that the diocesan is not microeconomics is not false the brook is microeconomics and it is a kind of a hive. sent4: if the diocesan is nonslippery then the fact that it is not microeconomics is not false. sent5: the brook is not non-microeconomics. sent6: if the fact that the diocesan is not nonslippery and is not non-seraphic does not hold then it is not microeconomics. sent7: the arbovirus is seraphic. sent8: the fact that the diocesan is both nonslippery and seraphic is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent2 -> int1: the diocesan is not microeconomics.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: that the brook is a kind of microeconomics thing that does hive is right.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the soutache is not a dime hold.

¬{D}{a}

sent1: that the soutache is a progressive but it is not a prophet is not true if something discounts. sent2: something is a dime if the fact that it is a kind of a progressive that is not a prophet is not right. sent3: that the soutache is a kind of progressive thing that is a prophet is not true. sent4: if the soutache is a prophet it is a dime. sent5: everything is not a prophet. sent6: that if there is something such that it does discount then the fact that the soutache is both progressive and a prophet does not hold is not false. sent7: the fact that something is a dime if it is a prophet is not wrong. sent8: something is a discount. sent9: the fact that the tripod is a prophet and not a teashop is wrong.

sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {D}x sent3: ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent4: {C}{a} -> {D}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{C}x sent6: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent7: (x): {C}x -> {D}x sent8: (Ex): {A}x sent9: ¬({C}{dn} & ¬{CA}{dn})

the soutache is not a dime.

¬{D}{a}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the soutache is not a dime hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the soutache is a progressive but it is not a prophet is not true if something discounts. sent2: something is a dime if the fact that it is a kind of a progressive that is not a prophet is not right. sent3: that the soutache is a kind of progressive thing that is a prophet is not true. sent4: if the soutache is a prophet it is a dime. sent5: everything is not a prophet. sent6: that if there is something such that it does discount then the fact that the soutache is both progressive and a prophet does not hold is not false. sent7: the fact that something is a dime if it is a prophet is not wrong. sent8: something is a discount. sent9: the fact that the tripod is a prophet and not a teashop is wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent1 -> int1: that the soutache is a progressive but it is not a prophet is false.; sent2 -> int2: if the fact that that the soutache is a progressive but it is not a kind of a prophet is true is wrong it is a dime.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the isolating brow happens.

{A}

sent1: if the fact that the Anglicism happens and the preparation happens is not right the preparation does not occur. sent2: the diabeticness happens if the isolating brow occurs. sent3: the tonometry prevents the non-diabeticness. sent4: if that the GCA occurs is not wrong the fact that the question does not occur and the grooming does not occur is incorrect. sent5: the fact that the accessing effort and the charades happens is incorrect if the loading Aglaonema does not occur. sent6: if that both the isolating oligopoly and the circumnavigating buttock occurs is not right the isolating oligopoly does not occur. sent7: if the circumnavigating buttock does not occur then the feature does not occur and the isolating oligopoly does not occur. sent8: the fact that if the fact that the accessing effort occurs and the charades happens is not correct the accessing effort does not occur hold. sent9: that the heads-up but not the prenatalness occurs brings about that the tonometry does not occur. sent10: if the charades does not occur then the cartage does not occur and the accessing effort does not occur. sent11: not the biopsy but the litigation happens if that the feature does not occur is not false. sent12: if the cartage does not occur that the Anglicism occurs and the preparation occurs does not hold. sent13: if that the questioning does not occur and the groom does not occur is incorrect the circumnavigating buttock does not occur. sent14: the delicateness and the GCA occurs if the preparation does not occur. sent15: the isolating brow happens if the fact that both the heads-up and the non-prenatalness happens is not correct. sent16: that the preparation does not occur leads to that the GCA occurs and the delicateness happens. sent17: if the GCA occurs the question does not occur and the groom does not occur. sent18: the isolating brow does not occur if the tonometry occurs but the biopsy does not occur. sent19: if that the accessing effort does not occur is right then that not the Anglicism but the cartage happens is not correct. sent20: that the isolating oligopoly does not occur leads to that the feature occurs and the litigation occurs. sent21: that the litigation happens brings about that the tonometry happens but the biopsy does not occur. sent22: if the biopsy happens the tonometry happens.

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

the isolating brow does not occur.

¬{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the isolating brow happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the Anglicism happens and the preparation happens is not right the preparation does not occur. sent2: the diabeticness happens if the isolating brow occurs. sent3: the tonometry prevents the non-diabeticness. sent4: if that the GCA occurs is not wrong the fact that the question does not occur and the grooming does not occur is incorrect. sent5: the fact that the accessing effort and the charades happens is incorrect if the loading Aglaonema does not occur. sent6: if that both the isolating oligopoly and the circumnavigating buttock occurs is not right the isolating oligopoly does not occur. sent7: if the circumnavigating buttock does not occur then the feature does not occur and the isolating oligopoly does not occur. sent8: the fact that if the fact that the accessing effort occurs and the charades happens is not correct the accessing effort does not occur hold. sent9: that the heads-up but not the prenatalness occurs brings about that the tonometry does not occur. sent10: if the charades does not occur then the cartage does not occur and the accessing effort does not occur. sent11: not the biopsy but the litigation happens if that the feature does not occur is not false. sent12: if the cartage does not occur that the Anglicism occurs and the preparation occurs does not hold. sent13: if that the questioning does not occur and the groom does not occur is incorrect the circumnavigating buttock does not occur. sent14: the delicateness and the GCA occurs if the preparation does not occur. sent15: the isolating brow happens if the fact that both the heads-up and the non-prenatalness happens is not correct. sent16: that the preparation does not occur leads to that the GCA occurs and the delicateness happens. sent17: if the GCA occurs the question does not occur and the groom does not occur. sent18: the isolating brow does not occur if the tonometry occurs but the biopsy does not occur. sent19: if that the accessing effort does not occur is right then that not the Anglicism but the cartage happens is not correct. sent20: that the isolating oligopoly does not occur leads to that the feature occurs and the litigation occurs. sent21: that the litigation happens brings about that the tonometry happens but the biopsy does not occur. sent22: if the biopsy happens the tonometry happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that both the heads-up and the non-prenatalness happens.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the tonometry does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the calligrapher is intracerebral but not nonreticulate does not hold.

¬({D}{b} & {C}{b})

sent1: the Berliner is lactic if that the bodywork is a humidity is true. sent2: there exists something such that it is not intracerebral. sent3: if the Berliner is a Ostrya then it does not nestle. sent4: the schnook does isolate cicero or it is a kind of a haggle or both. sent5: the calligrapher is not maxillofacial if the fact that the Berliner is not distant but it does circumnavigate drawbridge is wrong. sent6: that the cafe is not a kind of a humidity and it does not access cruller does not hold if it does not isolate spectrometer. sent7: if the spectrometer does not nestle and is not a porthole then the Bovril does not nestle. sent8: if the calligrapher is a Ostrya then it does not reticulate. sent9: that that something is not distant but it circumnavigates drawbridge is not wrong is not right if it is lactic. sent10: if something is not maxillofacial that it is intracerebral is not incorrect. sent11: that the calligrapher does nestle is not incorrect. sent12: the spectrometer does not nestle and it is not a porthole if the fact that the schnook is not non-harsh hold. sent13: something flumps and is peaceable. sent14: there exists something such that it does nestle. sent15: if there is something such that it does not nestle that the calligrapher is intracerebral and it reticulates is incorrect. sent16: if the Bovril does not nestle then the calligrapher does not nestle. sent17: if something does not nestle it is a kind of a Ostrya and is reticulate. sent18: the cafe does not isolate spectrometer if something that flumps is peaceable. sent19: the bodywork is a humidity if that the cafe is not a kind of a humidity and does not access cruller is not correct. sent20: the calligrapher is not a draft. sent21: if there exists something such that it is not a Ostrya the fact that the Berliner is intracerebral and it is reticulate does not hold.

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

the calligrapher is intracerebral and it reticulates.

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the calligrapher is intracerebral but not nonreticulate does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the Berliner is lactic if that the bodywork is a humidity is true. sent2: there exists something such that it is not intracerebral. sent3: if the Berliner is a Ostrya then it does not nestle. sent4: the schnook does isolate cicero or it is a kind of a haggle or both. sent5: the calligrapher is not maxillofacial if the fact that the Berliner is not distant but it does circumnavigate drawbridge is wrong. sent6: that the cafe is not a kind of a humidity and it does not access cruller does not hold if it does not isolate spectrometer. sent7: if the spectrometer does not nestle and is not a porthole then the Bovril does not nestle. sent8: if the calligrapher is a Ostrya then it does not reticulate. sent9: that that something is not distant but it circumnavigates drawbridge is not wrong is not right if it is lactic. sent10: if something is not maxillofacial that it is intracerebral is not incorrect. sent11: that the calligrapher does nestle is not incorrect. sent12: the spectrometer does not nestle and it is not a porthole if the fact that the schnook is not non-harsh hold. sent13: something flumps and is peaceable. sent14: there exists something such that it does nestle. sent15: if there is something such that it does not nestle that the calligrapher is intracerebral and it reticulates is incorrect. sent16: if the Bovril does not nestle then the calligrapher does not nestle. sent17: if something does not nestle it is a kind of a Ostrya and is reticulate. sent18: the cafe does not isolate spectrometer if something that flumps is peaceable. sent19: the bodywork is a humidity if that the cafe is not a kind of a humidity and does not access cruller is not correct. sent20: the calligrapher is not a draft. sent21: if there exists something such that it is not a Ostrya the fact that the Berliner is intracerebral and it is reticulate does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that that the accessing daze happens but the extorting does not occur is incorrect hold.

¬({AA} & ¬{AB})

sent1: the fact that if that the coastalness occurs and/or the lockstep does not occur is not right the extorting does not occur is correct. sent2: the lockstep does not occur. sent3: that the coastalness happens and/or the lockstep does not occur is wrong if the dipping occurs. sent4: the lockstep occurs if the coastalness does not occur. sent5: the quartering and the accessing daze occurs if the spiraling does not occur. sent6: that the circumnavigating Marceau does not occur leads to that the transmutation and the intransitive occurs. sent7: the coastalness is prevented by that the accessing daze and the extorting happens. sent8: the fact that the accessing daze and the extorting happens does not hold. sent9: the hydroelectricity occurs or the isolating impurity happens or both. sent10: the ballup results in that the spiral does not occur and the bridal does not occur. sent11: if the transmutation occurs the dipping occurs. sent12: the extorting does not occur.

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

the accessing daze but not the extorting happens.

({AA} & ¬{AB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that that the accessing daze happens but the extorting does not occur is incorrect hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that if that the coastalness occurs and/or the lockstep does not occur is not right the extorting does not occur is correct. sent2: the lockstep does not occur. sent3: that the coastalness happens and/or the lockstep does not occur is wrong if the dipping occurs. sent4: the lockstep occurs if the coastalness does not occur. sent5: the quartering and the accessing daze occurs if the spiraling does not occur. sent6: that the circumnavigating Marceau does not occur leads to that the transmutation and the intransitive occurs. sent7: the coastalness is prevented by that the accessing daze and the extorting happens. sent8: the fact that the accessing daze and the extorting happens does not hold. sent9: the hydroelectricity occurs or the isolating impurity happens or both. sent10: the ballup results in that the spiral does not occur and the bridal does not occur. sent11: if the transmutation occurs the dipping occurs. sent12: the extorting does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the transferrin does not access blockade-runner and does not circumnavigate Cotacachi.

(¬{C}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

sent1: if the fact that the pullover is a kind of a monotheist that loads Taichung is not wrong then the masseuse does not access blockade-runner. sent2: the pullover does load Taichung. sent3: the fact that the transferrin does not access blockade-runner and it does not circumnavigate Cotacachi is wrong if the masseuse does not access blockade-runner. sent4: that the transferrin does not access blockade-runner but it does circumnavigate Cotacachi does not hold if the masseuse does not access blockade-runner. sent5: the fact that the transferrin does access blockade-runner and does not circumnavigate Cotacachi is false if the masseuse does not access blockade-runner. sent6: the fact that the transferrin does access blockade-runner but it does not circumnavigate Cotacachi is incorrect. sent7: the fact that the pullover is a monotheist is not false. sent8: that the transferrin does not access blockade-runner and does circumnavigate Cotacachi is incorrect. sent9: The Taichung does load pullover.

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the transferrin does not access blockade-runner and does not circumnavigate Cotacachi. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the pullover is a kind of a monotheist that loads Taichung is not wrong then the masseuse does not access blockade-runner. sent2: the pullover does load Taichung. sent3: the fact that the transferrin does not access blockade-runner and it does not circumnavigate Cotacachi is wrong if the masseuse does not access blockade-runner. sent4: that the transferrin does not access blockade-runner but it does circumnavigate Cotacachi does not hold if the masseuse does not access blockade-runner. sent5: the fact that the transferrin does access blockade-runner and does not circumnavigate Cotacachi is false if the masseuse does not access blockade-runner. sent6: the fact that the transferrin does access blockade-runner but it does not circumnavigate Cotacachi is incorrect. sent7: the fact that the pullover is a monotheist is not false. sent8: that the transferrin does not access blockade-runner and does circumnavigate Cotacachi is incorrect. sent9: The Taichung does load pullover. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the pullover is a kind of a monotheist that loads Taichung.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: that the masseuse does not access blockade-runner is right.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the positionableness but not the boiling happens is incorrect.

¬({E} & ¬{D})

sent1: the sorrowfulness does not occur and the bicker does not occur if the christianness does not occur. sent2: if the circumnavigating oxytetracycline does not occur that the positionableness but not the boiling happens does not hold. sent3: the circumnavigating oxytetracycline happens. sent4: the boiling does not occur. sent5: the fact that the pneumonicness happens is true. sent6: if the bicker does not occur the Concord and the accessing bedwetter occurs. sent7: if the Concord does not occur the boiling does not occur. sent8: that the Concord does not occur is brought about by that the circumnavigating oxytetracycline occurs and the pneumonicness occurs. sent9: the positionableness occurs and the boiling does not occur if the Concord does not occur.

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

that the fact that the positionableness but not the boiling happens hold is wrong.

¬({E} & ¬{D})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the positionableness but not the boiling happens is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the sorrowfulness does not occur and the bicker does not occur if the christianness does not occur. sent2: if the circumnavigating oxytetracycline does not occur that the positionableness but not the boiling happens does not hold. sent3: the circumnavigating oxytetracycline happens. sent4: the boiling does not occur. sent5: the fact that the pneumonicness happens is true. sent6: if the bicker does not occur the Concord and the accessing bedwetter occurs. sent7: if the Concord does not occur the boiling does not occur. sent8: that the Concord does not occur is brought about by that the circumnavigating oxytetracycline occurs and the pneumonicness occurs. sent9: the positionableness occurs and the boiling does not occur if the Concord does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent5 -> int1: the circumnavigating oxytetracycline and the pneumonicness occurs.; sent8 & int1 -> int2: the Concord does not occur.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the experimenter does not circumnavigate brassard but it does branch is not true the fact that it does not circumnavigate half-term is true.

¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}

sent1: if that the experimenter is both not a tailfin and a branched is wrong then it is not exacta. sent2: if that the experimenter is a kind of a pepsin and it is returnable does not hold then it does not access martyr. sent3: something is not a Avestan if that it is a homogeneity and is unusual is not right. sent4: if the fact that something is not a commissioner but it is a drumstick is not true then it is not non-glycogenic. sent5: something is not a dunk if the fact that it is not micrometeoric hold. sent6: if that the SOD is electrophoretic and it is surface-to-air is not correct the fact that it is not a parlance is right. sent7: if something that does not dunk accesses experimenter then it does not circumnavigate Mergus. sent8: something does not access langbeinite if it is non-neotenic. sent9: something is not a truss if it is not a drumstick. sent10: if the fact that something does not circumnavigate brassard and is a branched is not right then it does not circumnavigate half-term. sent11: the experimenter does not circumnavigate half-term if that it does not access apperception and it is amaurotic is not true. sent12: something is not capacitive if the fact that it is not congestive and it circumnavigates oligopoly is not right. sent13: the experimenter is not returnable if it does not access heirloom. sent14: if the fact that something does load goblin and it is a reconciliation is not true then it is not electromagnetic. sent15: the fact that the experimenter does circumnavigate half-term hold if the fact that it does not circumnavigate brassard and does branch is not true. sent16: if that something is not a badge but it does insulate is incorrect then it does isolate grama. sent17: if the experimenter is not a branched then it is not planographic. sent18: if that the fact that something is amylolytic and it is erecting is correct is wrong then it does not load vasectomy. sent19: if the spritsail is non-unusual thing that accesses causeway it does not circumnavigate brassard.

sent1: ¬(¬{HG}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{BH}{aa} sent2: ¬({IK}{aa} & {EP}{aa}) -> ¬{EA}{aa} sent3: (x): ¬({DU}x & {FK}x) -> ¬{S}x sent4: (x): ¬(¬{JB}x & {JE}x) -> {AC}x sent5: (x): ¬{GD}x -> ¬{AI}x sent6: ¬({IP}{bb} & {AQ}{bb}) -> ¬{JD}{bb} sent7: (x): (¬{AI}x & {FS}x) -> ¬{CK}x sent8: (x): ¬{IR}x -> ¬{BN}x sent9: (x): ¬{JE}x -> ¬{JJ}x sent10: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent11: ¬(¬{ES}{aa} & {FM}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent12: (x): ¬(¬{CJ}x & {R}x) -> ¬{HD}x sent13: ¬{IL}{aa} -> ¬{EP}{aa} sent14: (x): ¬({DL}x & {CN}x) -> ¬{HS}x sent15: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent16: (x): ¬(¬{CQ}x & {BC}x) -> {CI}x sent17: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬{IS}{aa} sent18: (x): ¬({AF}x & {GE}x) -> ¬{CA}x sent19: (¬{FK}{aq} & {EI}{aq}) -> ¬{AA}{aq}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = if that the experimenter does not circumnavigate brassard but it does branch is not true the fact that it does not circumnavigate half-term is true. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the experimenter is both not a tailfin and a branched is wrong then it is not exacta. sent2: if that the experimenter is a kind of a pepsin and it is returnable does not hold then it does not access martyr. sent3: something is not a Avestan if that it is a homogeneity and is unusual is not right. sent4: if the fact that something is not a commissioner but it is a drumstick is not true then it is not non-glycogenic. sent5: something is not a dunk if the fact that it is not micrometeoric hold. sent6: if that the SOD is electrophoretic and it is surface-to-air is not correct the fact that it is not a parlance is right. sent7: if something that does not dunk accesses experimenter then it does not circumnavigate Mergus. sent8: something does not access langbeinite if it is non-neotenic. sent9: something is not a truss if it is not a drumstick. sent10: if the fact that something does not circumnavigate brassard and is a branched is not right then it does not circumnavigate half-term. sent11: the experimenter does not circumnavigate half-term if that it does not access apperception and it is amaurotic is not true. sent12: something is not capacitive if the fact that it is not congestive and it circumnavigates oligopoly is not right. sent13: the experimenter is not returnable if it does not access heirloom. sent14: if the fact that something does load goblin and it is a reconciliation is not true then it is not electromagnetic. sent15: the fact that the experimenter does circumnavigate half-term hold if the fact that it does not circumnavigate brassard and does branch is not true. sent16: if that something is not a badge but it does insulate is incorrect then it does isolate grama. sent17: if the experimenter is not a branched then it is not planographic. sent18: if that the fact that something is amylolytic and it is erecting is correct is wrong then it does not load vasectomy. sent19: if the spritsail is non-unusual thing that accesses causeway it does not circumnavigate brassard. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fireplace is not a joke.

¬{C}{c}

sent1: the butcherbird is not a kind of an extremist but it is a arrack if the cornflower is not a arrack. sent2: there exists something such that that it freshens and it is long does not hold. sent3: the fact that the butcherbird is not a digitigrade hold. sent4: if the butcherbird is an extremist and it is a arrack then the fireplace is a joke. sent5: if there exists something such that it is not long the cornflower is not a arrack. sent6: if there exists something such that that it does freshen and it is long is not right then the cornflower is not a arrack. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a arrack that is an extremist is not correct. sent8: if something does not circumnavigate Dama and it does not access tolazoline it is not calligraphic. sent9: the fireplace is not a arrack if there exists something such that it does not joke. sent10: if something is not a kind of a arrack the butcherbird is not a joke. sent11: the fact that the butcherbird is not an extremist is right if the cornflower is not a kind of a arrack. sent12: the fact that if the cornflower is not a kind of an extremist then the butcherbird is an extremist is right. sent13: that something is long hold if it is a arrack. sent14: the butcherbird is not an extremist. sent15: the fact that the cornflower is a kind of a joke and it is a kind of an extremist is not right if it is not calligraphic. sent16: the butcherbird is not a joke and is an extremist if the fireplace is not an extremist. sent17: there exists something such that it freshens and is long. sent18: if the cornflower is not a napu it does not circumnavigate Dama and it does not access tolazoline. sent19: if the butcherbird is not an extremist but it is a arrack then the fact that the fireplace is a kind of a joke is correct.

