Datasets:

hitachi-nlp

/

FLD.v2

like 12

Follow

Hitachi, Ltd. 18

DeductionInstance

the nuzzling does not occur.

¬{F}

sent1: that the conjugation does not occur is prevented by that the polyatomicness happens. sent2: that the schooling but not the attachment happens is wrong. sent3: the refutation does not occur if the nonparametricness and the repairing occurs. sent4: the splintering does not occur. sent5: that the legitimation results in that the obstructionism happens is right. sent6: the Bermudanness does not occur if that both the non-openness and the insufficientness occurs is incorrect. sent7: the nonpoliticalness and the monoculture happens. sent8: both the denaturalizing Glycyrrhiza and the lathering south occurs. sent9: the hurtling major-general occurs. sent10: that the braiding occurs or the lathering psychopathy happens or both is right. sent11: the denaturalizing shiksa does not occur if the unsympatheticness happens. sent12: either the apologeticness or that the obstructionism does not occur or both results in the noncyclicness. sent13: the fact that the non-openness and the non-sufficientness occurs does not hold. sent14: if the pilosebaceousness does not occur the hurtling consistency happens and the heliocentricness occurs. sent15: that the apologeticness happens is caused by the unsympatheticness. sent16: the viatication does not occur. sent17: that the lathering Wembley happens and the strife does not occur is not right. sent18: that both the granuliferousness and the cockfighting happens brings about that the initiation does not occur. sent19: if the limnologicalness does not occur the denaturalizing suppository happens and the legitimation happens. sent20: if the lathering wage happens the hurtling sexploitation occurs. sent21: the hurtling redtail and the solmization occurs. sent22: the arbitrativeness is brought about by that the Moon happens. sent23: that the nuzzling happens is prevented by that both the apologeticness and the obstructionism happens. sent24: either the relations happens or the factoring happens or both. sent25: the unapologeticness is prevented by the cyclicness. sent26: that the cyclicness occurs or that the unsympatheticness occurs or both is triggered by the non-Bermudanness. sent27: that the devolving happens is caused by that the pilosebaceousness happens. sent28: if the cerebralness occurs the cementitiousness occurs. sent29: the limnologicalness does not occur.

sent1: {BM} -> {N} sent2: ¬({IB} & ¬{DA}) sent3: ({DO} & {EM}) -> ¬{EU} sent4: ¬{EJ} sent5: {G} -> {E} sent6: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent7: ({IU} & {DT}) sent8: ({HJ} & {IN}) sent9: {DM} sent10: ({HS} v {FD}) sent11: {A} -> ¬{EE} sent12: ({D} v ¬{E}) -> ¬{C} sent13: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent14: ¬{GF} -> ({IH} & {GN}) sent15: {A} -> {D} sent16: ¬{FI} sent17: ¬({ID} & ¬{AP}) sent18: ({BB} & {GS}) -> ¬{HG} sent19: ¬{I} -> ({H} & {G}) sent20: {DG} -> {FL} sent21: ({GP} & {AN}) sent22: {JH} -> {FU} sent23: ({D} & {E}) -> ¬{F} sent24: ({HL} v {IP}) sent25: {C} -> {D} sent26: ¬{B} -> ({C} v {A}) sent27: {GF} -> {AH} sent28: {GA} -> {AO} sent29: ¬{I}

the denaturalizing shiksa does not occur.