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

the crookneck is long.

{AB}{e}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fireplace is not a joke. ; $context$ = sent1: the butcherbird is not a kind of an extremist but it is a arrack if the cornflower is not a arrack. sent2: there exists something such that that it freshens and it is long does not hold. sent3: the fact that the butcherbird is not a digitigrade hold. sent4: if the butcherbird is an extremist and it is a arrack then the fireplace is a joke. sent5: if there exists something such that it is not long the cornflower is not a arrack. sent6: if there exists something such that that it does freshen and it is long is not right then the cornflower is not a arrack. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a arrack that is an extremist is not correct. sent8: if something does not circumnavigate Dama and it does not access tolazoline it is not calligraphic. sent9: the fireplace is not a arrack if there exists something such that it does not joke. sent10: if something is not a kind of a arrack the butcherbird is not a joke. sent11: the fact that the butcherbird is not an extremist is right if the cornflower is not a kind of a arrack. sent12: the fact that if the cornflower is not a kind of an extremist then the butcherbird is an extremist is right. sent13: that something is long hold if it is a arrack. sent14: the butcherbird is not an extremist. sent15: the fact that the cornflower is a kind of a joke and it is a kind of an extremist is not right if it is not calligraphic. sent16: the butcherbird is not a joke and is an extremist if the fireplace is not an extremist. sent17: there exists something such that it freshens and is long. sent18: if the cornflower is not a napu it does not circumnavigate Dama and it does not access tolazoline. sent19: if the butcherbird is not an extremist but it is a arrack then the fact that the fireplace is a kind of a joke is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent6 -> int1: the cornflower is not a kind of a arrack.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the butcherbird is not an extremist but it is a arrack.; int2 & sent19 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the dressmaker is a kind of a wrapped and is not buccal.

({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

sent1: if that the tincture is a clapboard but it is not actinomycotic is not correct the dressmaker is not a clapboard. sent2: something is not buccal if it is not a coin. sent3: something is buccal and it is butyric if it is not Columbian. sent4: if something is not a chicane it is not a fascist. sent5: the amiodarone is buccal thing that coins if the fact that the dressmaker is a clapboard is not right. sent6: something is not buccal if that it is not a clapboard and is a coin does not hold. sent7: something is not Columbian if that either it is butyric or it is not a wrapped or both is not right. sent8: the amiodarone is butyric thing that is Columbian. sent9: the amiodarone is Columbian. sent10: if the transpiration is not a fascist that the tincture is both a clapboard and not actinomycotic is not right. sent11: the dressmaker is not actinomycotic. sent12: the fact that if the dressmaker does not coin then the dressmaker is not buccal is correct. sent13: the fact that the dressmaker wraps is right if the amiodarone is butyric.

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

the wanderer is not Columbian.

¬{B}{iu}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dressmaker is a kind of a wrapped and is not buccal. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the tincture is a clapboard but it is not actinomycotic is not correct the dressmaker is not a clapboard. sent2: something is not buccal if it is not a coin. sent3: something is buccal and it is butyric if it is not Columbian. sent4: if something is not a chicane it is not a fascist. sent5: the amiodarone is buccal thing that coins if the fact that the dressmaker is a clapboard is not right. sent6: something is not buccal if that it is not a clapboard and is a coin does not hold. sent7: something is not Columbian if that either it is butyric or it is not a wrapped or both is not right. sent8: the amiodarone is butyric thing that is Columbian. sent9: the amiodarone is Columbian. sent10: if the transpiration is not a fascist that the tincture is both a clapboard and not actinomycotic is not right. sent11: the dressmaker is not actinomycotic. sent12: the fact that if the dressmaker does not coin then the dressmaker is not buccal is correct. sent13: the fact that the dressmaker wraps is right if the amiodarone is butyric. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the amiodarone is butyric.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: the dressmaker does wrap.; sent6 -> int3: if that the dressmaker is not a clapboard but it does coin is wrong then it is not buccal.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the packaging does circumnavigate mystification.

{B}{c}

sent1: something is a kind of a canon if it is inductive. sent2: the suction is not a canon. sent3: if the suction is not a canon either the tosser is a mellowness or it is visceral or both. sent4: if the tosser is a kind of a mellowness the packaging circumnavigates mystification. sent5: if the tosser is not a kind of a hubcap the suction is inductive.

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

the packaging does not circumnavigate mystification.

¬{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the packaging does circumnavigate mystification. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a kind of a canon if it is inductive. sent2: the suction is not a canon. sent3: if the suction is not a canon either the tosser is a mellowness or it is visceral or both. sent4: if the tosser is a kind of a mellowness the packaging circumnavigates mystification. sent5: if the tosser is not a kind of a hubcap the suction is inductive. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent2 -> int1: the tosser is a mellowness and/or visceral.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the budgerigar does not circumnavigate silkgrass.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: if that the gang is a cadaverine that is neolithic is not correct then the budgerigar does not circumnavigate silkgrass. sent2: the budgerigar circumnavigates silkgrass and does access Mergus if it is not presidential. sent3: the gang does not circumnavigate silkgrass if the budgerigar is not a cadaverine. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is not a minyan and/or it is not a dumps is not true then the fact that the budgerigar is not solanaceous is correct. sent5: the dumps does not circumnavigate mustard but it accesses radiotelephone if it circumnavigates osteopath. sent6: if the dumps does not isolate ivory then that it is either not a minyan or not a dumps or both is false. sent7: something does circumnavigate silkgrass if it does access Mergus. sent8: if the fact that something is not solanaceous is not incorrect the fact that it is unequivocal and it is not a Polo is false. sent9: the dumps does circumnavigate osteopath. sent10: if the dumps does not circumnavigate mustard but it does access radiotelephone it does not isolate ivory. sent11: something does access Mergus and/or it is presidential if it is not prokaryotic. sent12: if the fact that something is a kind of unequivocal thing that is not a Polo is not true it is not prokaryotic. sent13: the budgerigar is not neolithic.

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

the budgerigar circumnavigates silkgrass.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the budgerigar does not circumnavigate silkgrass. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the gang is a cadaverine that is neolithic is not correct then the budgerigar does not circumnavigate silkgrass. sent2: the budgerigar circumnavigates silkgrass and does access Mergus if it is not presidential. sent3: the gang does not circumnavigate silkgrass if the budgerigar is not a cadaverine. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is not a minyan and/or it is not a dumps is not true then the fact that the budgerigar is not solanaceous is correct. sent5: the dumps does not circumnavigate mustard but it accesses radiotelephone if it circumnavigates osteopath. sent6: if the dumps does not isolate ivory then that it is either not a minyan or not a dumps or both is false. sent7: something does circumnavigate silkgrass if it does access Mergus. sent8: if the fact that something is not solanaceous is not incorrect the fact that it is unequivocal and it is not a Polo is false. sent9: the dumps does circumnavigate osteopath. sent10: if the dumps does not circumnavigate mustard but it does access radiotelephone it does not isolate ivory. sent11: something does access Mergus and/or it is presidential if it is not prokaryotic. sent12: if the fact that something is a kind of unequivocal thing that is not a Polo is not true it is not prokaryotic. sent13: the budgerigar is not neolithic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the hyperextension but not the isolating Modicon happens.

({A} & ¬{B})

sent1: the attention does not occur and the accessing scab does not occur. sent2: the circumnavigating Acanthocereus does not occur. sent3: if the fact that the Orwellianness happens and the arsenicalness does not occur does not hold then the arsenicalness occurs. sent4: the isolating Modicon does not occur if the arsenicalness happens and the attention does not occur. sent5: the fact that the Orwellianness but not the arsenical happens does not hold.

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hyperextension but not the isolating Modicon happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the attention does not occur and the accessing scab does not occur. sent2: the circumnavigating Acanthocereus does not occur. sent3: if the fact that the Orwellianness happens and the arsenicalness does not occur does not hold then the arsenicalness occurs. sent4: the isolating Modicon does not occur if the arsenicalness happens and the attention does not occur. sent5: the fact that the Orwellianness but not the arsenical happens does not hold. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the hyperextension does not occur.; sent2 -> int1: the nesting occurs and/or the circumnavigating Acanthocereus does not occur.; sent3 & sent5 -> int2: the arsenicalness happens.; sent1 -> int3: the fact that the attention does not occur hold.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the arsenical happens but the attention does not occur.; sent4 & int4 -> int5: the isolating Modicon does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it is not a whipstitch then it does not load unattainableness.

(Ex): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x

sent1: the fact that the boarfish is not pleasant is not incorrect if the fact that it is not a leptosporangium is not incorrect. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a Myanmar then it is not a leptosporangium. sent3: the fact that if the boarfish is a kind of the whipstitch then the fact that the boarfish does not load unattainableness is true hold. sent4: there is something such that if that it is a whipstitch hold it does not load unattainableness. sent5: if the boarfish does not load unattainableness then it is not torrential. sent6: if something does not isolate Matterhorn then that it is not apiarian hold. sent7: that if the Rioja is not the whipstitch then the Rioja accesses cruller is not incorrect. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not a whipstitch it loads unattainableness. sent9: if the boarfish is not a kind of a whipstitch the fact that it does not load unattainableness is true. sent10: there exists something such that if that it is not a saffron is not incorrect it is not a Sequoiadendron.

sent1: ¬{CC}{aa} -> ¬{BS}{aa} sent2: (Ex): ¬{CR}x -> ¬{CC}x sent3: {B}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent4: (Ex): {B}x -> ¬{C}x sent5: ¬{C}{aa} -> ¬{HO}{aa} sent6: (x): ¬{AJ}x -> ¬{DK}x sent7: ¬{B}{fd} -> {IC}{fd} sent8: (Ex): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent9: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent10: (Ex): ¬{CE}x -> ¬{AK}x

the etcher is not apiarian if it does not isolate Matterhorn.

¬{AJ}{jj} -> ¬{DK}{jj}

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not a whipstitch then it does not load unattainableness. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the boarfish is not pleasant is not incorrect if the fact that it is not a leptosporangium is not incorrect. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a Myanmar then it is not a leptosporangium. sent3: the fact that if the boarfish is a kind of the whipstitch then the fact that the boarfish does not load unattainableness is true hold. sent4: there is something such that if that it is a whipstitch hold it does not load unattainableness. sent5: if the boarfish does not load unattainableness then it is not torrential. sent6: if something does not isolate Matterhorn then that it is not apiarian hold. sent7: that if the Rioja is not the whipstitch then the Rioja accesses cruller is not incorrect. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not a whipstitch it loads unattainableness. sent9: if the boarfish is not a kind of a whipstitch the fact that it does not load unattainableness is true. sent10: there exists something such that if that it is not a saffron is not incorrect it is not a Sequoiadendron. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the gimlet is not a kind of a exteroception is not wrong.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: the fact that the nutcracker does load Levite and it isolates dysphonia is false. sent2: the caseworm is not a kind of a communist. sent3: if the fact that the nutcracker is not auscultatory is not incorrect then the fact that it loads Levite and it does not isolate dysphonia is not true. sent4: there is something such that it loads Levite and does not isolate dysphonia. sent5: the Briton is a stew and is not athletic if there is something such that it does not circumnavigate featheredge. sent6: something is diamantine and it is frontal if it is not a presenter. sent7: the gimlet is a exteroception if there exists something such that that it does load Levite and does not isolate dysphonia does not hold. sent8: the Minuteman is not auscultatory if the lamphouse does not access blain. sent9: something that is both not a denominationalism and not auscultatory is not a kind of a exteroception. sent10: if there is something such that it isolates dysphonia the gimlet is a kind of a exteroception. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a exteroception that does not isolate dysphonia does not hold. sent12: if the Minuteman is not auscultatory the nutcracker is not a exteroception but it is a kind of a denominationalism. sent13: a non-communist thing is not indoor and is not a presenter. sent14: if the Briton is a stew it is phonogramic and it does not circumnavigate scrubbird. sent15: everything does circumnavigate dither and it does not circumnavigate featheredge. sent16: the Briton is not diamantine if the caseworm is diamantine. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it does load Levite and it isolates dysphonia is false. sent18: if something is phonogramic but it does not circumnavigate scrubbird it does not access blain. sent19: there exists something such that that that it is auscultatory and it is not a exteroception is true is not right. sent20: the nutcracker is not auscultatory. sent21: the lamphouse does not access blain if the Briton does not access blain and it is not diamantine. sent22: the fact that if the nutcracker is not auscultatory then that the nutcracker does load Levite and it isolates dysphonia does not hold hold.

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

the gimlet is not a exteroception.

¬{B}{b}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the gimlet is not a kind of a exteroception is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the nutcracker does load Levite and it isolates dysphonia is false. sent2: the caseworm is not a kind of a communist. sent3: if the fact that the nutcracker is not auscultatory is not incorrect then the fact that it loads Levite and it does not isolate dysphonia is not true. sent4: there is something such that it loads Levite and does not isolate dysphonia. sent5: the Briton is a stew and is not athletic if there is something such that it does not circumnavigate featheredge. sent6: something is diamantine and it is frontal if it is not a presenter. sent7: the gimlet is a exteroception if there exists something such that that it does load Levite and does not isolate dysphonia does not hold. sent8: the Minuteman is not auscultatory if the lamphouse does not access blain. sent9: something that is both not a denominationalism and not auscultatory is not a kind of a exteroception. sent10: if there is something such that it isolates dysphonia the gimlet is a kind of a exteroception. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a exteroception that does not isolate dysphonia does not hold. sent12: if the Minuteman is not auscultatory the nutcracker is not a exteroception but it is a kind of a denominationalism. sent13: a non-communist thing is not indoor and is not a presenter. sent14: if the Briton is a stew it is phonogramic and it does not circumnavigate scrubbird. sent15: everything does circumnavigate dither and it does not circumnavigate featheredge. sent16: the Briton is not diamantine if the caseworm is diamantine. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it does load Levite and it isolates dysphonia is false. sent18: if something is phonogramic but it does not circumnavigate scrubbird it does not access blain. sent19: there exists something such that that that it is auscultatory and it is not a exteroception is true is not right. sent20: the nutcracker is not auscultatory. sent21: the lamphouse does not access blain if the Briton does not access blain and it is not diamantine. sent22: the fact that if the nutcracker is not auscultatory then that the nutcracker does load Levite and it isolates dysphonia does not hold hold. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent20 -> int1: that the nutcracker does load Levite and does not isolate dysphonia is wrong.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it does load Levite and it does not isolate dysphonia is not right.; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Cheddar is a countrywoman.

{A}{aa}

sent1: the Cheddar is a kind of headless thing that does not elope if the chiropractor is a Malaysia. sent2: the chiropractor is a Malaysia. sent3: something is a countrywoman if that it is all is not false. sent4: the chiropractor is not a Malaysia and it does not isolate brackishness if the buckle is not a bunchberry. sent5: if something is headless and does not elope it is all. sent6: the fact that something is not all hold if it is not a Malaysia.

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

the Cheddar is not a countrywoman.

¬{A}{aa}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Cheddar is a countrywoman. ; $context$ = sent1: the Cheddar is a kind of headless thing that does not elope if the chiropractor is a Malaysia. sent2: the chiropractor is a Malaysia. sent3: something is a countrywoman if that it is all is not false. sent4: the chiropractor is not a Malaysia and it does not isolate brackishness if the buckle is not a bunchberry. sent5: if something is headless and does not elope it is all. sent6: the fact that something is not all hold if it is not a Malaysia. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: if the Cheddar is headless but it does not elope it is all.; sent1 & sent2 -> int2: the Cheddar is headless but it does not elope.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Cheddar is all.; sent3 -> int4: if the Cheddar is all the fact that it is a countrywoman is not wrong.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the Crow is a kind of a letterpress and it isolates analyst does not hold.

¬({C}{aa} & {B}{aa})

sent1: if something is not doric that it is a letterpress and does isolate analyst does not hold. sent2: The analyst does isolate Crow. sent3: if the fact that the kern is a collateral and it is doric is false then the Crow is not doric. sent4: the highboy is a letterpress that circumnavigates swish. sent5: if something is a dunker it is planetal. sent6: the Crow is a Orion. sent7: the fact that the escolar does isolate analyst is right. sent8: that something is not non-collateral and it is doric is not right if it does not isolate reading. sent9: the Crow is doric. sent10: if the Crow is abranchiate it is comparable. sent11: if something is doric then it is a letterpress. sent12: the oxcart is doric. sent13: the Crow does isolate analyst. sent14: the clipper does isolate analyst. sent15: the Crow is nonsyllabic. sent16: that the Buddhist is a letterpress is not false. sent17: if something is a kind of a letterpress that is not doric then it isolates analyst.

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({C}x & {B}x) sent2: {AB}{ab} sent3: ¬({D}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent4: ({C}{cg} & {AO}{cg}) sent5: (x): {DI}x -> {ES}x sent6: {AA}{aa} sent7: {B}{es} sent8: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({D}x & {A}x) sent9: {A}{aa} sent10: {AL}{aa} -> {II}{aa} sent11: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent12: {A}{dl} sent13: {B}{aa} sent14: {B}{df} sent15: {FK}{aa} sent16: {C}{at} sent17: (x): ({C}x & ¬{A}x) -> {B}x

the sheath isolates analyst.

{B}{ct}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Crow is a kind of a letterpress and it isolates analyst does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not doric that it is a letterpress and does isolate analyst does not hold. sent2: The analyst does isolate Crow. sent3: if the fact that the kern is a collateral and it is doric is false then the Crow is not doric. sent4: the highboy is a letterpress that circumnavigates swish. sent5: if something is a dunker it is planetal. sent6: the Crow is a Orion. sent7: the fact that the escolar does isolate analyst is right. sent8: that something is not non-collateral and it is doric is not right if it does not isolate reading. sent9: the Crow is doric. sent10: if the Crow is abranchiate it is comparable. sent11: if something is doric then it is a letterpress. sent12: the oxcart is doric. sent13: the Crow does isolate analyst. sent14: the clipper does isolate analyst. sent15: the Crow is nonsyllabic. sent16: that the Buddhist is a letterpress is not false. sent17: if something is a kind of a letterpress that is not doric then it isolates analyst. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> int1: if the Crow is doric it is a letterpress.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the Crow is a letterpress.; int2 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the sentence and the caring happens.

({C} & {D})

sent1: the rehearsing or the non-contrapuntalness or both happens. sent2: that the sentencing does not occur is prevented by the rehearsing. sent3: the sentence is triggered by the non-contrapuntalness. sent4: the care and the circumnavigating lion-hunter occurs.

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = both the sentence and the caring happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the rehearsing or the non-contrapuntalness or both happens. sent2: that the sentencing does not occur is prevented by the rehearsing. sent3: the sentence is triggered by the non-contrapuntalness. sent4: the care and the circumnavigating lion-hunter occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent2 & sent3 -> int1: that the sentencing happens is not false.; sent4 -> int2: the care happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the brickbat is not a kind of a slowdown.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: something is a slowdown if it is a kind of a Peloponnese. sent2: the prefect is a kind of a slowdown. sent3: the prefect is Djiboutian. sent4: if there is something such that that it is a Djiboutian that is not a kind of a Peloponnese is wrong the annoyance is a Peloponnese. sent5: if that the prefect is not non-Djiboutian is not wrong then the brickbat is a Peloponnese. sent6: the prefect is paleolithic.

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

that the annoyance is a Peloponnese hold.

{B}{if}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the brickbat is not a kind of a slowdown. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a slowdown if it is a kind of a Peloponnese. sent2: the prefect is a kind of a slowdown. sent3: the prefect is Djiboutian. sent4: if there is something such that that it is a Djiboutian that is not a kind of a Peloponnese is wrong the annoyance is a Peloponnese. sent5: if that the prefect is not non-Djiboutian is not wrong then the brickbat is a Peloponnese. sent6: the prefect is paleolithic. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the brickbat is a Peloponnese.; sent1 -> int2: if the brickbat is a kind of a Peloponnese it is a slowdown.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the fact that the arsonist is a kind of a vestal that is not a rounding is not true is right.

¬({B}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

sent1: if the brim does not clothe then the fact that it is Dalmatian and it is fibrinous is not correct. sent2: the glossarist is a kind of a Eastertide. sent3: if the glossarist is a vestal that the arsonist is a vestal and is a rounding does not hold. sent4: either the glossarist is anorectal or it is a kind of a phycology or both if there is something such that it is a phycology. sent5: if that the glossarist is an intensity hold it is a vestal. sent6: if the fact that something is not non-Dalmatian and it is fibrinous is false the fact that it is not a nifedipine hold. sent7: if either the glossarist is not a kind of a rounding or it is a vestal or both then the potentiation is a rounding. sent8: that the arsonist is a kind of an intensity but it is not a vestal is not right. sent9: the glossarist rounds. sent10: the brim does not clothe. sent11: the fact that the arsonist is a vestal and a rounding is not right. sent12: the arsonist is an intensity if it is a rounding. sent13: that if the glossarist is anorectal then the arsonist is an intensity is right. sent14: if the glossarist is a vestal then that the arsonist is both a vestal and not a rounding does not hold. sent15: something is a phycology and it does tickle if it is not a nifedipine.

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

that the potentiation is rounding hold.

{D}{dk}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the fact that the arsonist is a kind of a vestal that is not a rounding is not true is right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the brim does not clothe then the fact that it is Dalmatian and it is fibrinous is not correct. sent2: the glossarist is a kind of a Eastertide. sent3: if the glossarist is a vestal that the arsonist is a vestal and is a rounding does not hold. sent4: either the glossarist is anorectal or it is a kind of a phycology or both if there is something such that it is a phycology. sent5: if that the glossarist is an intensity hold it is a vestal. sent6: if the fact that something is not non-Dalmatian and it is fibrinous is false the fact that it is not a nifedipine hold. sent7: if either the glossarist is not a kind of a rounding or it is a vestal or both then the potentiation is a rounding. sent8: that the arsonist is a kind of an intensity but it is not a vestal is not right. sent9: the glossarist rounds. sent10: the brim does not clothe. sent11: the fact that the arsonist is a vestal and a rounding is not right. sent12: the arsonist is an intensity if it is a rounding. sent13: that if the glossarist is anorectal then the arsonist is an intensity is right. sent14: if the glossarist is a vestal then that the arsonist is both a vestal and not a rounding does not hold. sent15: something is a phycology and it does tickle if it is not a nifedipine. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the gayfeather circumnavigates moquette is not wrong.

{B}{b}

sent1: the friar's-cowl is not a forwarding and does circumnavigate moquette if the gayfeather is not a druidism. sent2: if that that something is not a druidism and/or it is not carbocyclic is right is not true then it does not circumnavigate moquette. sent3: the gayfeather is a silkgrass if the friar's-cowl is not a kind of a druidism. sent4: if something is not forwarding and is a kind of a silkgrass it does circumnavigate moquette. sent5: if something that does circumnavigate moquette is a druidism it forwards. sent6: if something is Cappadocian the fact that either it is not a druidism or it is not carbocyclic or both is false. sent7: if something that is acanthotic is a knot then it is cytotoxic. sent8: the gayfeather is a kind of non-forwarding thing that is a silkgrass if the friar's-cowl is not a druidism.

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

the gayfeather does not circumnavigate moquette.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the gayfeather circumnavigates moquette is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the friar's-cowl is not a forwarding and does circumnavigate moquette if the gayfeather is not a druidism. sent2: if that that something is not a druidism and/or it is not carbocyclic is right is not true then it does not circumnavigate moquette. sent3: the gayfeather is a silkgrass if the friar's-cowl is not a kind of a druidism. sent4: if something is not forwarding and is a kind of a silkgrass it does circumnavigate moquette. sent5: if something that does circumnavigate moquette is a druidism it forwards. sent6: if something is Cappadocian the fact that either it is not a druidism or it is not carbocyclic or both is false. sent7: if something that is acanthotic is a knot then it is cytotoxic. sent8: the gayfeather is a kind of non-forwarding thing that is a silkgrass if the friar's-cowl is not a druidism. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: if the gayfeather is both not forwarding and a silkgrass then it does circumnavigate moquette.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the auspices occurs.

{C}

sent1: the accessing profanity does not occur if the fact that the Timoreseness does not occur and the auspices does not occur is not right. sent2: that the founder happens is caused by that the lend-lease does not occur and the intending does not occur. sent3: that the circumnavigating disarray happens brings about that the accessing hardinggrass occurs and the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur. sent4: if the accessing hardinggrass occurs but the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur then the self-induction does not occur. sent5: the nominal does not occur and the circumnavigating lay-up does not occur. sent6: the accessing hardinggrass does not occur. sent7: that the fact that the grappling and the Timorese happens is wrong is correct if that the circumnavigating disarray does not occur hold. sent8: the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur. sent9: that the Timorese does not occur and the auspices does not occur is incorrect if the grappling does not occur. sent10: if the hair-raiser and the shrubbiness occurs the circumnavigating disarray does not occur. sent11: if the Timoreseness does not occur then that the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur and the accessing hardinggrass does not occur is not correct. sent12: that the accessing hardinggrass does not occur and the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur prevents that the auspices does not occur. sent13: the auspices does not occur if that that the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur and the accessing hardinggrass does not occur is correct is incorrect. sent14: the grappling does not occur.

sent1: ¬(¬{D} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{BD} sent2: (¬{FF} & ¬{CQ}) -> {HK} sent3: {F} -> ({A} & ¬{B}) sent4: ({A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{FL} sent5: (¬{BS} & ¬{FI}) sent6: ¬{A} sent7: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & {D}) sent8: ¬{B} sent9: ¬{E} -> ¬(¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent10: ({G} & {H}) -> ¬{F} sent11: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent12: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> {C} sent13: ¬(¬{B} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{C} sent14: ¬{E}

the accessing profanity does not occur and the self-induction does not occur.

(¬{BD} & ¬{FL})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the auspices occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the accessing profanity does not occur if the fact that the Timoreseness does not occur and the auspices does not occur is not right. sent2: that the founder happens is caused by that the lend-lease does not occur and the intending does not occur. sent3: that the circumnavigating disarray happens brings about that the accessing hardinggrass occurs and the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur. sent4: if the accessing hardinggrass occurs but the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur then the self-induction does not occur. sent5: the nominal does not occur and the circumnavigating lay-up does not occur. sent6: the accessing hardinggrass does not occur. sent7: that the fact that the grappling and the Timorese happens is wrong is correct if that the circumnavigating disarray does not occur hold. sent8: the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur. sent9: that the Timorese does not occur and the auspices does not occur is incorrect if the grappling does not occur. sent10: if the hair-raiser and the shrubbiness occurs the circumnavigating disarray does not occur. sent11: if the Timoreseness does not occur then that the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur and the accessing hardinggrass does not occur is not correct. sent12: that the accessing hardinggrass does not occur and the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur prevents that the auspices does not occur. sent13: the auspices does not occur if that that the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur and the accessing hardinggrass does not occur is correct is incorrect. sent14: the grappling does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent8 -> int1: the accessing hardinggrass does not occur and the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur.; sent12 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the whippoorwill does not isolate daze.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: if the voicemail is a kind of a kyanite then that the whippoorwill does not isolate daze is not false. sent2: the fact that the voicemail is a kyanite and Mishnaic does not hold. sent3: there exists nothing that is a kyanite and is Mishnaic. sent4: everything is not capitular and circumnavigates extemporization. sent5: if the fact that the voicemail is not a kyanite but it is Mishnaic is false the whippoorwill does not isolate daze. sent6: there exists nothing that is not a kyanite and is Mishnaic.

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

the iguanodon is not a kyanite.

¬{AA}{dt}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the whippoorwill does not isolate daze. ; $context$ = sent1: if the voicemail is a kind of a kyanite then that the whippoorwill does not isolate daze is not false. sent2: the fact that the voicemail is a kyanite and Mishnaic does not hold. sent3: there exists nothing that is a kyanite and is Mishnaic. sent4: everything is not capitular and circumnavigates extemporization. sent5: if the fact that the voicemail is not a kyanite but it is Mishnaic is false the whippoorwill does not isolate daze. sent6: there exists nothing that is not a kyanite and is Mishnaic. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: that the voicemail is not a kyanite but it is Mishnaic does not hold.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the catcher is a kind of a gemination is true.

{B}{c}

sent1: if the chimney is a kind of a fictionalization that is a cryostat the fact that the catcher is not a kind of a gemination is not false. sent2: if there exists something such that it does not circumnavigate Myrmidon the chimney is not hydrophilic. sent3: if the walloper does not possess then it is a cryostat and is not a gemination. sent4: the chimney is non-managerial and does not isolate Comte. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is not bracteate and it is not orthodontic does not hold. sent6: something does circumnavigate epiphora or it is not a kind of a bibliopole or both if it is orthodontic. sent7: the Myrmidon does not circumnavigate Myrmidon. sent8: the fact that the walloper is not a gemination hold if the chimney is managerial but it does not isolate Comte. sent9: the walloper is orthodontic if there is something such that that it is non-bracteate and orthodontic is false. sent10: the catcher is a kind of a fictionalization and is a gemination if that the walloper is not a kind of a gemination is not wrong. sent11: the chimney is not a gemination and it is not managerial. sent12: if something is not Jurassic it is a cryostat and it is carbonyl. sent13: if the walloper is not a fictionalization the catcher is a gemination and it is a fictionalization. sent14: the walloper is not managerial if the catcher is not a fictionalization and is not a gemination. sent15: if the fact that the catcher does not isolate Comte and it is not a gemination is right the chimney is not managerial. sent16: something that is not hydrophilic is a fictionalization and possesses. sent17: the fact that the catcher is a fictionalization hold. sent18: if the chimney is a kind of a fictionalization the linkage is managerial.

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

the catcher is not a gemination.

¬{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the catcher is a kind of a gemination is true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the chimney is a kind of a fictionalization that is a cryostat the fact that the catcher is not a kind of a gemination is not false. sent2: if there exists something such that it does not circumnavigate Myrmidon the chimney is not hydrophilic. sent3: if the walloper does not possess then it is a cryostat and is not a gemination. sent4: the chimney is non-managerial and does not isolate Comte. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is not bracteate and it is not orthodontic does not hold. sent6: something does circumnavigate epiphora or it is not a kind of a bibliopole or both if it is orthodontic. sent7: the Myrmidon does not circumnavigate Myrmidon. sent8: the fact that the walloper is not a gemination hold if the chimney is managerial but it does not isolate Comte. sent9: the walloper is orthodontic if there is something such that that it is non-bracteate and orthodontic is false. sent10: the catcher is a kind of a fictionalization and is a gemination if that the walloper is not a kind of a gemination is not wrong. sent11: the chimney is not a gemination and it is not managerial. sent12: if something is not Jurassic it is a cryostat and it is carbonyl. sent13: if the walloper is not a fictionalization the catcher is a gemination and it is a fictionalization. sent14: the walloper is not managerial if the catcher is not a fictionalization and is not a gemination. sent15: if the fact that the catcher does not isolate Comte and it is not a gemination is right the chimney is not managerial. sent16: something that is not hydrophilic is a fictionalization and possesses. sent17: the fact that the catcher is a fictionalization hold. sent18: if the chimney is a kind of a fictionalization the linkage is managerial. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it does not access argumentation the fact that it is both not anal and a Marceau does not hold.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: the fact that something is not neuropsychiatric but it is locker-room does not hold if it does not access marsupium. sent2: the linkage is both not anal and a Marceau if it does not access argumentation. sent3: if the linkage does not access argumentation the fact that it is not anal and it is a Marceau is incorrect. sent4: if the linkage accesses argumentation the fact that it is both non-anal and a Marceau is false. sent5: there exists something such that if it does access argumentation then that it is both not anal and a Marceau is not right. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a defeatist it is not a Bradley but lengthwise. sent7: there is something such that if it is not gluttonous it is both not a animalization and two-dimensional. sent8: that the fact that the linkage is anal and it is a Marceau is not wrong is not true if it does not access argumentation. sent9: if something does not isolate coven the fact that it is not anal and it is a moat does not hold. sent10: there is something such that if it does not access argumentation that it is anal and it is a Marceau is not true. sent11: there exists something such that if it does not access argumentation then the fact that it is non-anal thing that is a kind of a Marceau is not wrong.

sent1: (x): ¬{BL}x -> ¬(¬{GP}x & {DR}x) sent2: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent5: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬{GH}x -> (¬{EC}x & {I}x) sent7: (Ex): ¬{FM}x -> (¬{JE}x & {M}x) sent8: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: (x): ¬{BA}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AC}x) sent10: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent11: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

there exists something such that if it does not access marsupium then that it is not neuropsychiatric and it is locker-room does not hold.

(Ex): ¬{BL}x -> ¬(¬{GP}x & {DR}x)

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it does not access argumentation the fact that it is both not anal and a Marceau does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is not neuropsychiatric but it is locker-room does not hold if it does not access marsupium. sent2: the linkage is both not anal and a Marceau if it does not access argumentation. sent3: if the linkage does not access argumentation the fact that it is not anal and it is a Marceau is incorrect. sent4: if the linkage accesses argumentation the fact that it is both non-anal and a Marceau is false. sent5: there exists something such that if it does access argumentation then that it is both not anal and a Marceau is not right. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a defeatist it is not a Bradley but lengthwise. sent7: there is something such that if it is not gluttonous it is both not a animalization and two-dimensional. sent8: that the fact that the linkage is anal and it is a Marceau is not wrong is not true if it does not access argumentation. sent9: if something does not isolate coven the fact that it is not anal and it is a moat does not hold. sent10: there is something such that if it does not access argumentation that it is anal and it is a Marceau is not true. sent11: there exists something such that if it does not access argumentation then the fact that it is non-anal thing that is a kind of a Marceau is not wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the accessing mold does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: the epistemicness does not occur. sent2: the accessing mold does not occur if the inexcusableness occurs and the isolating sprig occurs. sent3: the isolating sprig occurs. sent4: the liberal happens. sent5: if the boarding and the acetylicness occurs then the trochaicness does not occur. sent6: the amalgamativeness happens.

sent1: ¬{DA} sent2: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent3: {B} sent4: {EO} sent5: ({IC} & {IG}) -> ¬{DD} sent6: {AO}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the accessing mold does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the epistemicness does not occur. sent2: the accessing mold does not occur if the inexcusableness occurs and the isolating sprig occurs. sent3: the isolating sprig occurs. sent4: the liberal happens. sent5: if the boarding and the acetylicness occurs then the trochaicness does not occur. sent6: the amalgamativeness happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the lady-slipper is a inauspiciousness.

{C}{a}

sent1: something Romanizes if it is a Hemigalus. sent2: the lady-slipper does Romanize and it is not non-prenatal. sent3: if something does Romanize it is a inauspiciousness.

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

the multiplexer does Romanize if it is a Hemigalus.

{IT}{dh} -> {A}{dh}

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the lady-slipper is a inauspiciousness. ; $context$ = sent1: something Romanizes if it is a Hemigalus. sent2: the lady-slipper does Romanize and it is not non-prenatal. sent3: if something does Romanize it is a inauspiciousness. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the lady-slipper Romanizes.; sent3 -> int2: the lady-slipper is a inauspiciousness if it Romanizes.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that if the stenopterygius is a kind of the disarray that the stenopterygius does not powderize and is leaning is not right is false.

¬({A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}))

sent1: that something circumnavigates bobtail and is propagative is not right if it is a blasted. sent2: that something does not pander but it is maximal is not true if it is a kind of a Limosa. sent3: the fact that something does not powderize and leans is incorrect if it is a disarray. sent4: if the stenopterygius does circumnavigate chicane then it is not a pottle and powderizes. sent5: the fact that if the wonderer does avalanche then the fact that the wonderer is a Newark and powderizes is wrong hold. sent6: that something does not access Sundacarpus and is a stickleback is incorrect if it is not penitent. sent7: something is both not a Lancashire and a RAS if it is not non-least. sent8: something that is a disarray does not powderize and is leaning. sent9: the stenopterygius does not shout but it powderizes if it does isolate Carver. sent10: if something is a kind of a sow then that it isolates headstock and it accesses handover does not hold. sent11: if the stenopterygius is a IOP then that it is not a disarray and it is a Athenian is wrong. sent12: that the fact that something does not isolate Carver but it does witness is not true if it is a baroque is true. sent13: the fact that the Carver does circumnavigate tackler and does access motto is wrong if that it is a joggle is not incorrect. sent14: the fact that the bobtail is not a drift but Wittgensteinian is not right if it does lean.

sent1: (x): {IQ}x -> ¬({IG}x & {IJ}x) sent2: (x): {BO}x -> ¬(¬{H}x & {AM}x) sent3: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: {CQ}{aa} -> (¬{DO}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent5: {AD}{in} -> ¬({DC}{in} & {AA}{in}) sent6: (x): {IP}x -> ¬(¬{DE}x & {CN}x) sent7: (x): {IK}x -> (¬{IB}x & {ET}x) sent8: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: {CP}{aa} -> (¬{HA}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent10: (x): {FN}x -> ¬({BL}x & {EJ}x) sent11: {CD}{aa} -> ¬(¬{A}{aa} & {I}{aa}) sent12: (x): {U}x -> ¬(¬{CP}x & {AI}x) sent13: {AQ}{ak} -> ¬({FQ}{ak} & {L}{ak}) sent14: {AB}{m} -> ¬(¬{CL}{m} & {AN}{m})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that if the stenopterygius is a kind of the disarray that the stenopterygius does not powderize and is leaning is not right is false. ; $context$ = sent1: that something circumnavigates bobtail and is propagative is not right if it is a blasted. sent2: that something does not pander but it is maximal is not true if it is a kind of a Limosa. sent3: the fact that something does not powderize and leans is incorrect if it is a disarray. sent4: if the stenopterygius does circumnavigate chicane then it is not a pottle and powderizes. sent5: the fact that if the wonderer does avalanche then the fact that the wonderer is a Newark and powderizes is wrong hold. sent6: that something does not access Sundacarpus and is a stickleback is incorrect if it is not penitent. sent7: something is both not a Lancashire and a RAS if it is not non-least. sent8: something that is a disarray does not powderize and is leaning. sent9: the stenopterygius does not shout but it powderizes if it does isolate Carver. sent10: if something is a kind of a sow then that it isolates headstock and it accesses handover does not hold. sent11: if the stenopterygius is a IOP then that it is not a disarray and it is a Athenian is wrong. sent12: that the fact that something does not isolate Carver but it does witness is not true if it is a baroque is true. sent13: the fact that the Carver does circumnavigate tackler and does access motto is wrong if that it is a joggle is not incorrect. sent14: the fact that the bobtail is not a drift but Wittgensteinian is not right if it does lean. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Sikh is not Einsteinian.

¬{C}{a}

sent1: something is a intactness. sent2: if something is pineal then that it accesses sesame and does not circumnavigate Tombaugh is false. sent3: if there is something such that it is Einsteinian the Sikh is not a intactness. sent4: that the playmate is a angiography and pineal is incorrect if the bolt is not a petite. sent5: if something is a Trilisa then the fact that it is a intactness is not false. sent6: the mold is not Einsteinian. sent7: if the fact that the bolt accesses sesame but it does not circumnavigate Tombaugh is not true the playmate is not a kind of a Trilisa. sent8: the reflation is a kind of a Trilisa if it does circumnavigate Tombaugh. sent9: the playmate is not pineal if that it is both a angiography and pineal does not hold. sent10: the garbageman is not a intactness. sent11: there is something such that it is affixal. sent12: the Sikh is not a intactness. sent13: the Sikh is not a intactness and it is not Einsteinian if there exists something such that it is affixal. sent14: the Sikh is not a intactness if there exists something such that it is affixal. sent15: something is pineal if it is a kind of a petite. sent16: the bolt is not a petite. sent17: the fact that something circumnavigates Tombaugh and accesses sesame is true if it is not pineal. sent18: there exists something such that it is a tightrope. sent19: if the playmate is not a kind of a Trilisa the fact that the reflation is both not a intactness and affixal is false. sent20: if the playmate does circumnavigate Tombaugh the reflation circumnavigate Tombaugh.

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

the Sikh is not non-Einsteinian.

{C}{a}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Sikh is not Einsteinian. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a intactness. sent2: if something is pineal then that it accesses sesame and does not circumnavigate Tombaugh is false. sent3: if there is something such that it is Einsteinian the Sikh is not a intactness. sent4: that the playmate is a angiography and pineal is incorrect if the bolt is not a petite. sent5: if something is a Trilisa then the fact that it is a intactness is not false. sent6: the mold is not Einsteinian. sent7: if the fact that the bolt accesses sesame but it does not circumnavigate Tombaugh is not true the playmate is not a kind of a Trilisa. sent8: the reflation is a kind of a Trilisa if it does circumnavigate Tombaugh. sent9: the playmate is not pineal if that it is both a angiography and pineal does not hold. sent10: the garbageman is not a intactness. sent11: there is something such that it is affixal. sent12: the Sikh is not a intactness. sent13: the Sikh is not a intactness and it is not Einsteinian if there exists something such that it is affixal. sent14: the Sikh is not a intactness if there exists something such that it is affixal. sent15: something is pineal if it is a kind of a petite. sent16: the bolt is not a petite. sent17: the fact that something circumnavigates Tombaugh and accesses sesame is true if it is not pineal. sent18: there exists something such that it is a tightrope. sent19: if the playmate is not a kind of a Trilisa the fact that the reflation is both not a intactness and affixal is false. sent20: if the playmate does circumnavigate Tombaugh the reflation circumnavigate Tombaugh. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent13 -> int1: the Sikh is not a intactness and it is not Einsteinian.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the alphavirus is a meteortropism.

{B}{c}

sent1: that the alphavirus does complete but it does not sleep is not correct. sent2: if the ointment is tympanic but it is not a redcap the nature is tympanic. sent3: if the fact that the ointment does not load crapaud and it does not circumnavigate descendant is false then it is not a redcap. sent4: something that does not sleep is not a kind of a meteortropism. sent5: if something is not critical it is not prenatal. sent6: the ointment is not questionable. sent7: the fact that the nature is a trinketry that is Boeotian is wrong. sent8: that the nature is a trinketry but it is not a meteortropism does not hold. sent9: the alphavirus is not surmountable if the lamb is not prenatal. sent10: if the lamb does sleep that the nature is a kind of a trinketry and is not Boeotian is not correct. sent11: the nature is indefeasible if something that is not a muscle is immunodeficient. sent12: if something does water it is tympanic. sent13: something loads conformity if it is tympanic. sent14: that the ointment does not load crapaud and it does not circumnavigate descendant is not true. sent15: if there is something such that that it is a kind of a sleep that is not a meteortropism is incorrect the alphavirus is a trinketry. sent16: if the ointment is not questionable then it is a water and it is illegible. sent17: the crapaud does not muscle but it is immunodeficient. sent18: the lamb is a sleep. sent19: something does not sleep and is a kind of a angelim if it is not surmountable.

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

the alphavirus is not a kind of a meteortropism.

¬{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the alphavirus is a meteortropism. ; $context$ = sent1: that the alphavirus does complete but it does not sleep is not correct. sent2: if the ointment is tympanic but it is not a redcap the nature is tympanic. sent3: if the fact that the ointment does not load crapaud and it does not circumnavigate descendant is false then it is not a redcap. sent4: something that does not sleep is not a kind of a meteortropism. sent5: if something is not critical it is not prenatal. sent6: the ointment is not questionable. sent7: the fact that the nature is a trinketry that is Boeotian is wrong. sent8: that the nature is a trinketry but it is not a meteortropism does not hold. sent9: the alphavirus is not surmountable if the lamb is not prenatal. sent10: if the lamb does sleep that the nature is a kind of a trinketry and is not Boeotian is not correct. sent11: the nature is indefeasible if something that is not a muscle is immunodeficient. sent12: if something does water it is tympanic. sent13: something loads conformity if it is tympanic. sent14: that the ointment does not load crapaud and it does not circumnavigate descendant is not true. sent15: if there is something such that that it is a kind of a sleep that is not a meteortropism is incorrect the alphavirus is a trinketry. sent16: if the ointment is not questionable then it is a water and it is illegible. sent17: the crapaud does not muscle but it is immunodeficient. sent18: the lamb is a sleep. sent19: something does not sleep and is a kind of a angelim if it is not surmountable. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent18 -> int1: the fact that the fact that the nature is a trinketry and is not Boeotian is not correct is right.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it is a trinketry and it is not Boeotian is wrong.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there is something such that if the fact that it does not load Gehrig and does circumnavigate Aether is not right then it is not zoonotic is false.

¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)

sent1: there exists something such that if that it does not load Gehrig and does circumnavigate Aether is not correct then it is zoonotic. sent2: if that the buffalo does not load Gehrig but it circumnavigates Aether is wrong it is not zoonotic. sent3: there is something such that if the fact that it is a peptone and a sunshine does not hold it does not solidify. sent4: if that the buffalo does not load Gehrig but it circumnavigates Aether does not hold it is zoonotic. sent5: the buffalo is not zoonotic if it does not load Gehrig and it does circumnavigate Aether. sent6: if the demand is not a logjam then it does not load Gehrig. sent7: there is something such that if that it does load Gehrig and it does circumnavigate Aether does not hold then it is not zoonotic. sent8: the buffalo is consolable if that it does not load laceration and it is a kind of a cricket is not correct. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not an angstrom and loads laceration then it is not a Vaughan. sent10: the hoister is not zoonotic if that it is not an announcer and it is blind is wrong. sent11: there exists something such that if the fact that it does not load gyroscope is right then it does not freshen. sent12: if the buffalo loads Gehrig then it is not zoonotic. sent13: there is something such that if the fact that it does not circumnavigate profundity and does load ethylene is not right then it is not complimentary. sent14: there is something such that if it loads Gehrig then it is not zoonotic. sent15: something is not a lard if that it is both not a heading and a logogram is wrong.

sent1: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent3: (Ex): ¬({E}x & {AI}x) -> ¬{IB}x sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent6: ¬{IG}{ah} -> ¬{AA}{ah} sent7: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent8: ¬(¬{GM}{aa} & {FQ}{aa}) -> {DP}{aa} sent9: (Ex): (¬{JK}x & {GM}x) -> ¬{L}x sent10: ¬(¬{GL}{fn} & {AT}{fn}) -> ¬{B}{fn} sent11: (Ex): ¬{CE}x -> ¬{BU}x sent12: {AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent13: (Ex): ¬(¬{BI}x & {M}x) -> ¬{F}x sent14: (Ex): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent15: (x): ¬(¬{JB}x & {BN}x) -> ¬{DD}x

there exists something such that if that it is not a heading but a logogram is false then it is not a lard.

(Ex): ¬(¬{JB}x & {BN}x) -> ¬{DD}x

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if the fact that it does not load Gehrig and does circumnavigate Aether is not right then it is not zoonotic is false. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if that it does not load Gehrig and does circumnavigate Aether is not correct then it is zoonotic. sent2: if that the buffalo does not load Gehrig but it circumnavigates Aether is wrong it is not zoonotic. sent3: there is something such that if the fact that it is a peptone and a sunshine does not hold it does not solidify. sent4: if that the buffalo does not load Gehrig but it circumnavigates Aether does not hold it is zoonotic. sent5: the buffalo is not zoonotic if it does not load Gehrig and it does circumnavigate Aether. sent6: if the demand is not a logjam then it does not load Gehrig. sent7: there is something such that if that it does load Gehrig and it does circumnavigate Aether does not hold then it is not zoonotic. sent8: the buffalo is consolable if that it does not load laceration and it is a kind of a cricket is not correct. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not an angstrom and loads laceration then it is not a Vaughan. sent10: the hoister is not zoonotic if that it is not an announcer and it is blind is wrong. sent11: there exists something such that if the fact that it does not load gyroscope is right then it does not freshen. sent12: if the buffalo loads Gehrig then it is not zoonotic. sent13: there is something such that if the fact that it does not circumnavigate profundity and does load ethylene is not right then it is not complimentary. sent14: there is something such that if it loads Gehrig then it is not zoonotic. sent15: something is not a lard if that it is both not a heading and a logogram is wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Renaissance occurs.

{B}

sent1: the despite occurs. sent2: if the non-ritualness and the loading soma occurs then the extravagance does not occur. sent3: the preying does not occur but the despite occurs. sent4: the Renaissance happens if that the Renaissance does not occur and the tolerating does not occur is false. sent5: if the accessing four-poster occurs then the fact that the Renaissance does not occur and the tolerating does not occur does not hold. sent6: if not the preying but the despite occurs then the Renaissance does not occur. sent7: if the isolating popularity does not occur then the rustle and the accessing four-poster occurs.

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

the Renaissance happens.

{B}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Renaissance occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the despite occurs. sent2: if the non-ritualness and the loading soma occurs then the extravagance does not occur. sent3: the preying does not occur but the despite occurs. sent4: the Renaissance happens if that the Renaissance does not occur and the tolerating does not occur is false. sent5: if the accessing four-poster occurs then the fact that the Renaissance does not occur and the tolerating does not occur does not hold. sent6: if not the preying but the despite occurs then the Renaissance does not occur. sent7: if the isolating popularity does not occur then the rustle and the accessing four-poster occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if that it is not nonfissile is right then it is prosthetic.

(Ex): ¬{B}x -> {C}x

sent1: a nonfissile thing is prosthetic.

sent1: (x): {B}x -> {C}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if that it is not nonfissile is right then it is prosthetic. ; $context$ = sent1: a nonfissile thing is prosthetic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the artificialness does not occur.

¬{A}

sent1: the isolating Argiope does not occur. sent2: the unsarcasticness occurs. sent3: the exulting happens. sent4: if the stoning occurs then the circumnavigating sylph does not occur. sent5: if the analness occurs the conservativeness occurs. sent6: the enormity causes that the arborolatry happens. sent7: the abscondment does not occur. sent8: the auditing does not occur if the fact that not the artificialness but the tort happens does not hold. sent9: if the catadromousness happens the death occurs. sent10: if the accessing radiotelephone happens then the republication occurs. sent11: if the accessing chic occurs then the isolating Argiope does not occur. sent12: that the tort does not occur is triggered by the felo-de-se. sent13: if the artificialness happens that the tort happens is not wrong.

sent1: ¬{GM} sent2: {IL} sent3: {HR} sent4: {DM} -> ¬{CM} sent5: {DE} -> {CJ} sent6: {GA} -> {GB} sent7: ¬{EC} sent8: ¬(¬{A} & {B}) -> ¬{CG} sent9: {EN} -> {F} sent10: {HC} -> {BQ} sent11: {FE} -> ¬{GM} sent12: {C} -> ¬{B} sent13: {A} -> {B}

the auditing does not occur.

¬{CG}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the artificialness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the isolating Argiope does not occur. sent2: the unsarcasticness occurs. sent3: the exulting happens. sent4: if the stoning occurs then the circumnavigating sylph does not occur. sent5: if the analness occurs the conservativeness occurs. sent6: the enormity causes that the arborolatry happens. sent7: the abscondment does not occur. sent8: the auditing does not occur if the fact that not the artificialness but the tort happens does not hold. sent9: if the catadromousness happens the death occurs. sent10: if the accessing radiotelephone happens then the republication occurs. sent11: if the accessing chic occurs then the isolating Argiope does not occur. sent12: that the tort does not occur is triggered by the felo-de-se. sent13: if the artificialness happens that the tort happens is not wrong. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the artificialness occurs.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the tort happens.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the achene is a Wavell is correct.

{B}{a}

sent1: the achene is a kind of a gun. sent2: something either is a Wavell or accesses Kachin or both if it is not a kind of a gun. sent3: if something is valent it is not a gun but a plural. sent4: if the achene guns it is not a Wavell.

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

the sclera is a kind of a Wavell.

{B}{cm}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the achene is a Wavell is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the achene is a kind of a gun. sent2: something either is a Wavell or accesses Kachin or both if it is not a kind of a gun. sent3: if something is valent it is not a gun but a plural. sent4: if the achene guns it is not a Wavell. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the molindone does not consult.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: if the molindone is a druidism the propylthiouracil is not a druidism. sent2: if the fact that something is macroeconomics is not incorrect then it is a druidism. sent3: the grisaille consults. sent4: if the molindone is a kind of a cockleshell then it does consult. sent5: if something that is not a by-election entertains the fact that the Dean does not load descendant is not incorrect. sent6: the Dean is not eosinophilic if there is something such that the fact that it is eosinophilic and it is not macroeconomics does not hold. sent7: the cardinalfish is not a druidism if that the saltpan is precordial and it is a kind of a druidism is not true. sent8: the fact that the hill is a kind of eosinophilic thing that is non-macroeconomics does not hold if that there is something such that it is not a druidism is right. sent9: something is not non-millenary or it is precordial or both if it does not load descendant. sent10: if the fact that either the LAN is not disciplinary or it does not possess or both is false the chevre does not unwind. sent11: something consults and is eosinophilic if it is not a druidism. sent12: there is nothing such that it is not disciplinary or it does not possess or both. sent13: the molindone is not non-eosinophilic. sent14: if something loads descendant or it does not entertain or both then it is non-millenary. sent15: there is something such that it is a kind of a crotch. sent16: the hill is not a by-election and does entertain if there exists something such that it is a kind of a crotch. sent17: the fact that something is precordial and it is a druidism is wrong if it is not a millenary. sent18: if the chevre does not unwind the oxidation is not a kind of a crotch and it is not inanimate. sent19: if the molindone is eosinophilic it does consult. sent20: if the interoceptor is not a kind of a by-election then either the saltpan loads descendant or it does not entertain or both. sent21: if there is something such that it is not a crotch and not inanimate then the interoceptor is not a by-election.

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

the molindone does not consult.

¬{B}{a}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the molindone does not consult. ; $context$ = sent1: if the molindone is a druidism the propylthiouracil is not a druidism. sent2: if the fact that something is macroeconomics is not incorrect then it is a druidism. sent3: the grisaille consults. sent4: if the molindone is a kind of a cockleshell then it does consult. sent5: if something that is not a by-election entertains the fact that the Dean does not load descendant is not incorrect. sent6: the Dean is not eosinophilic if there is something such that the fact that it is eosinophilic and it is not macroeconomics does not hold. sent7: the cardinalfish is not a druidism if that the saltpan is precordial and it is a kind of a druidism is not true. sent8: the fact that the hill is a kind of eosinophilic thing that is non-macroeconomics does not hold if that there is something such that it is not a druidism is right. sent9: something is not non-millenary or it is precordial or both if it does not load descendant. sent10: if the fact that either the LAN is not disciplinary or it does not possess or both is false the chevre does not unwind. sent11: something consults and is eosinophilic if it is not a druidism. sent12: there is nothing such that it is not disciplinary or it does not possess or both. sent13: the molindone is not non-eosinophilic. sent14: if something loads descendant or it does not entertain or both then it is non-millenary. sent15: there is something such that it is a kind of a crotch. sent16: the hill is not a by-election and does entertain if there exists something such that it is a kind of a crotch. sent17: the fact that something is precordial and it is a druidism is wrong if it is not a millenary. sent18: if the chevre does not unwind the oxidation is not a kind of a crotch and it is not inanimate. sent19: if the molindone is eosinophilic it does consult. sent20: if the interoceptor is not a kind of a by-election then either the saltpan loads descendant or it does not entertain or both. sent21: if there is something such that it is not a crotch and not inanimate then the interoceptor is not a by-election. ; $proof$ =

sent19 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there exists something such that if it is not Churchillian it accesses counterblow and it is chromatic does not hold.

¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x))

sent1: the rooftop accesses counterblow and it is chromatic if it is Churchillian. sent2: there exists something such that if that it is a kind of an interconnection is true it is a stingaree-bush and it is a dolichocephalic. sent3: if something does access Maoist then it is local and it isolates sesame. sent4: the bookmobile does access discipleship and is a kind of an heirloom if the fact that it is not a kind of a scatterbrain is correct. sent5: there exists something such that if it does not circumnavigate conformity it does access liftoff and it is temperate. sent6: the fact that something is a kind of a amatungulu and it accesses Maoist is correct if the fact that it is a colonial hold. sent7: something does access counterblow and is chromatic if it is not Churchillian. sent8: there is something such that if it is not Churchillian then it is chromatic. sent9: something is chromatic if the fact that it is not Churchillian is not false. sent10: there is something such that if it is not polarographic then it is temperate thing that moistens. sent11: if the rooftop is not Churchillian then it is chromatic. sent12: there is something such that if it does access Puck it is a Gielgud and is a kind of a Naticidae. sent13: if something accesses raffinose then it is both a Sellotape and a firelighter.

sent1: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): {GI}x -> ({EQ}x & {P}x) sent3: (x): {T}x -> ({HC}x & {DH}x) sent4: ¬{GG}{bj} -> ({AR}{bj} & {E}{bj}) sent5: (Ex): ¬{GO}x -> ({BI}x & {HQ}x) sent6: (x): {DI}x -> ({BK}x & {T}x) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{GD}x -> ({HQ}x & {HU}x) sent11: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent12: (Ex): {CS}x -> ({CB}x & {BL}x) sent13: (x): {AF}x -> ({GK}x & {AN}x)

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is not Churchillian it accesses counterblow and it is chromatic does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the rooftop accesses counterblow and it is chromatic if it is Churchillian. sent2: there exists something such that if that it is a kind of an interconnection is true it is a stingaree-bush and it is a dolichocephalic. sent3: if something does access Maoist then it is local and it isolates sesame. sent4: the bookmobile does access discipleship and is a kind of an heirloom if the fact that it is not a kind of a scatterbrain is correct. sent5: there exists something such that if it does not circumnavigate conformity it does access liftoff and it is temperate. sent6: the fact that something is a kind of a amatungulu and it accesses Maoist is correct if the fact that it is a colonial hold. sent7: something does access counterblow and is chromatic if it is not Churchillian. sent8: there is something such that if it is not Churchillian then it is chromatic. sent9: something is chromatic if the fact that it is not Churchillian is not false. sent10: there is something such that if it is not polarographic then it is temperate thing that moistens. sent11: if the rooftop is not Churchillian then it is chromatic. sent12: there is something such that if it does access Puck it is a Gielgud and is a kind of a Naticidae. sent13: if something accesses raffinose then it is both a Sellotape and a firelighter. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: if the rooftop is not Churchillian it accesses counterblow and is chromatic.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it does not access radiotelephone and is not astrophysical.

(Ex): (¬{A}x & ¬{C}x)

sent1: if that the lift circumnavigates lift and does circumnavigate tarot does not hold then it is not productive. sent2: the calcium-cyanamide does not access radiotelephone if the lift is not productive. sent3: the calcium-cyanamide is acaulescent. sent4: that the lift circumnavigates lift and it does circumnavigate tarot does not hold. sent5: if something is a Hippotragus and it is acaulescent then it is not astrophysical.

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it does not access radiotelephone and is not astrophysical. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the lift circumnavigates lift and does circumnavigate tarot does not hold then it is not productive. sent2: the calcium-cyanamide does not access radiotelephone if the lift is not productive. sent3: the calcium-cyanamide is acaulescent. sent4: that the lift circumnavigates lift and it does circumnavigate tarot does not hold. sent5: if something is a Hippotragus and it is acaulescent then it is not astrophysical. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the lift is not productive.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the calcium-cyanamide does not access radiotelephone.; sent5 -> int3: if the calcium-cyanamide is a Hippotragus that is acaulescent that it is not astrophysical is correct.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a pagan and is not a nondisjunction then it is not a Peripatidae.

(Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: if the blender is both not a pagan and not a nondisjunction it is not a Peripatidae.

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a pagan and is not a nondisjunction then it is not a Peripatidae. ; $context$ = sent1: if the blender is both not a pagan and not a nondisjunction it is not a Peripatidae. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there exists something such that if it is a glaciation it is not a nymph does not hold.

¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬{C}x)

sent1: if the sissoo does salivate it is not a kind of a people. sent2: the gunsight is a nymph if it is a glaciation. sent3: something is not a kind of a Jute if it is a prang. sent4: if the gunsight is a glaciation then it is not a nymph. sent5: there exists something such that if it loads soma the fact that it is a HA is true. sent6: something does not circumnavigate wanderer if that it does circumnavigate Finland is not incorrect. sent7: there is something such that if it is a glaciation it is a kind of a nymph. sent8: something is not quantal if it is real-time. sent9: the gladdon is sculptural if it is angelic. sent10: if the gunsight is a Puck then it is not a glaciation.

sent1: {HO}{bn} -> ¬{HG}{bn} sent2: {A}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent3: (x): {BF}x -> ¬{DU}x sent4: {A}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent5: (Ex): {P}x -> {GM}x sent6: (x): {IJ}x -> ¬{ES}x sent7: (Ex): {A}x -> {C}x sent8: (x): {CD}x -> ¬{HQ}x sent9: {AF}{eo} -> {AG}{eo} sent10: {GH}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa}

there is something such that if it does circumnavigate Finland then it does not circumnavigate wanderer.

(Ex): {IJ}x -> ¬{ES}x

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is a glaciation it is not a nymph does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sissoo does salivate it is not a kind of a people. sent2: the gunsight is a nymph if it is a glaciation. sent3: something is not a kind of a Jute if it is a prang. sent4: if the gunsight is a glaciation then it is not a nymph. sent5: there exists something such that if it loads soma the fact that it is a HA is true. sent6: something does not circumnavigate wanderer if that it does circumnavigate Finland is not incorrect. sent7: there is something such that if it is a glaciation it is a kind of a nymph. sent8: something is not quantal if it is real-time. sent9: the gladdon is sculptural if it is angelic. sent10: if the gunsight is a Puck then it is not a glaciation. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Parks is inalienable.

{A}{a}

sent1: the petrifaction is a distortionist. sent2: the fixer-upper is inalienable if the petrifaction demulsifies. sent3: the petrifaction demulsifies if the Parks is inalienable. sent4: if the petrifaction is inalienable the Parks demulsifies. sent5: something is not unsanitary. sent6: something that does not isolate Jap is inalienable or does not demulsify or both. sent7: if something is inalienable then it does demulsify. sent8: something is inalienable if the fact that it is not inalienable and it does not access Kakatoe is not true. sent9: if the Parks is inalienable thing that does isolate Jap then the grindstone does not demulsify. sent10: if something does load casserole but it does not access Kakatoe it does not isolate Jap. sent11: there is nothing such that it is hyperemic and does not load casserole. sent12: the Parks loads casserole and it isolates Jap if the petrifaction is not hyperemic. sent13: the petrifaction is not hyperemic if the fact that the fact that the gossamer is semiparasitic and does not load sojourn hold is not true. sent14: the petrifaction does not demulsify. sent15: the Jap is not inalienable.

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

that the leadwort demulsifies is not incorrect.

{B}{hg}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Parks is inalienable. ; $context$ = sent1: the petrifaction is a distortionist. sent2: the fixer-upper is inalienable if the petrifaction demulsifies. sent3: the petrifaction demulsifies if the Parks is inalienable. sent4: if the petrifaction is inalienable the Parks demulsifies. sent5: something is not unsanitary. sent6: something that does not isolate Jap is inalienable or does not demulsify or both. sent7: if something is inalienable then it does demulsify. sent8: something is inalienable if the fact that it is not inalienable and it does not access Kakatoe is not true. sent9: if the Parks is inalienable thing that does isolate Jap then the grindstone does not demulsify. sent10: if something does load casserole but it does not access Kakatoe it does not isolate Jap. sent11: there is nothing such that it is hyperemic and does not load casserole. sent12: the Parks loads casserole and it isolates Jap if the petrifaction is not hyperemic. sent13: the petrifaction is not hyperemic if the fact that the fact that the gossamer is semiparasitic and does not load sojourn hold is not true. sent14: the petrifaction does not demulsify. sent15: the Jap is not inalienable. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Parks is inalienable.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the petrifaction demulsifies.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there exists something such that if it is not parotid then the fact that it does not circumnavigate emirate and is not a kind of a stratigraphy is not true is incorrect.

¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x))

sent1: the fact that the suction does circumnavigate emirate but it is not a stratigraphy is incorrect if the fact that it is not parotid is not incorrect. sent2: the fact that the suction does not circumnavigate emirate and it is not a stratigraphy is wrong if it is not parotid. sent3: there is something such that if it does not immerse then that it does not isolate soma and it is not a kind of a progressive is not true. sent4: if the suction is not parotid it does not circumnavigate emirate and is not a stratigraphy. sent5: the fact that the suction does not circumnavigate emirate and is not a stratigraphy is wrong if the fact that it is parotid hold. sent6: the fact that the suction does not circumnavigate emirate but it is a stratigraphy does not hold if it is not parotid. sent7: there is something such that if it is parotid then that it does not circumnavigate emirate and it is not a kind of a stratigraphy does not hold. sent8: if something does not circumnavigate emirate then that it is non-aperiodic and not cataclinal is wrong. sent9: there exists something such that if it is non-parotid the fact that it does not circumnavigate emirate and it is a stratigraphy is not correct. sent10: there is something such that if it is not parotid that it circumnavigates emirate and is not a kind of a stratigraphy does not hold. sent11: the fact that something is a kind of non-chelonian thing that is not parotid is not right if it does not immerse. sent12: there is something such that if it is not parotid then it does not circumnavigate emirate and is not a stratigraphy.

sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: (Ex): ¬{HS}x -> ¬(¬{FD}x & ¬{CG}x) sent4: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent5: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent7: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬(¬{GB}x & ¬{AT}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent11: (x): ¬{HS}x -> ¬(¬{HP}x & ¬{A}x) sent12: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

if the soma does not circumnavigate emirate then that it is a kind of non-aperiodic thing that is not cataclinal does not hold.

¬{AA}{ah} -> ¬(¬{GB}{ah} & ¬{AT}{ah})

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is not parotid then the fact that it does not circumnavigate emirate and is not a kind of a stratigraphy is not true is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the suction does circumnavigate emirate but it is not a stratigraphy is incorrect if the fact that it is not parotid is not incorrect. sent2: the fact that the suction does not circumnavigate emirate and it is not a stratigraphy is wrong if it is not parotid. sent3: there is something such that if it does not immerse then that it does not isolate soma and it is not a kind of a progressive is not true. sent4: if the suction is not parotid it does not circumnavigate emirate and is not a stratigraphy. sent5: the fact that the suction does not circumnavigate emirate and is not a stratigraphy is wrong if the fact that it is parotid hold. sent6: the fact that the suction does not circumnavigate emirate but it is a stratigraphy does not hold if it is not parotid. sent7: there is something such that if it is parotid then that it does not circumnavigate emirate and it is not a kind of a stratigraphy does not hold. sent8: if something does not circumnavigate emirate then that it is non-aperiodic and not cataclinal is wrong. sent9: there exists something such that if it is non-parotid the fact that it does not circumnavigate emirate and it is a stratigraphy is not correct. sent10: there is something such that if it is not parotid that it circumnavigates emirate and is not a kind of a stratigraphy does not hold. sent11: the fact that something is a kind of non-chelonian thing that is not parotid is not right if it does not immerse. sent12: there is something such that if it is not parotid then it does not circumnavigate emirate and is not a stratigraphy. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the casement is not a kind of a gravimeter or it is not a larboard or both then it is vibrational.

(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}

sent1: if either something is a proto-oncogene or it does not eventuate or both it does canter. sent2: the casement is vibrational if it is not a kind of a larboard. sent3: the casement is vibrational if it either is a gravimeter or is not a larboard or both. sent4: if either the pitchman is not a larboard or it is not a diploidy or both then it is a kind of a Gruyere. sent5: if the casement either is not vibrational or is not eonian or both then it accesses meteorologist. sent6: if something is not a kind of a gravimeter and/or it is not a larboard it is vibrational. sent7: the moosewood is meaningful if it either is not vibrational or does not access skinner or both. sent8: something that either does not access plainsman or is not a mystification or both is a kind of a hymeneal. sent9: something is an imperative if it does not circumnavigate osteopathy or it is not a bandwidth or both. sent10: something is vibrational if that it is not a larboard hold. sent11: the casement is vibrational if it does not rev and/or it is not a papovavirus.

sent1: (x): ({ED}x v ¬{T}x) -> {FL}x sent2: ¬{AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent3: ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent4: (¬{AB}{eq} v ¬{BQ}{eq}) -> {FC}{eq} sent5: (¬{B}{aa} v ¬{HO}{aa}) -> {FU}{aa} sent6: (x): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent7: (¬{B}{el} v ¬{HC}{el}) -> {HA}{el} sent8: (x): (¬{EM}x v ¬{JK}x) -> {HE}x sent9: (x): (¬{DQ}x v ¬{AJ}x) -> {FM}x sent10: (x): ¬{AB}x -> {B}x sent11: (¬{FB}{aa} v ¬{CQ}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = if the casement is not a kind of a gravimeter or it is not a larboard or both then it is vibrational. ; $context$ = sent1: if either something is a proto-oncogene or it does not eventuate or both it does canter. sent2: the casement is vibrational if it is not a kind of a larboard. sent3: the casement is vibrational if it either is a gravimeter or is not a larboard or both. sent4: if either the pitchman is not a larboard or it is not a diploidy or both then it is a kind of a Gruyere. sent5: if the casement either is not vibrational or is not eonian or both then it accesses meteorologist. sent6: if something is not a kind of a gravimeter and/or it is not a larboard it is vibrational. sent7: the moosewood is meaningful if it either is not vibrational or does not access skinner or both. sent8: something that either does not access plainsman or is not a mystification or both is a kind of a hymeneal. sent9: something is an imperative if it does not circumnavigate osteopathy or it is not a bandwidth or both. sent10: something is vibrational if that it is not a larboard hold. sent11: the casement is vibrational if it does not rev and/or it is not a papovavirus. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the rendition but not the carnival happens is not correct.

¬({E} & ¬{D})

sent1: the orthodoxness happens and the simulating narcissist happens. sent2: if the preprandialness does not occur then the fact that the rendition but not the carnival occurs is incorrect. sent3: that the simulating narcissist does not occur is triggered by that the neuteringness occurs.

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the rendition but not the carnival happens is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the orthodoxness happens and the simulating narcissist happens. sent2: if the preprandialness does not occur then the fact that the rendition but not the carnival occurs is incorrect. sent3: that the simulating narcissist does not occur is triggered by that the neuteringness occurs. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the preprandialness does not occur is not true.; assump1 -> int1: that either the neuteringness or the preprandialness or both occurs is correct.; sent1 -> int2: the simulating narcissist occurs.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the reforestation happens.

{C}

sent1: if the supervention does not occur then that the non-lastness and the entree occurs is false. sent2: if the uplink happens the fact that that not the hamming but the reshuffle happens is false hold. sent3: that the equating disaster happens and the bleeping does not occur triggers that the parceling does not occur. sent4: the assembly does not occur and the rationalization does not occur if the reheating does not occur. sent5: the philandering occurs. sent6: that the reforestation occurs and the personification occurs triggers that the supervention does not occur. sent7: either the equating potholer occurs or the resultant occurs or both if the researching does not occur. sent8: if the assembly does not occur both the uplink and the protecting happens. sent9: if the circumscription happens then that the delivery and the non-semioticness occurs does not hold. sent10: the reheating does not occur if the exit does not occur. sent11: the larceny does not occur if the semioticness happens and/or the larceny does not occur. sent12: the reforestation does not occur if that that the supervention does not occur and the personification occurs is true is not true. sent13: the equating disaster occurs and the bleeping does not occur if the larceny does not occur. sent14: if the philandering occurs then the research does not occur and the demagoguery does not occur. sent15: if that the delivery and the non-semioticness occurs is false then the non-semiotic occurs. sent16: the collectivization but not the exit occurs if the parcel does not occur. sent17: if the fact that the conformity does not occur is not incorrect then either the mineralness or the admitting matzo or both happens. sent18: that the reforestation occurs and the personification occurs is brought about by that the reshuffle does not occur. sent19: the conformity does not occur if that the equating potholer occurs is true. sent20: the reshuffling does not occur if that the hamming does not occur and the reshuffling happens is incorrect. sent21: the personification does not occur.

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

the fact that not the last but the entree happens does not hold.

¬(¬{EA} & {GN})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the reforestation happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the supervention does not occur then that the non-lastness and the entree occurs is false. sent2: if the uplink happens the fact that that not the hamming but the reshuffle happens is false hold. sent3: that the equating disaster happens and the bleeping does not occur triggers that the parceling does not occur. sent4: the assembly does not occur and the rationalization does not occur if the reheating does not occur. sent5: the philandering occurs. sent6: that the reforestation occurs and the personification occurs triggers that the supervention does not occur. sent7: either the equating potholer occurs or the resultant occurs or both if the researching does not occur. sent8: if the assembly does not occur both the uplink and the protecting happens. sent9: if the circumscription happens then that the delivery and the non-semioticness occurs does not hold. sent10: the reheating does not occur if the exit does not occur. sent11: the larceny does not occur if the semioticness happens and/or the larceny does not occur. sent12: the reforestation does not occur if that that the supervention does not occur and the personification occurs is true is not true. sent13: the equating disaster occurs and the bleeping does not occur if the larceny does not occur. sent14: if the philandering occurs then the research does not occur and the demagoguery does not occur. sent15: if that the delivery and the non-semioticness occurs is false then the non-semiotic occurs. sent16: the collectivization but not the exit occurs if the parcel does not occur. sent17: if the fact that the conformity does not occur is not incorrect then either the mineralness or the admitting matzo or both happens. sent18: that the reforestation occurs and the personification occurs is brought about by that the reshuffle does not occur. sent19: the conformity does not occur if that the equating potholer occurs is true. sent20: the reshuffling does not occur if that the hamming does not occur and the reshuffling happens is incorrect. sent21: the personification does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the supervention does not occur and the personification happens.; assump1 -> int1: the personification occurs.; int1 & sent21 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the supervention does not occur and the personification occurs does not hold.; sent12 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a gumdrop and it is inconsiderable.

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

sent1: the stearin is terpsichorean. sent2: the turnover is inconsiderable and it is a diaphone. sent3: the stearin swabs rear. sent4: there is something such that it is a kind of a conjuncture and it is a kind of a vinifera. sent5: if there are purposeless things the stripper is a kind of liliaceous a gumdrop. sent6: the stearin equates gleba. sent7: the stearin is a polemics. sent8: the ironing is purposeless. sent9: the Vietnamese is inconsiderable. sent10: the stearin is inconsiderable. sent11: something is a gumdrop. sent12: there is something such that that it forwards and it is a ballot hold. sent13: the dibucaine is a kind of a gumdrop. sent14: the crocolite does admit outrider and it is sternutatory. sent15: the objectification is a gumdrop. sent16: the taxidermist is Malawian and it is inconsiderable.

sent1: {AK}{a} sent2: ({B}{ec} & {F}{ec}) sent3: {FE}{a} sent4: (Ex): ({R}x & {C}x) sent5: (x): {D}x -> ({JG}{dj} & {A}{dj}) sent6: {CJ}{a} sent7: {FD}{a} sent8: {D}{b} sent9: {B}{bq} sent10: {B}{a} sent11: (Ex): {A}x sent12: (Ex): ({EB}x & {IC}x) sent13: {A}{eh} sent14: ({FC}{ii} & {GL}{ii}) sent15: {A}{br} sent16: ({IN}{ct} & {B}{ct})

the stripper is liliaceous and it is a repute.

({JG}{dj} & {EO}{dj})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is a gumdrop and it is inconsiderable. ; $context$ = sent1: the stearin is terpsichorean. sent2: the turnover is inconsiderable and it is a diaphone. sent3: the stearin swabs rear. sent4: there is something such that it is a kind of a conjuncture and it is a kind of a vinifera. sent5: if there are purposeless things the stripper is a kind of liliaceous a gumdrop. sent6: the stearin equates gleba. sent7: the stearin is a polemics. sent8: the ironing is purposeless. sent9: the Vietnamese is inconsiderable. sent10: the stearin is inconsiderable. sent11: something is a gumdrop. sent12: there is something such that that it forwards and it is a ballot hold. sent13: the dibucaine is a kind of a gumdrop. sent14: the crocolite does admit outrider and it is sternutatory. sent15: the objectification is a gumdrop. sent16: the taxidermist is Malawian and it is inconsiderable. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the keeping happens.

{C}

sent1: the chemoreceptiveness occurs. sent2: if the exenteration does not occur then the swabbing privacy happens. sent3: the admitting professionalization does not occur if that that the parodying does not occur and the equating Crane does not occur is false is true. sent4: that the admitting professionalization and the equating Crane happens triggers that the serigraphy does not occur. sent5: if the serigraphy does not occur then that the exenteration does not occur and the swabbing privacy does not occur does not hold. sent6: that the parodying does not occur and the equating Crane does not occur is incorrect if the reactiveness happens. sent7: if the exenteration occurs then the keeping occurs. sent8: the folding occurs. sent9: that the equating Polish happens is not wrong. sent10: if the swabbing privacy happens the thermodynamicsness occurs. sent11: the fact that not the swabbing privacy but the keep occurs does not hold if that the exenteration does not occur is not incorrect. sent12: that the flashing does not occur brings about that the equating Crane and the parodying happens. sent13: that the flashing happens is prevented by the non-prismaticness. sent14: the megillah and the simulating burner happens. sent15: the swabbing privacy occurs. sent16: the exenteration does not occur if the admitting professionalization does not occur and the serigraphy does not occur. sent17: that the pilferage does not occur is prevented by that the Australian occurs. sent18: the swabbing privacy occurs and the exenteration occurs. sent19: the admitting professionalization happens.

sent1: {BJ} sent2: ¬{B} -> {A} sent3: ¬(¬{G} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{E} sent4: ({E} & {F}) -> ¬{D} sent5: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent6: {K} -> ¬(¬{G} & ¬{F}) sent7: {B} -> {C} sent8: {JE} sent9: {FE} sent10: {A} -> {O} sent11: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{A} & {C}) sent12: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent13: ¬{I} -> ¬{H} sent14: ({AN} & {HN}) sent15: {A} sent16: (¬{E} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{B} sent17: {IJ} -> {HS} sent18: ({A} & {B}) sent19: {E}

that the keeping does not occur is correct.

¬{C}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the keeping happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the chemoreceptiveness occurs. sent2: if the exenteration does not occur then the swabbing privacy happens. sent3: the admitting professionalization does not occur if that that the parodying does not occur and the equating Crane does not occur is false is true. sent4: that the admitting professionalization and the equating Crane happens triggers that the serigraphy does not occur. sent5: if the serigraphy does not occur then that the exenteration does not occur and the swabbing privacy does not occur does not hold. sent6: that the parodying does not occur and the equating Crane does not occur is incorrect if the reactiveness happens. sent7: if the exenteration occurs then the keeping occurs. sent8: the folding occurs. sent9: that the equating Polish happens is not wrong. sent10: if the swabbing privacy happens the thermodynamicsness occurs. sent11: the fact that not the swabbing privacy but the keep occurs does not hold if that the exenteration does not occur is not incorrect. sent12: that the flashing does not occur brings about that the equating Crane and the parodying happens. sent13: that the flashing happens is prevented by the non-prismaticness. sent14: the megillah and the simulating burner happens. sent15: the swabbing privacy occurs. sent16: the exenteration does not occur if the admitting professionalization does not occur and the serigraphy does not occur. sent17: that the pilferage does not occur is prevented by that the Australian occurs. sent18: the swabbing privacy occurs and the exenteration occurs. sent19: the admitting professionalization happens. ; $proof$ =

sent18 -> int1: that the exenteration happens is not false.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the pesticide is a Serra.

{B}{b}

sent1: the roadbook is a kind of a down-bow and it is megalithic. sent2: if the hunk is not an airbus the roadbook is not a naloxone. sent3: the fact that the antidepressant is a kind of a separate is correct if there is something such that the fact that it does equate duplicity and it is diametric is incorrect. sent4: there exists something such that that it is a Serra and it is a naloxone is incorrect. sent5: if the roadbook is a kind of a naloxone then the pesticide is a Serra. sent6: the roadbook is an airbus. sent7: if that the coulisse is both not megalithic and not a down-bow does not hold the fact that the roadbook is a down-bow hold. sent8: if something is not a splice it is not an airbus and/or it is not a cubit. sent9: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a naloxone and is a Serra is not true. sent10: the roadbook is a Serra if something is not a kind of a naloxone. sent11: if something is not gestational but alimentative then the hunk is not a splice. sent12: something does not simulate requiescat if the fact that it is a down-bow is true. sent13: if something is a kind of a cubit that it does not simulate requiescat and is a kind of a naloxone does not hold. sent14: there exists something such that it is non-gestational thing that is alimentative. sent15: the extinguisher is a kind of a Serra if there is something such that that it is a Hassel and a Skinnerian does not hold. sent16: something is both a naloxone and a Serra. sent17: if there exists something such that the fact that it does separate and it is a galangal does not hold the roadbook is a naloxone. sent18: the roadbook is a naloxone if there exists something such that it does not separate. sent19: something does separate and is a galangal. sent20: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of an interrogation and it is postexilic is incorrect the pesticide is a naloxone.

sent1: ({F}{a} & {G}{a}) sent2: ¬{E}{c} -> ¬{A}{a} sent3: (x): ¬({IN}x & {FR}x) -> {AA}{hd} sent4: (Ex): ¬({B}x & {A}x) sent5: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent6: {E}{a} sent7: ¬(¬{G}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) -> {F}{a} sent8: (x): ¬{H}x -> (¬{E}x v ¬{D}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> {B}{a} sent11: (x): (¬{J}x & {K}x) -> ¬{H}{c} sent12: (x): {F}x -> ¬{C}x sent13: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {A}x) sent14: (Ex): (¬{J}x & {K}x) sent15: (x): ¬({IF}x & {BD}x) -> {B}{k} sent16: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent17: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent18: (x): ¬{AA}x -> {A}{a} sent19: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent20: (x): ¬({GH}x & {FM}x) -> {A}{b}

the pesticide is not a Serra.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pesticide is a Serra. ; $context$ = sent1: the roadbook is a kind of a down-bow and it is megalithic. sent2: if the hunk is not an airbus the roadbook is not a naloxone. sent3: the fact that the antidepressant is a kind of a separate is correct if there is something such that the fact that it does equate duplicity and it is diametric is incorrect. sent4: there exists something such that that it is a Serra and it is a naloxone is incorrect. sent5: if the roadbook is a kind of a naloxone then the pesticide is a Serra. sent6: the roadbook is an airbus. sent7: if that the coulisse is both not megalithic and not a down-bow does not hold the fact that the roadbook is a down-bow hold. sent8: if something is not a splice it is not an airbus and/or it is not a cubit. sent9: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a naloxone and is a Serra is not true. sent10: the roadbook is a Serra if something is not a kind of a naloxone. sent11: if something is not gestational but alimentative then the hunk is not a splice. sent12: something does not simulate requiescat if the fact that it is a down-bow is true. sent13: if something is a kind of a cubit that it does not simulate requiescat and is a kind of a naloxone does not hold. sent14: there exists something such that it is non-gestational thing that is alimentative. sent15: the extinguisher is a kind of a Serra if there is something such that that it is a Hassel and a Skinnerian does not hold. sent16: something is both a naloxone and a Serra. sent17: if there exists something such that the fact that it does separate and it is a galangal does not hold the roadbook is a naloxone. sent18: the roadbook is a naloxone if there exists something such that it does not separate. sent19: something does separate and is a galangal. sent20: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of an interrogation and it is postexilic is incorrect the pesticide is a naloxone. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the antisyphilitic is a frequency hold.

{C}{c}

sent1: the antisyphilitic is a frequency if that the fact that the Labour is a kind of non-blinded thing that does not admit fatherliness hold is incorrect. sent2: if something equates shamefacedness it is not a kind of a blinded or it is not a Burundi or both. sent3: the fact that the hunk does not admit fatherliness and is not a frequency is incorrect if the antisyphilitic is a frequency. sent4: if the Labour is blinded then the antisyphilitic is a frequency. sent5: if something is not a Charleroi the fact that it does equate shamefacedness and it does equate handoff is not incorrect. sent6: the antisyphilitic is a blinded if the Labour is a frequency. sent7: if there is something such that it is not a retainer and does not simulate Polystichum then the Labour is not a kind of a Charleroi. sent8: if the fact that something is a kind of a frequency and is a resurrection is false it is not a kind of a frequency. sent9: the fact that the Labour is not a blinded and it does not admit fatherliness does not hold if the hunk does admit fatherliness. sent10: if something is a Burundi that is blinded it is not a frequency. sent11: the hunk is a frequency if the antisyphilitic is a kind of a resurrection. sent12: the hunk does admit fatherliness if the fact that that the antisyphilitic is not a kind of a resurrection and is not a kind of a frequency is not wrong is not correct. sent13: if the hunk is a frequency then the fact that the antisyphilitic does not admit fatherliness and is a frequency does not hold. sent14: the hunk is a kind of a resurrection if the fact that the antisyphilitic is not a frequency and does not admit fatherliness is not right. sent15: the hunk is a resurrection. sent16: that the sprout is a kind of a bastinado that does not admit fatherliness is incorrect. sent17: the steward is a filly. sent18: that the prisoner is not a kind of a retainer and it does not simulate Polystichum hold if the steward is a filly. sent19: the fact that the antisyphilitic is a frequency and it is a resurrection is not correct if the hunk does not admit fatherliness.

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

the Labour is a resurrection.

{A}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the antisyphilitic is a frequency hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the antisyphilitic is a frequency if that the fact that the Labour is a kind of non-blinded thing that does not admit fatherliness hold is incorrect. sent2: if something equates shamefacedness it is not a kind of a blinded or it is not a Burundi or both. sent3: the fact that the hunk does not admit fatherliness and is not a frequency is incorrect if the antisyphilitic is a frequency. sent4: if the Labour is blinded then the antisyphilitic is a frequency. sent5: if something is not a Charleroi the fact that it does equate shamefacedness and it does equate handoff is not incorrect. sent6: the antisyphilitic is a blinded if the Labour is a frequency. sent7: if there is something such that it is not a retainer and does not simulate Polystichum then the Labour is not a kind of a Charleroi. sent8: if the fact that something is a kind of a frequency and is a resurrection is false it is not a kind of a frequency. sent9: the fact that the Labour is not a blinded and it does not admit fatherliness does not hold if the hunk does admit fatherliness. sent10: if something is a Burundi that is blinded it is not a frequency. sent11: the hunk is a frequency if the antisyphilitic is a kind of a resurrection. sent12: the hunk does admit fatherliness if the fact that that the antisyphilitic is not a kind of a resurrection and is not a kind of a frequency is not wrong is not correct. sent13: if the hunk is a frequency then the fact that the antisyphilitic does not admit fatherliness and is a frequency does not hold. sent14: the hunk is a kind of a resurrection if the fact that the antisyphilitic is not a frequency and does not admit fatherliness is not right. sent15: the hunk is a resurrection. sent16: that the sprout is a kind of a bastinado that does not admit fatherliness is incorrect. sent17: the steward is a filly. sent18: that the prisoner is not a kind of a retainer and it does not simulate Polystichum hold if the steward is a filly. sent19: the fact that the antisyphilitic is a frequency and it is a resurrection is not correct if the hunk does not admit fatherliness. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the encumbrance is not a deerstalker.

¬{B}{c}

sent1: if the cuspidation is a kind of a tuber then the fact that the mystic is a kind of a tartlet and it equates musher is incorrect. sent2: that the mystic is a tartlet and does not equate musher is false if the cuspidation is a kind of a tuber. sent3: the fact that the mystic is a tartlet and it equates musher is incorrect. sent4: something is a tartlet and is a tuber if the fact that it is not a deerstalker is true. sent5: if the fact that the mystic does equate musher is right then the encumbrance is not a kind of a deerstalker. sent6: that the guardrail is not a deerstalker hold. sent7: there is nothing such that it is not biosystematic and it homes. sent8: the fact that the mystic is a kind of a paca is not incorrect. sent9: the mystic is not a tuber. sent10: if that the mystic is a tartlet and does not equate musher is wrong then that the encumbrance is not a deerstalker hold. sent11: the cuspidation is a tuber. sent12: the fact that the mystic is a deerstalker and it does equate musher is not correct.

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

the encumbrance is a tartlet.

{AA}{c}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the encumbrance is not a deerstalker. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cuspidation is a kind of a tuber then the fact that the mystic is a kind of a tartlet and it equates musher is incorrect. sent2: that the mystic is a tartlet and does not equate musher is false if the cuspidation is a kind of a tuber. sent3: the fact that the mystic is a tartlet and it equates musher is incorrect. sent4: something is a tartlet and is a tuber if the fact that it is not a deerstalker is true. sent5: if the fact that the mystic does equate musher is right then the encumbrance is not a kind of a deerstalker. sent6: that the guardrail is not a deerstalker hold. sent7: there is nothing such that it is not biosystematic and it homes. sent8: the fact that the mystic is a kind of a paca is not incorrect. sent9: the mystic is not a tuber. sent10: if that the mystic is a tartlet and does not equate musher is wrong then that the encumbrance is not a deerstalker hold. sent11: the cuspidation is a tuber. sent12: the fact that the mystic is a deerstalker and it does equate musher is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent11 -> int1: the fact that the mystic is a kind of a tartlet but it does not equate musher is wrong.; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it is neritic then it does not swab shortgrass and is a Shiism.

(Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: there is something such that if it does simulate hackberry it does admit grazed and it is a kind of a locus. sent2: if something does swab snit then it does not admit ranker and is a dysgenesis. sent3: there is something such that if it is neritic then it is a Shiism. sent4: if the caramel is neritic it is a Shiism. sent5: the caramel does not swab shortgrass and is a kind of a Shiism if it is neritic.

sent1: (Ex): {R}x -> ({JI}x & {BJ}x) sent2: (x): {IS}x -> (¬{CB}x & {FF}x) sent3: (Ex): {A}x -> {AB}x sent4: {A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent5: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

there is something such that if it swabs snit it does not admit ranker and it is a dysgenesis.

(Ex): {IS}x -> (¬{CB}x & {FF}x)

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is neritic then it does not swab shortgrass and is a Shiism. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it does simulate hackberry it does admit grazed and it is a kind of a locus. sent2: if something does swab snit then it does not admit ranker and is a dysgenesis. sent3: there is something such that if it is neritic then it is a Shiism. sent4: if the caramel is neritic it is a Shiism. sent5: the caramel does not swab shortgrass and is a kind of a Shiism if it is neritic. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the names does not swab glyceryl.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: if the Bangladeshi does not simulate question then the fact that it does not equate otoplasty is not wrong. sent2: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a toggle and/or it is not a gingersnap the names does swab glyceryl. sent3: either the names does not equate Apidae or it is not a succade or both if something does not swab glyceryl. sent4: if that something is not olfactory and it does not chondrify is not right it does not swab attendant. sent5: the argentinosaur does not toggle or it is a kind of a gingersnap or both. sent6: the argentinosaur is a toggle and/or it is not a gingersnap. sent7: the argentinosaur does not toggle and/or it is not a kind of a gingersnap. sent8: that the Bangladeshi is non-olfactory thing that does not chondrify is not correct if the fact that it does not equate otoplasty hold. sent9: if the fact that something swabs glyceryl and it is a frogfish is false then it does not swabs glyceryl. sent10: there is something such that either it is a toggle or it is not a kind of a gingersnap or both. sent11: the fact that something swabs glyceryl and is a frogfish is not correct if the fact that it is saponaceous is wrong. sent12: if there exists something such that it does not swab attendant the echelon is not saponaceous. sent13: the Bangladeshi does not simulate question.

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

something does not equate Apidae and/or is not a kind of a succade.

(Ex): (¬{DO}x v ¬{T}x)

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the names does not swab glyceryl. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Bangladeshi does not simulate question then the fact that it does not equate otoplasty is not wrong. sent2: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a toggle and/or it is not a gingersnap the names does swab glyceryl. sent3: either the names does not equate Apidae or it is not a succade or both if something does not swab glyceryl. sent4: if that something is not olfactory and it does not chondrify is not right it does not swab attendant. sent5: the argentinosaur does not toggle or it is a kind of a gingersnap or both. sent6: the argentinosaur is a toggle and/or it is not a gingersnap. sent7: the argentinosaur does not toggle and/or it is not a kind of a gingersnap. sent8: that the Bangladeshi is non-olfactory thing that does not chondrify is not correct if the fact that it does not equate otoplasty hold. sent9: if the fact that something swabs glyceryl and it is a frogfish is false then it does not swabs glyceryl. sent10: there is something such that either it is a toggle or it is not a kind of a gingersnap or both. sent11: the fact that something swabs glyceryl and is a frogfish is not correct if the fact that it is saponaceous is wrong. sent12: if there exists something such that it does not swab attendant the echelon is not saponaceous. sent13: the Bangladeshi does not simulate question. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: there exists something such that it is not a toggle and/or is not a gingersnap.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the godwit does not swab hopscotch.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: the lister does not swab ineluctability or it does not boogie or both if it is not a kind of a Abraham. sent2: that the biteplate is a predilection is true if the fact that the godwit is not a predilection or it does not admit thermograph or both is right. sent3: the godwit does not swab hopscotch if the biteplate is organismal. sent4: the biteplate is organismal if the fact that the ECF is not penumbral and/or is an intervention does not hold. sent5: something swabs kickback if the fact that it does not boogie is not wrong. sent6: that something does not admit Urd and is not a MSH does not hold if it swabs kickback. sent7: something swabs kickback if it does not swab ineluctability. sent8: either something is not a predilection or it does not admit thermograph or both if it does equate Transportation. sent9: if the biteplate is a kind of a predilection it does not swab hopscotch and does not admit Grahame. sent10: the lister is not a Abraham. sent11: the godwit equates Transportation if there is something such that the fact that it does not admit Urd and is not a kind of a MSH does not hold.

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

the blooming is organismal.

{A}{eb}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the godwit does not swab hopscotch. ; $context$ = sent1: the lister does not swab ineluctability or it does not boogie or both if it is not a kind of a Abraham. sent2: that the biteplate is a predilection is true if the fact that the godwit is not a predilection or it does not admit thermograph or both is right. sent3: the godwit does not swab hopscotch if the biteplate is organismal. sent4: the biteplate is organismal if the fact that the ECF is not penumbral and/or is an intervention does not hold. sent5: something swabs kickback if the fact that it does not boogie is not wrong. sent6: that something does not admit Urd and is not a MSH does not hold if it swabs kickback. sent7: something swabs kickback if it does not swab ineluctability. sent8: either something is not a predilection or it does not admit thermograph or both if it does equate Transportation. sent9: if the biteplate is a kind of a predilection it does not swab hopscotch and does not admit Grahame. sent10: the lister is not a Abraham. sent11: the godwit equates Transportation if there is something such that the fact that it does not admit Urd and is not a kind of a MSH does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it is not a Isere the fact that it does not truck and it is a kind of a Sillaginidae does not hold.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a Isere then that it is a truck and it is a Sillaginidae is incorrect is not wrong. sent2: the fact that something is not a kind of a congregation but it is a kind of a African is not right if it is promotional. sent3: if something swabs butacaine then the fact that it is not pudendal and it is multiple is not right. sent4: there exists something such that if it is civics the fact that it is not dissimilar and is agonadal is incorrect. sent5: there is something such that if it is civics the fact that it is not nonastringent and it is a kind of a privacy is not right. sent6: that something is not a kind of a British but it is a bovine if it is not a yottabyte is true. sent7: the fact that something does not fry and is a Pinctada is not true if it does not reseat. sent8: something is not a surcharge and is a needlefish if it does not simulate. sent9: there is something such that if it does swab Anethum then that it is not a glance and it is a kind of a frijol does not hold. sent10: the fact that the Shiite is not pudendal but a Sillaginidae is false if it does not admit shutter. sent11: if that the Parks does not equate custody is not wrong then the fact that that it is uvular and it is a kind of a truck is correct does not hold. sent12: if the fact that something is not a Erythronium is not incorrect then the fact that it is a kind of a Djiboutian that is myocardial is not correct. sent13: if the oxyhemoglobin is not a four-in-hand then it is not a Isere and is a proconsulship. sent14: if the Parks swabs Shiite then that it is not a kind of a truck and it is Jamesian is not right. sent15: the fact that the Parks is a truck and it is a Sillaginidae is wrong if it is not a kind of a Isere. sent16: if something does not mambo the fact that it is a hair that is an exigency is not right. sent17: that there exists something such that if it is a Isere the fact that it does not truck and it is a kind of a Sillaginidae is false hold.

sent1: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (x): {IJ}x -> ¬(¬{IR}x & {DH}x) sent3: (x): {CJ}x -> ¬(¬{DR}x & {GJ}x) sent4: (Ex): {DG}x -> ¬(¬{AP}x & {HD}x) sent5: (Ex): {DG}x -> ¬(¬{DD}x & {HI}x) sent6: (x): ¬{JD}x -> (¬{DN}x & {JC}x) sent7: (x): ¬{L}x -> ¬(¬{EC}x & {GT}x) sent8: (x): ¬{DF}x -> (¬{GC}x & {ID}x) sent9: (Ex): {BR}x -> ¬(¬{BI}x & {CC}x) sent10: ¬{CP}{gi} -> ¬(¬{DR}{gi} & {AB}{gi}) sent11: ¬{GD}{aa} -> ¬({M}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent12: (x): ¬{BO}x -> ¬({DL}x & {AR}x) sent13: ¬{DT}{br} -> (¬{A}{br} & {EP}{br}) sent14: {FR}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {T}{aa}) sent15: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent16: (x): ¬{FL}x -> ¬({HO}x & {DS}x) sent17: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not a Isere the fact that it does not truck and it is a kind of a Sillaginidae does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a Isere then that it is a truck and it is a Sillaginidae is incorrect is not wrong. sent2: the fact that something is not a kind of a congregation but it is a kind of a African is not right if it is promotional. sent3: if something swabs butacaine then the fact that it is not pudendal and it is multiple is not right. sent4: there exists something such that if it is civics the fact that it is not dissimilar and is agonadal is incorrect. sent5: there is something such that if it is civics the fact that it is not nonastringent and it is a kind of a privacy is not right. sent6: that something is not a kind of a British but it is a bovine if it is not a yottabyte is true. sent7: the fact that something does not fry and is a Pinctada is not true if it does not reseat. sent8: something is not a surcharge and is a needlefish if it does not simulate. sent9: there is something such that if it does swab Anethum then that it is not a glance and it is a kind of a frijol does not hold. sent10: the fact that the Shiite is not pudendal but a Sillaginidae is false if it does not admit shutter. sent11: if that the Parks does not equate custody is not wrong then the fact that that it is uvular and it is a kind of a truck is correct does not hold. sent12: if the fact that something is not a Erythronium is not incorrect then the fact that it is a kind of a Djiboutian that is myocardial is not correct. sent13: if the oxyhemoglobin is not a four-in-hand then it is not a Isere and is a proconsulship. sent14: if the Parks swabs Shiite then that it is not a kind of a truck and it is Jamesian is not right. sent15: the fact that the Parks is a truck and it is a Sillaginidae is wrong if it is not a kind of a Isere. sent16: if something does not mambo the fact that it is a hair that is an exigency is not right. sent17: that there exists something such that if it is a Isere the fact that it does not truck and it is a kind of a Sillaginidae is false hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fumitory is not a chime.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: the turning does not reorient. sent2: if the turning is not a Ostraciidae it does not reorient and does not confabulate. sent3: that the fumitory is not a kind of a Ostraciidae is true. sent4: there is something such that it reorients and it does not confabulate. sent5: there is something such that it does not reorient. sent6: if something that does not reorient does not confabulate the fumitory is not a chime. sent7: something that is a simperer is a sprat. sent8: if the fact that the turning is not a Ostraciidae is true it does not reorient. sent9: there is something such that that it is apophatic and it is universalistic does not hold. sent10: if there exists something such that that it is apophatic and it is universalistic does not hold then the scone is a kind of a simperer. sent11: the fumitory is a chime if the fact that the turning is not a kind of a chime and/or it is a kind of a Ostraciidae is wrong. sent12: there exists something such that it does not confabulate. sent13: there exists something such that it does not confabulate and it is not a Ostraciidae. sent14: there is something such that it is not a chime and it does confabulate. sent15: if something is a kind of a sprat it is a perfidy. sent16: if something is eccentric that it is not a chime or is a Ostraciidae or both is not correct. sent17: the turning does not reorient and does not equate Oriental. sent18: something does not reorient and confabulates. sent19: the turning is not a chime if the fact that the fumitory is not eccentric and it is not a Ostraciidae does not hold.

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

the turning is not a chime.

¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fumitory is not a chime. ; $context$ = sent1: the turning does not reorient. sent2: if the turning is not a Ostraciidae it does not reorient and does not confabulate. sent3: that the fumitory is not a kind of a Ostraciidae is true. sent4: there is something such that it reorients and it does not confabulate. sent5: there is something such that it does not reorient. sent6: if something that does not reorient does not confabulate the fumitory is not a chime. sent7: something that is a simperer is a sprat. sent8: if the fact that the turning is not a Ostraciidae is true it does not reorient. sent9: there is something such that that it is apophatic and it is universalistic does not hold. sent10: if there exists something such that that it is apophatic and it is universalistic does not hold then the scone is a kind of a simperer. sent11: the fumitory is a chime if the fact that the turning is not a kind of a chime and/or it is a kind of a Ostraciidae is wrong. sent12: there exists something such that it does not confabulate. sent13: there exists something such that it does not confabulate and it is not a Ostraciidae. sent14: there is something such that it is not a chime and it does confabulate. sent15: if something is a kind of a sprat it is a perfidy. sent16: if something is eccentric that it is not a chime or is a Ostraciidae or both is not correct. sent17: the turning does not reorient and does not equate Oriental. sent18: something does not reorient and confabulates. sent19: the turning is not a chime if the fact that the fumitory is not eccentric and it is not a Ostraciidae does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the armchair is not non-Mongol.

{B}{a}

sent1: there is something such that it is non-servomechanical. sent2: there is something such that it is not protestant. sent3: the armchair is a kind of a Primaxin if something that is not servomechanical is a Ceratotherium. sent4: if something that is not a Ceratotherium is a Mongol then the armchair is servomechanical. sent5: something that is a Primaxin is a kind of a Mongol. sent6: the condenser is a kind of non-Mongol thing that is a Ceratotherium. sent7: if something does admit cognate then that it does balloon hold. sent8: something does simulate semivowel if it is a kind of a Shintoist. sent9: the armchair is not contestable but it is servomechanical. sent10: if that something is not a Primaxin and it is not a Mongol is not right it is a kind of a Ceratotherium.

sent1: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent2: (Ex): ¬{CI}x sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent4: (x): (¬{AB}x & {B}x) -> {AA}{a} sent5: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent6: (¬{B}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent7: (x): {EM}x -> {IN}x sent8: (x): {JF}x -> {AQ}x sent9: (¬{L}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent10: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {AB}x

the fact that the armchair is a Ceratotherium is not false.

{AB}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the armchair is not non-Mongol. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is non-servomechanical. sent2: there is something such that it is not protestant. sent3: the armchair is a kind of a Primaxin if something that is not servomechanical is a Ceratotherium. sent4: if something that is not a Ceratotherium is a Mongol then the armchair is servomechanical. sent5: something that is a Primaxin is a kind of a Mongol. sent6: the condenser is a kind of non-Mongol thing that is a Ceratotherium. sent7: if something does admit cognate then that it does balloon hold. sent8: something does simulate semivowel if it is a kind of a Shintoist. sent9: the armchair is not contestable but it is servomechanical. sent10: if that something is not a Primaxin and it is not a Mongol is not right it is a kind of a Ceratotherium. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: if the armchair is a Primaxin then it is a kind of a Mongol.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a lecture it admits sheriff and is not a marsupial is wrong.

¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x))

sent1: if the exaltation is a flatbread it is ripe and does not lecture. sent2: something does admit sheriff but it is not marsupial if the fact that it does not lecture hold.

sent1: {EU}{gk} -> ({HK}{gk} & ¬{A}{gk}) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a lecture it admits sheriff and is not a marsupial is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the exaltation is a flatbread it is ripe and does not lecture. sent2: something does admit sheriff but it is not marsupial if the fact that it does not lecture hold. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the sheriff admits sheriff but it is not a marsupial if that it does not lecture hold.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there exists something such that if it is a GPA and it admits county it is not electrical is not right.

¬((Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)

sent1: there is something such that if it is a GPA and does admit county it is electrical. sent2: the vibist is Chinese if it is a drogue and it pricks. sent3: there is something such that if the fact that it is protozoal and it does admit simultaneity hold then it does swab psychology. sent4: if the vibist is a GPA and it does admit county then it is electrical. sent5: there exists something such that if it equates Provo and is Ghanaian it does not equate forename. sent6: if something swabs muscularity and it is a veloute it is not a drummer. sent7: the vibist is not electrical if it is a GPA that does admit county. sent8: if something equates patency and it is not non-politics it does not admit county. sent9: something is not a triptych if it is a GPA and it is mathematical.

sent1: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: ({A}{aa} & {DC}{aa}) -> {HT}{aa} sent3: (Ex): ({AN}x & {EO}x) -> {J}x sent4: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent5: (Ex): ({T}x & {IM}x) -> ¬{CH}x sent6: (x): ({DT}x & {BI}x) -> ¬{FE}x sent7: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent8: (x): ({DE}x & {HM}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent9: (x): ({AA}x & {AI}x) -> ¬{BL}x

there is something such that if it does swab muscularity and it is a kind of a veloute then it is not a drummer.

(Ex): ({DT}x & {BI}x) -> ¬{FE}x

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is a GPA and it admits county it is not electrical is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is a GPA and does admit county it is electrical. sent2: the vibist is Chinese if it is a drogue and it pricks. sent3: there is something such that if the fact that it is protozoal and it does admit simultaneity hold then it does swab psychology. sent4: if the vibist is a GPA and it does admit county then it is electrical. sent5: there exists something such that if it equates Provo and is Ghanaian it does not equate forename. sent6: if something swabs muscularity and it is a veloute it is not a drummer. sent7: the vibist is not electrical if it is a GPA that does admit county. sent8: if something equates patency and it is not non-politics it does not admit county. sent9: something is not a triptych if it is a GPA and it is mathematical. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the equating Irish does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: the fact that that the butterflying does not occur results in that the sunset and the incompressibleness happens hold. sent2: that the Chilean does not occur and the sunset does not occur is triggered by that the incompressibleness happens. sent3: if the redundancy does not occur then the incompressibleness occurs and the butterflying happens. sent4: both the admitting snootiness and the Chilean occurs. sent5: if the Chileanness does not occur the equating Irish but not the admitting snootiness occurs. sent6: the stampede occurs.

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

the equating Irish occurs.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the equating Irish does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that that the butterflying does not occur results in that the sunset and the incompressibleness happens hold. sent2: that the Chilean does not occur and the sunset does not occur is triggered by that the incompressibleness happens. sent3: if the redundancy does not occur then the incompressibleness occurs and the butterflying happens. sent4: both the admitting snootiness and the Chilean occurs. sent5: if the Chileanness does not occur the equating Irish but not the admitting snootiness occurs. sent6: the stampede occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: the fact that the Chileanness occurs is not false.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there exists something such that if it simulates endoderm and does not swab Appalachia it is not a mellowness is incorrect.

¬((Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)

sent1: there is something such that if it is a dinar and is not nonmetallic then it is a matricide. sent2: if the cappuccino does simulate endoderm and does swab Appalachia then it is not a kind of a mellowness. sent3: if the satirist does slip and simulates endoderm it is not unrenewable. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a maglev that is not a racecard it admits backstay. sent5: if the cappuccino does simulate endoderm but it does not swab Appalachia then it is a kind of a mellowness. sent6: if the cappuccino does simulate endoderm and does not swab Appalachia then it is not a mellowness. sent7: something that does swab Appalachia and is not a slip is not a kind of a maglev. sent8: if the cappuccino is a tetrabromo-phenolsulfonephthalein and it is a mellowness then it is not a squirrel.

sent1: (Ex): ({HK}x & ¬{BS}x) -> {IL}x sent2: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent3: ({HU}{hs} & {AA}{hs}) -> ¬{JG}{hs} sent4: (Ex): ({BF}x & ¬{GS}x) -> {BA}x sent5: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent6: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent7: (x): ({AB}x & ¬{HU}x) -> ¬{BF}x sent8: ({GD}{aa} & {B}{aa}) -> ¬{HF}{aa}

if the comforter does swab Appalachia and is not a kind of a slip then it is not a maglev.

({AB}{i} & ¬{HU}{i}) -> ¬{BF}{i}

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it simulates endoderm and does not swab Appalachia it is not a mellowness is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is a dinar and is not nonmetallic then it is a matricide. sent2: if the cappuccino does simulate endoderm and does swab Appalachia then it is not a kind of a mellowness. sent3: if the satirist does slip and simulates endoderm it is not unrenewable. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a maglev that is not a racecard it admits backstay. sent5: if the cappuccino does simulate endoderm but it does not swab Appalachia then it is a kind of a mellowness. sent6: if the cappuccino does simulate endoderm and does not swab Appalachia then it is not a mellowness. sent7: something that does swab Appalachia and is not a slip is not a kind of a maglev. sent8: if the cappuccino is a tetrabromo-phenolsulfonephthalein and it is a mellowness then it is not a squirrel. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the mortification is not anamnestic.

¬{A}{b}

sent1: that the innocent is not anamnestic hold if that the mortification is not off-site and is not a kind of a streptolysin is false. sent2: if something is not a Hieracium it is a streptolysin. sent3: if that the innocent is not a streptolysin and it does not equate mooneye does not hold the stoneware is not off-site. sent4: if the innocent is a streptolysin then that the stoneware is not a streptolysin and does not equate mooneye is wrong. sent5: the mortification is not a streptolysin if the fact that the innocent is not anamnestic and is not a Hieracium is not true. sent6: the innocent is off-site and/or it is not a kind of a Hieracium. sent7: the fact that the stoneware does not equate mooneye and is not anamnestic does not hold. sent8: if the innocent is a kind of a streptolysin the fact that the stoneware is a streptolysin that does not equate mooneye is not correct. sent9: something equates mooneye and it is a kind of a streptolysin if it is not a intoxicant. sent10: if the mortification is a Hieracium and/or it is not a kind of a streptolysin then it is anamnestic. sent11: that the mortification is not anamnestic if the stoneware is a kind of a streptolysin is not wrong. sent12: that the stoneware is a kind of a streptolysin that does not equate mooneye is wrong. sent13: the mortification is not anamnestic if the fact that the stoneware is not a kind of a streptolysin and does not equate mooneye is wrong. sent14: the innocent either is off-site or is a Hieracium or both. sent15: if the stoneware is a streptolysin then the mortification is anamnestic. sent16: if either the innocent is a streptolysin or it does not equate mooneye or both it is off-site. sent17: the stoneware is a Hieracium if it is not a streptolysin. sent18: something is a Hieracium if it is anamnestic or it is not off-site or both.

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

the mortification is anamnestic.

{A}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the mortification is not anamnestic. ; $context$ = sent1: that the innocent is not anamnestic hold if that the mortification is not off-site and is not a kind of a streptolysin is false. sent2: if something is not a Hieracium it is a streptolysin. sent3: if that the innocent is not a streptolysin and it does not equate mooneye does not hold the stoneware is not off-site. sent4: if the innocent is a streptolysin then that the stoneware is not a streptolysin and does not equate mooneye is wrong. sent5: the mortification is not a streptolysin if the fact that the innocent is not anamnestic and is not a Hieracium is not true. sent6: the innocent is off-site and/or it is not a kind of a Hieracium. sent7: the fact that the stoneware does not equate mooneye and is not anamnestic does not hold. sent8: if the innocent is a kind of a streptolysin the fact that the stoneware is a streptolysin that does not equate mooneye is not correct. sent9: something equates mooneye and it is a kind of a streptolysin if it is not a intoxicant. sent10: if the mortification is a Hieracium and/or it is not a kind of a streptolysin then it is anamnestic. sent11: that the mortification is not anamnestic if the stoneware is a kind of a streptolysin is not wrong. sent12: that the stoneware is a kind of a streptolysin that does not equate mooneye is wrong. sent13: the mortification is not anamnestic if the fact that the stoneware is not a kind of a streptolysin and does not equate mooneye is wrong. sent14: the innocent either is off-site or is a Hieracium or both. sent15: if the stoneware is a streptolysin then the mortification is anamnestic. sent16: if either the innocent is a streptolysin or it does not equate mooneye or both it is off-site. sent17: the stoneware is a Hieracium if it is not a streptolysin. sent18: something is a Hieracium if it is anamnestic or it is not off-site or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the swabbing semivowel does not occur or the geocentricness does not occur or both is false.

¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB})

sent1: if the fact that the simulating gamma does not occur or the consecration does not occur or both does not hold the equating armchair does not occur. sent2: if the equating armchair does not occur both the admitting drey and the equating prominence occurs. sent3: if the brachialness does not occur then both the expedient and the equating xenotime happens. sent4: the admitting Triangulum happens if the Polynesian and the non-unclearedness occurs. sent5: the aversiveness does not occur if the fact that not the penumbralness but the admitting bunchberry happens is wrong. sent6: the sub-test does not occur if the admitting Triangulum occurs. sent7: the swabbing semivowel does not occur or the geocentricness does not occur or both if the admitting bunchberry occurs. sent8: that the simulating gamma does not occur and/or the consecration does not occur is false if the equating xenotime happens. sent9: if that both the antheridialness and the non-autoplasticness occurs is not correct the penumbralness does not occur. sent10: that the hypodermalness does not occur results in that the doricness occurs. sent11: if the sub-test does not occur that the antheridialness but not the autoplasticness happens does not hold. sent12: if the penumbralness does not occur both the admitting bunchberry and the aversiveness occurs. sent13: the fact that the penumbralness does not occur but the admitting bunchberry happens does not hold. sent14: that the Polynesian and the clearedness occurs is brought about by that the Reformation does not occur. sent15: the Reformation is prevented by that the admitting drey happens.

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

either the swabbing semivowel does not occur or the geocentricness does not occur or both.

(¬{AA} v ¬{AB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the swabbing semivowel does not occur or the geocentricness does not occur or both is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the simulating gamma does not occur or the consecration does not occur or both does not hold the equating armchair does not occur. sent2: if the equating armchair does not occur both the admitting drey and the equating prominence occurs. sent3: if the brachialness does not occur then both the expedient and the equating xenotime happens. sent4: the admitting Triangulum happens if the Polynesian and the non-unclearedness occurs. sent5: the aversiveness does not occur if the fact that not the penumbralness but the admitting bunchberry happens is wrong. sent6: the sub-test does not occur if the admitting Triangulum occurs. sent7: the swabbing semivowel does not occur or the geocentricness does not occur or both if the admitting bunchberry occurs. sent8: that the simulating gamma does not occur and/or the consecration does not occur is false if the equating xenotime happens. sent9: if that both the antheridialness and the non-autoplasticness occurs is not correct the penumbralness does not occur. sent10: that the hypodermalness does not occur results in that the doricness occurs. sent11: if the sub-test does not occur that the antheridialness but not the autoplasticness happens does not hold. sent12: if the penumbralness does not occur both the admitting bunchberry and the aversiveness occurs. sent13: the fact that the penumbralness does not occur but the admitting bunchberry happens does not hold. sent14: that the Polynesian and the clearedness occurs is brought about by that the Reformation does not occur. sent15: the Reformation is prevented by that the admitting drey happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the swabbing semivowel does not occur and/or the geocentricness does not occur.; sent5 & sent13 -> int1: the aversiveness does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the crosshead does equate directive and does admit kinesiology.

({B}{a} & {C}{a})

sent1: the fact that the Best admits grazed is correct. sent2: The grazed admits crosshead. sent3: the crosshead admits grazed. sent4: if something does not admit grazed then that it equates directive and it admits kinesiology is not correct. sent5: if that the crosshead admits grazed is right it equates directive. sent6: if the crosshead is a nosedive then the fact that it admits kinesiology is not incorrect. sent7: the crosshead nosedives.

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

that the crosshead does equate directive and does admit kinesiology does not hold.

¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the crosshead does equate directive and does admit kinesiology. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Best admits grazed is correct. sent2: The grazed admits crosshead. sent3: the crosshead admits grazed. sent4: if something does not admit grazed then that it equates directive and it admits kinesiology is not correct. sent5: if that the crosshead admits grazed is right it equates directive. sent6: if the crosshead is a nosedive then the fact that it admits kinesiology is not incorrect. sent7: the crosshead nosedives. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the crosshead equates directive.; sent6 & sent7 -> int2: the crosshead does admit kinesiology.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the caryatid is not papery.

¬{C}{c}

sent1: something is an opus and/or not papery if it is a shared. sent2: if the alpinist is not papery the caryatid is not papery. sent3: the caryatid is not an opus. sent4: the chuck-will's-widow is not an opus if that the alpinist does not admit pith and is a kind of a intellectualization is false. sent5: the fact that the alpinist does admit pith and is a intellectualization is not correct. sent6: the fact that the alpinist does not admit pith but it is an opus is wrong. sent7: the caryatid is both not an opus and papery if the chuck-will's-widow is not an opus. sent8: the alpinist is not an opus if the fact that the chuck-will's-widow is not papery and admits pith is not true. sent9: the caryatid is not an opus if the fact that the chuck-will's-widow is non-papery thing that is a kind of a intellectualization is not true. sent10: that the alpinist is not a intellectualization is not incorrect if that that the chuck-will's-widow does not admit pith and is an opus is true is false. sent11: the alpinist is a bunyavirus. sent12: that the chuck-will's-widow is not papery hold. sent13: the fact that the chuck-will's-widow is not an opus is not wrong if the alpinist admits pith. sent14: that the alpinist does not admit pith but it is a kind of a intellectualization is not true. sent15: that the caryatid is not papery but it is a intellectualization is false. sent16: that the chuck-will's-widow is not a intellectualization but it is an opus is wrong. sent17: the caryatid admits pith. sent18: the caryatid is not a intellectualization if the alpinist is not a kind of a intellectualization. sent19: the caryatid is not a kind of an opus but it admits pith if that the alpinist is not a kind of an opus is not incorrect. sent20: if either something is an opus or it is not papery or both it is not papery. sent21: the alpinist is not an opus.

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

the caryatid is non-papery.

¬{C}{c}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the caryatid is not papery. ; $context$ = sent1: something is an opus and/or not papery if it is a shared. sent2: if the alpinist is not papery the caryatid is not papery. sent3: the caryatid is not an opus. sent4: the chuck-will's-widow is not an opus if that the alpinist does not admit pith and is a kind of a intellectualization is false. sent5: the fact that the alpinist does admit pith and is a intellectualization is not correct. sent6: the fact that the alpinist does not admit pith but it is an opus is wrong. sent7: the caryatid is both not an opus and papery if the chuck-will's-widow is not an opus. sent8: the alpinist is not an opus if the fact that the chuck-will's-widow is not papery and admits pith is not true. sent9: the caryatid is not an opus if the fact that the chuck-will's-widow is non-papery thing that is a kind of a intellectualization is not true. sent10: that the alpinist is not a intellectualization is not incorrect if that that the chuck-will's-widow does not admit pith and is an opus is true is false. sent11: the alpinist is a bunyavirus. sent12: that the chuck-will's-widow is not papery hold. sent13: the fact that the chuck-will's-widow is not an opus is not wrong if the alpinist admits pith. sent14: that the alpinist does not admit pith but it is a kind of a intellectualization is not true. sent15: that the caryatid is not papery but it is a intellectualization is false. sent16: that the chuck-will's-widow is not a intellectualization but it is an opus is wrong. sent17: the caryatid admits pith. sent18: the caryatid is not a intellectualization if the alpinist is not a kind of a intellectualization. sent19: the caryatid is not a kind of an opus but it admits pith if that the alpinist is not a kind of an opus is not incorrect. sent20: if either something is an opus or it is not papery or both it is not papery. sent21: the alpinist is not an opus. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent14 -> int1: the chuck-will's-widow is not a kind of an opus.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the caryatid is not an opus and is papery.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the moray is not restful.

¬{D}{c}

sent1: the wicket is not real-time. sent2: if the wicket is Mishnaic the naphazoline does swab county. sent3: if the naphazoline is a loading it admits Galium. sent4: if the wicket is both Mishnaic and not restful then the moray is restful. sent5: if the wicket swabs county and it is a loading then the naphazoline is not Mishnaic. sent6: if that the naphazoline does not swab county but it is a loading is not correct then it is Mishnaic. sent7: that the moray is prefectural and is not an imitation is incorrect if there exists something such that it is not real-time. sent8: the wicket is Mishnaic. sent9: if that the naphazoline is not a loading but it is a kind of an imitation does not hold then it does admit Galium. sent10: the moray is not Mishnaic if the fact that the wicket does admit Galium and it is restful is not incorrect. sent11: if the fact that the moray is not non-prefectural but it is not an imitation is false then it is a kind of an imitation. sent12: something does swab county if it admits Galium and it is not Mishnaic. sent13: the moray is an imitation. sent14: the fact that the naphazoline does not load but it is an imitation is not right. sent15: that the naphazoline is a loading and it is an imitation does not hold.

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

the moray does swab county.

{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the moray is not restful. ; $context$ = sent1: the wicket is not real-time. sent2: if the wicket is Mishnaic the naphazoline does swab county. sent3: if the naphazoline is a loading it admits Galium. sent4: if the wicket is both Mishnaic and not restful then the moray is restful. sent5: if the wicket swabs county and it is a loading then the naphazoline is not Mishnaic. sent6: if that the naphazoline does not swab county but it is a loading is not correct then it is Mishnaic. sent7: that the moray is prefectural and is not an imitation is incorrect if there exists something such that it is not real-time. sent8: the wicket is Mishnaic. sent9: if that the naphazoline is not a loading but it is a kind of an imitation does not hold then it does admit Galium. sent10: the moray is not Mishnaic if the fact that the wicket does admit Galium and it is restful is not incorrect. sent11: if the fact that the moray is not non-prefectural but it is not an imitation is false then it is a kind of an imitation. sent12: something does swab county if it admits Galium and it is not Mishnaic. sent13: the moray is an imitation. sent14: the fact that the naphazoline does not load but it is an imitation is not right. sent15: that the naphazoline is a loading and it is an imitation does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent8 -> int1: the naphazoline swabs county.; sent9 & sent14 -> int2: the naphazoline does admit Galium.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the naphazoline swabs county and it does admit Galium.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the satellite is not a Stenochlaena.

¬{E}{b}

sent1: there is something such that it is not a piquancy. sent2: there exists something such that it does admit satellite. sent3: something is a Stenochlaena that is a piquancy if it does not sallow. sent4: if something either does not swab evil or is a vanilla or both it is not a sallow. sent5: something is not a Stenochlaena if it swabs evil. sent6: that the satellite does not swab evil and is not a vanilla does not hold if the death is not a sallow. sent7: if there exists something such that it is not a piquancy the death is not a sallow.

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

the satellite is a kind of a Stenochlaena.

{E}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the satellite is not a Stenochlaena. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is not a piquancy. sent2: there exists something such that it does admit satellite. sent3: something is a Stenochlaena that is a piquancy if it does not sallow. sent4: if something either does not swab evil or is a vanilla or both it is not a sallow. sent5: something is not a Stenochlaena if it swabs evil. sent6: that the satellite does not swab evil and is not a vanilla does not hold if the death is not a sallow. sent7: if there exists something such that it is not a piquancy the death is not a sallow. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent7 -> int1: the fact that the death does not sallow is correct.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the fact that the satellite does not swab evil and is not a vanilla is not right.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the mailbox is expedient and it is fernless.

({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

sent1: the mailbox is not a shtikl if it is an expressionist and does complain. sent2: if that something is not a kind of a Shivaism and it is not a roan is right that the coquille does simulate adoxography is not incorrect. sent3: if the defendant does not admit nozzle and does complain then the sampler does not complain. sent4: the fact that the defendant drills hold if the pilaster is not a kind of a drills and it is not a kind of a lotus. sent5: something is an expedient and it is fernless if it is not a shtikl. sent6: if the sampler is not a kind of a shtikl then that the mailbox is an expedient and it is fernless is false. sent7: the fact that something is a kind of a shtikl but it is not a kind of an expressionist is wrong if the fact that it does not complain is right. sent8: if the mailbox is not a kind of a shtikl then it is fernless. sent9: something is not a kind of a Shivaism and it is not a roan. sent10: the mailbox is fernless. sent11: something does not admit nozzle but it does complain if that it is a drill is true. sent12: the mailbox does complain. sent13: something is fernless if it is not a kind of a shtikl. sent14: the mailbox is expressionist and it does complain.

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

that the mailbox is a kind of an expedient and it is fernless is not right.

¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the mailbox is expedient and it is fernless. ; $context$ = sent1: the mailbox is not a shtikl if it is an expressionist and does complain. sent2: if that something is not a kind of a Shivaism and it is not a roan is right that the coquille does simulate adoxography is not incorrect. sent3: if the defendant does not admit nozzle and does complain then the sampler does not complain. sent4: the fact that the defendant drills hold if the pilaster is not a kind of a drills and it is not a kind of a lotus. sent5: something is an expedient and it is fernless if it is not a shtikl. sent6: if the sampler is not a kind of a shtikl then that the mailbox is an expedient and it is fernless is false. sent7: the fact that something is a kind of a shtikl but it is not a kind of an expressionist is wrong if the fact that it does not complain is right. sent8: if the mailbox is not a kind of a shtikl then it is fernless. sent9: something is not a kind of a Shivaism and it is not a roan. sent10: the mailbox is fernless. sent11: something does not admit nozzle but it does complain if that it is a drill is true. sent12: the mailbox does complain. sent13: something is fernless if it is not a kind of a shtikl. sent14: the mailbox is expressionist and it does complain. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the mailbox is expedient and it is fernless if it is not a shtikl.; sent1 & sent14 -> int2: the mailbox is not a shtikl.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it is a inkberry and/or it is an entitlement it is not evangelical.

(Ex): ({AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: if the fact that something is a griseofulvin or not non-abbatial or both is not wrong then that it is not a inkberry hold. sent2: there is something such that if it does bill it does not swab villager. sent3: there exists something such that if the fact that it is capitalistic hold then it is not a kind of a Austen. sent4: there is something such that if it is a bid and/or myelinic it does not simulate professionalization. sent5: there is something such that if either it is lineal or it is Audenesque or both it is not a headsail. sent6: that there exists something such that if it does simulate professionalization it does not swab gorgonzola hold. sent7: the gorgonzola is not evangelical if it is an entitlement. sent8: the gorgonzola is not hyperthermal if it is evangelical and/or is a pneumatophore. sent9: there exists something such that if it is nonpartisan it is not a cud. sent10: if either the gorgonzola is a inkberry or it is an entitlement or both then it is evangelical. sent11: there exists something such that if it is a inkberry and/or an entitlement then it is evangelical. sent12: there exists something such that if it decelerates or it is a weeder or both it does not admit nondisjunction. sent13: the gorgonzola is not evangelical if that it is a inkberry or is a kind of an entitlement or both is not incorrect. sent14: there is something such that if it is servomechanical then it does not pry. sent15: there is something such that if it is saponaceous then it does not mismarry. sent16: if the gorgonzola is a pneumatophore or it equates compere or both then it does not ramble. sent17: if the gorgonzola swabs aba and/or it is congeneric then it is not a kind of an entitlement. sent18: there exists something such that if it is instrumental then it is not a kind of a Petromyzontidae.

sent1: (x): ({AK}x v {DN}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent2: (Ex): {AT}x -> ¬{ER}x sent3: (Ex): {IM}x -> ¬{IF}x sent4: (Ex): ({BE}x v {EL}x) -> ¬{AN}x sent5: (Ex): ({BP}x v {AE}x) -> ¬{DS}x sent6: (Ex): {AN}x -> ¬{AS}x sent7: {AB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent8: ({B}{aa} v {CB}{aa}) -> ¬{H}{aa} sent9: (Ex): {AJ}x -> ¬{FQ}x sent10: ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent11: (Ex): ({AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x sent12: (Ex): ({CJ}x v {HD}x) -> ¬{CO}x sent13: ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent14: (Ex): {HP}x -> ¬{CK}x sent15: (Ex): {M}x -> ¬{CD}x sent16: ({CB}{aa} v {HK}{aa}) -> ¬{CN}{aa} sent17: ({FB}{aa} v {GC}{aa}) -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent18: (Ex): {IP}x -> ¬{AL}x

if either the youth-on-age is a griseofulvin or it is abbatial or both it is not a inkberry.

({AK}{ir} v {DN}{ir}) -> ¬{AA}{ir}

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is a inkberry and/or it is an entitlement it is not evangelical. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is a griseofulvin or not non-abbatial or both is not wrong then that it is not a inkberry hold. sent2: there is something such that if it does bill it does not swab villager. sent3: there exists something such that if the fact that it is capitalistic hold then it is not a kind of a Austen. sent4: there is something such that if it is a bid and/or myelinic it does not simulate professionalization. sent5: there is something such that if either it is lineal or it is Audenesque or both it is not a headsail. sent6: that there exists something such that if it does simulate professionalization it does not swab gorgonzola hold. sent7: the gorgonzola is not evangelical if it is an entitlement. sent8: the gorgonzola is not hyperthermal if it is evangelical and/or is a pneumatophore. sent9: there exists something such that if it is nonpartisan it is not a cud. sent10: if either the gorgonzola is a inkberry or it is an entitlement or both then it is evangelical. sent11: there exists something such that if it is a inkberry and/or an entitlement then it is evangelical. sent12: there exists something such that if it decelerates or it is a weeder or both it does not admit nondisjunction. sent13: the gorgonzola is not evangelical if that it is a inkberry or is a kind of an entitlement or both is not incorrect. sent14: there is something such that if it is servomechanical then it does not pry. sent15: there is something such that if it is saponaceous then it does not mismarry. sent16: if the gorgonzola is a pneumatophore or it equates compere or both then it does not ramble. sent17: if the gorgonzola swabs aba and/or it is congeneric then it is not a kind of an entitlement. sent18: there exists something such that if it is instrumental then it is not a kind of a Petromyzontidae. ; $proof$ =

sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the simulating Lauder does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: if the zeroness does not occur the simulating Lauder occurs and the simulating grocer happens. sent2: the sou'wester does not occur but the languishing occurs. sent3: both the edging and the swabbing sleepover occurs. sent4: the admitting glare happens. sent5: that the payoff does not occur is triggered by that the unprofitableness but not the disownment happens. sent6: if the swabbing nirvana occurs then the edging does not occur and the swabbing Yanan does not occur. sent7: the edge occurs. sent8: the fact that the swabbing sleepover occurs and the zeroness happens is false if the edge does not occur. sent9: that the admitting atorvastatin does not occur is caused by that the zero occurs. sent10: the simulating grocer does not occur and the zero happens.

sent1: ¬{B} -> ({D} & {A}) sent2: (¬{FQ} & {IA}) sent3: ({E} & {C}) sent4: {JC} sent5: ({GF} & ¬{BA}) -> ¬{DR} sent6: {G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent7: {E} sent8: ¬{E} -> ¬({C} & {B}) sent9: {B} -> ¬{GD} sent10: (¬{A} & {B})

not the admitting atorvastatin but the untrustworthiness occurs.

(¬{GD} & {CR})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the simulating Lauder does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the zeroness does not occur the simulating Lauder occurs and the simulating grocer happens. sent2: the sou'wester does not occur but the languishing occurs. sent3: both the edging and the swabbing sleepover occurs. sent4: the admitting glare happens. sent5: that the payoff does not occur is triggered by that the unprofitableness but not the disownment happens. sent6: if the swabbing nirvana occurs then the edging does not occur and the swabbing Yanan does not occur. sent7: the edge occurs. sent8: the fact that the swabbing sleepover occurs and the zeroness happens is false if the edge does not occur. sent9: that the admitting atorvastatin does not occur is caused by that the zero occurs. sent10: the simulating grocer does not occur and the zero happens. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the simulating grocer does not occur.; sent3 -> int2: the swabbing sleepover happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the swabbing sleepover occurs but the simulating grocer does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the nudist is not a harridan and not avitaminotic is not incorrect.

(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

sent1: the nudist is fissile. sent2: if the nudist is avitaminotic then it is not a kind of a Argive. sent3: the nudist is not a Argive if that it is not a kind of a harridan and it is not avitaminotic is false. sent4: the plaintiff is not a kind of a spout if it is fissile. sent5: the nudist is not obligate if that it is non-fissile thing that does not Rollerblade does not hold. sent6: that the horsepond claps is not false if it is Argive. sent7: if the nudist is fissile then it is a Argive.

sent1: {A}{a} sent2: {AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent4: {A}{ds} -> ¬{FU}{ds} sent5: ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{FP}{a}) -> ¬{CR}{a} sent6: {B}{gd} -> {CL}{gd} sent7: {A}{a} -> {B}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the nudist is not a harridan and not avitaminotic is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the nudist is fissile. sent2: if the nudist is avitaminotic then it is not a kind of a Argive. sent3: the nudist is not a Argive if that it is not a kind of a harridan and it is not avitaminotic is false. sent4: the plaintiff is not a kind of a spout if it is fissile. sent5: the nudist is not obligate if that it is non-fissile thing that does not Rollerblade does not hold. sent6: that the horsepond claps is not false if it is Argive. sent7: if the nudist is fissile then it is a Argive. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the nudist is not a harridan and not avitaminotic does not hold.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the nudist is not a kind of a Argive.; sent7 & sent1 -> int2: the nudist is a kind of a Argive.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a sextant and/or it equates Tyne.

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

sent1: the vulcanization equates Tyne if that the fact that the bauxite is not thrifty and it does not admit prepossession is not incorrect does not hold. sent2: the bauxite does not equate Bouteloua but it is ballistics. sent3: if the vulcanization does not admit prepossession then that it is a metro and does not equate Tyne is not correct. sent4: the bauxite is not a metro. sent5: if something does not equate Bouteloua and is ballistics the fact that it is not a sextant is true.

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

that the sofa is not a kind of a Lucas and does not equate Tyne is not right.

¬(¬{BL}{gn} & ¬{B}{gn})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is a sextant and/or it equates Tyne. ; $context$ = sent1: the vulcanization equates Tyne if that the fact that the bauxite is not thrifty and it does not admit prepossession is not incorrect does not hold. sent2: the bauxite does not equate Bouteloua but it is ballistics. sent3: if the vulcanization does not admit prepossession then that it is a metro and does not equate Tyne is not correct. sent4: the bauxite is not a metro. sent5: if something does not equate Bouteloua and is ballistics the fact that it is not a sextant is true. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the shipside is inefficacious if the workbook is a kind of a placentation.

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

sent1: the shipside is inefficacious if something is a placentation or it is grubby or both.

sent1: (x): ({A}x v {B}x) -> {C}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the shipside is inefficacious if the workbook is a kind of a placentation. ; $context$ = sent1: the shipside is inefficacious if something is a placentation or it is grubby or both. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the workbook is a kind of a placentation.; assump1 -> int1: the workbook is a placentation and/or a grubby.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it is a placentation or it is a kind of a grubby or both.; int2 & sent1 -> int3: the fact that the shipside is inefficacious is correct.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if the fact that it does not equate carminative and it is nonmodern does not hold then it is not northern.

(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: there exists something such that if that it is a kind of a cabaret that is creedal is not correct it does not swab deregulation. sent2: if the fact that the carminative is not a Pitt but it is northern is incorrect the fact that it does admit Urd hold. sent3: if that the tahini does not equate carminative but it is not modern is false it is not northern. sent4: the tahini is northern if the fact that it is not a Phasmidae and is a Hemitripterus is not correct. sent5: there is something such that if that it is not a kind of an ozone and is a kind of a chromite is incorrect then it is a dumpiness. sent6: if the fact that something is not a hypnotism but it is northern is false it does not handle. sent7: there exists something such that if it does not equate carminative and it is nonmodern it is non-northern. sent8: there is something such that if that it is a kind of a Sudanese and it bunks is false then it is not a sector. sent9: there exists something such that if it does not swab Thalictrum and is a catfish it is not a kind of a Zealander. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not a edmontosaurus it does not handle. sent11: the tahini does not swab Chihuahua if the fact that it does not equate carminative and it is a dumpiness is not incorrect. sent12: something does not morph if that it does not anneal and is a makeready does not hold. sent13: there is something such that if that it is a kind of an elective and it is a kind of a Zealander does not hold it is not a Hemitripterus. sent14: the tahini is not northern if that it is not nonmodern is right.

sent1: (Ex): ¬({EU}x & {JK}x) -> ¬{GS}x sent2: ¬(¬{ID}{gd} & {B}{gd}) -> {BQ}{gd} sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent4: ¬(¬{L}{aa} & {EN}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent5: (Ex): ¬(¬{BT}x & {GC}x) -> {JB}x sent6: (x): ¬(¬{JG}x & {B}x) -> ¬{E}x sent7: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent8: (Ex): ¬({DO}x & {BR}x) -> ¬{HL}x sent9: (Ex): (¬{BD}x & {AC}x) -> ¬{U}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{C}x -> ¬{E}x sent11: (¬{AA}{aa} & {JB}{aa}) -> ¬{DQ}{aa} sent12: (x): ¬(¬{EH}x & {CC}x) -> ¬{CA}x sent13: (Ex): ¬({IP}x & {U}x) -> ¬{EN}x sent14: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa}

the grandson does not morph if that it does not anneal and is a kind of a makeready is not correct.

¬(¬{EH}{ci} & {CC}{ci}) -> ¬{CA}{ci}

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if the fact that it does not equate carminative and it is nonmodern does not hold then it is not northern. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if that it is a kind of a cabaret that is creedal is not correct it does not swab deregulation. sent2: if the fact that the carminative is not a Pitt but it is northern is incorrect the fact that it does admit Urd hold. sent3: if that the tahini does not equate carminative but it is not modern is false it is not northern. sent4: the tahini is northern if the fact that it is not a Phasmidae and is a Hemitripterus is not correct. sent5: there is something such that if that it is not a kind of an ozone and is a kind of a chromite is incorrect then it is a dumpiness. sent6: if the fact that something is not a hypnotism but it is northern is false it does not handle. sent7: there exists something such that if it does not equate carminative and it is nonmodern it is non-northern. sent8: there is something such that if that it is a kind of a Sudanese and it bunks is false then it is not a sector. sent9: there exists something such that if it does not swab Thalictrum and is a catfish it is not a kind of a Zealander. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not a edmontosaurus it does not handle. sent11: the tahini does not swab Chihuahua if the fact that it does not equate carminative and it is a dumpiness is not incorrect. sent12: something does not morph if that it does not anneal and is a makeready does not hold. sent13: there is something such that if that it is a kind of an elective and it is a kind of a Zealander does not hold it is not a Hemitripterus. sent14: the tahini is not northern if that it is not nonmodern is right. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the collector is perineal.

{C}{c}

sent1: the jument is not a kind of a grade. sent2: the fact that something does not grade and it is not a launcher does not hold if the fact that it does not hydrolyze is not incorrect. sent3: the flywheel is a grade if the jument is shallow-draft but it is not a stream. sent4: if the flywheel is a kind of a grade the collector is perineal. sent5: the jument is not a stream if it is a kind of a launcher. sent6: if that that the batter does not grade but it is a launcher is right does not hold it grade. sent7: if the jument is shallow-draft and a stream the flywheel grades. sent8: if the jument is a launcher then it is shallow-draft and it is not a stream. sent9: the jument is a launcher. sent10: if the fact that that the collector is not a grade and it is not a launcher is incorrect is not wrong it is not perineal. sent11: the jument is not a kind of a stream.

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

the collector is not perineal.

¬{C}{c}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the collector is perineal. ; $context$ = sent1: the jument is not a kind of a grade. sent2: the fact that something does not grade and it is not a launcher does not hold if the fact that it does not hydrolyze is not incorrect. sent3: the flywheel is a grade if the jument is shallow-draft but it is not a stream. sent4: if the flywheel is a kind of a grade the collector is perineal. sent5: the jument is not a stream if it is a kind of a launcher. sent6: if that that the batter does not grade but it is a launcher is right does not hold it grade. sent7: if the jument is shallow-draft and a stream the flywheel grades. sent8: if the jument is a launcher then it is shallow-draft and it is not a stream. sent9: the jument is a launcher. sent10: if the fact that that the collector is not a grade and it is not a launcher is incorrect is not wrong it is not perineal. sent11: the jument is not a kind of a stream. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent9 -> int1: the jument is shallow-draft thing that does not stream.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the flywheel is a grade.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur.

(¬{F} & ¬{E})

sent1: the simulating Tyne does not occur if the fact that the re-formation occurs and the sunset occurs is false. sent2: the adactylousness does not occur. sent3: if the admitting mantissa does not occur the fact that both the re-formation and the sunset happens is incorrect. sent4: the sunset happens and the simulating Tyne occurs. sent5: if the equating death does not occur then the loving does not occur and the stiffening does not occur. sent6: the admitting mantissa does not occur if that that the admitting crochet does not occur and the electromagneticness does not occur is not true is true. sent7: if the simulating Tyne occurs the bioelectricity does not occur. sent8: if the adactylousness does not occur the equating death does not occur. sent9: if the adactylousness happens then that the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur is not right.

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

that the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur is not true.

¬(¬{F} & ¬{E})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the simulating Tyne does not occur if the fact that the re-formation occurs and the sunset occurs is false. sent2: the adactylousness does not occur. sent3: if the admitting mantissa does not occur the fact that both the re-formation and the sunset happens is incorrect. sent4: the sunset happens and the simulating Tyne occurs. sent5: if the equating death does not occur then the loving does not occur and the stiffening does not occur. sent6: the admitting mantissa does not occur if that that the admitting crochet does not occur and the electromagneticness does not occur is not true is true. sent7: if the simulating Tyne occurs the bioelectricity does not occur. sent8: if the adactylousness does not occur the equating death does not occur. sent9: if the adactylousness happens then that the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent2 -> int1: the equating death does not occur.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the love does not occur and the stiffening does not occur.; sent4 -> int3: the simulating Tyne happens.; sent7 & int3 -> int4: the bioelectricity does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that something is a kind of a putty but it is not a kind of a signal does not hold.

¬((Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x))

sent1: the herringbone does not admit elecampane. sent2: if the core does not coin then it swabs old and it does not admit elecampane. sent3: something is a matzo and it is an idol. sent4: The elecampane does not admit herringbone. sent5: there is something such that it does admit elecampane and it is not a signal. sent6: that there is something such that it does admit elecampane is not incorrect. sent7: the fact that the Persian is a signal is not false. sent8: if that the herringbone does not admit elecampane is correct then it is a putty and it is not a signal. sent9: the fact that the herringbone is not a belemnite is correct.

sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: ¬{EU}{hn} -> ({GL}{hn} & ¬{A}{hn}) sent3: (Ex): ({DO}x & {FS}x) sent4: ¬{AC}{aa} sent5: (Ex): ({A}x & ¬{AB}x) sent6: (Ex): {A}x sent7: {AB}{bm} sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent9: ¬{CD}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that something is a kind of a putty but it is not a kind of a signal does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the herringbone does not admit elecampane. sent2: if the core does not coin then it swabs old and it does not admit elecampane. sent3: something is a matzo and it is an idol. sent4: The elecampane does not admit herringbone. sent5: there is something such that it does admit elecampane and it is not a signal. sent6: that there is something such that it does admit elecampane is not incorrect. sent7: the fact that the Persian is a signal is not false. sent8: if that the herringbone does not admit elecampane is correct then it is a putty and it is not a signal. sent9: the fact that the herringbone is not a belemnite is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent1 -> int1: the herringbone is both a putty and not a signal.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__