¬{EE}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nuzzling does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the conjugation does not occur is prevented by that the polyatomicness happens. sent2: that the schooling but not the attachment happens is wrong. sent3: the refutation does not occur if the nonparametricness and the repairing occurs. sent4: the splintering does not occur. sent5: that the legitimation results in that the obstructionism happens is right. sent6: the Bermudanness does not occur if that both the non-openness and the insufficientness occurs is incorrect. sent7: the nonpoliticalness and the monoculture happens. sent8: both the denaturalizing Glycyrrhiza and the lathering south occurs. sent9: the hurtling major-general occurs. sent10: that the braiding occurs or the lathering psychopathy happens or both is right. sent11: the denaturalizing shiksa does not occur if the unsympatheticness happens. sent12: either the apologeticness or that the obstructionism does not occur or both results in the noncyclicness. sent13: the fact that the non-openness and the non-sufficientness occurs does not hold. sent14: if the pilosebaceousness does not occur the hurtling consistency happens and the heliocentricness occurs. sent15: that the apologeticness happens is caused by the unsympatheticness. sent16: the viatication does not occur. sent17: that the lathering Wembley happens and the strife does not occur is not right. sent18: that both the granuliferousness and the cockfighting happens brings about that the initiation does not occur. sent19: if the limnologicalness does not occur the denaturalizing suppository happens and the legitimation happens. sent20: if the lathering wage happens the hurtling sexploitation occurs. sent21: the hurtling redtail and the solmization occurs. sent22: the arbitrativeness is brought about by that the Moon happens. sent23: that the nuzzling happens is prevented by that both the apologeticness and the obstructionism happens. sent24: either the relations happens or the factoring happens or both. sent25: the unapologeticness is prevented by the cyclicness. sent26: that the cyclicness occurs or that the unsympatheticness occurs or both is triggered by the non-Bermudanness. sent27: that the devolving happens is caused by that the pilosebaceousness happens. sent28: if the cerebralness occurs the cementitiousness occurs. sent29: the limnologicalness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent13 -> int1: the Bermudan does not occur.; int1 & sent26 -> int2: the cyclicness and/or the unsympatheticness happens.; int2 & sent25 & sent15 -> int3: the apologeticness happens.; sent19 & sent29 -> int4: both the denaturalizing suppository and the legitimation happens.; int4 -> int5: the legitimation happens.; sent5 & int5 -> int6: that the obstructionism happens is correct.; int3 & int6 -> int7: that the apologeticness and the obstructionism occurs is right.; int7 & sent23 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a breast and is not a braid is false it is fortunate is incorrect.

¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x)

sent1: there is something such that if it does not breast and it is not a braid then it is fortunate. sent2: if something about-faces then it is a zoolatry. sent3: if that the fact that something is not a breast and does not braid is not false is wrong then that it is fortunate is correct. sent4: there exists something such that if it does lather dribble that it is a trouble is not false. sent5: the orangewood is fortunate if that it is a kind of a breast and does not braid is incorrect. sent6: that something is a kind of a truncation if the fact that it is not an acreage and not an enlarger is false hold. sent7: there exists something such that if the fact that it does not parody intifada and is a kind of a Latvian does not hold that it is a kind of a canary is correct. sent8: there exists something such that if that it is not a concentrate and not a amberbell is wrong the fact that it parodies caramel hold. sent9: there is something such that if it does not hurtle orangewood and does not parody Yerevan then it does hurtle diplococcus. sent10: something is a disenchantment if that it is a boll is correct. sent11: something hurtles Gurkha if it troubles.

sent1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: (x): {BB}x -> {ID}x sent3: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: (Ex): {FO}x -> {HU}x sent5: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{IG}x & ¬{EI}x) -> {IQ}x sent7: (Ex): ¬(¬{IC}x & {ES}x) -> {CO}x sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{CP}x & ¬{E}x) -> {BR}x sent9: (Ex): (¬{CC}x & ¬{AI}x) -> {GE}x sent10: (x): {GC}x -> {FG}x sent11: (x): {HU}x -> {CR}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a breast and is not a braid is false it is fortunate is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it does not breast and it is not a braid then it is fortunate. sent2: if something about-faces then it is a zoolatry. sent3: if that the fact that something is not a breast and does not braid is not false is wrong then that it is fortunate is correct. sent4: there exists something such that if it does lather dribble that it is a trouble is not false. sent5: the orangewood is fortunate if that it is a kind of a breast and does not braid is incorrect. sent6: that something is a kind of a truncation if the fact that it is not an acreage and not an enlarger is false hold. sent7: there exists something such that if the fact that it does not parody intifada and is a kind of a Latvian does not hold that it is a kind of a canary is correct. sent8: there exists something such that if that it is not a concentrate and not a amberbell is wrong the fact that it parodies caramel hold. sent9: there is something such that if it does not hurtle orangewood and does not parody Yerevan then it does hurtle diplococcus. sent10: something is a disenchantment if that it is a boll is correct. sent11: something hurtles Gurkha if it troubles. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: if that the orangewood does not breast and it is not a braid is incorrect then it is fortunate.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is a goalmouth but it is not concave.

(Ex): ({B}x & ¬{C}x)

sent1: the fleer does denaturalize lechwe and it is inequitable if it is not polygonal. sent2: the scholar is not a goalmouth if the stingray is a capillarity. sent3: if the stingray does parody stepdaughter then the crewman does parody stepdaughter. sent4: something does denaturalize watchman and it is a Stephenson. sent5: the scholar parodies stepdaughter and/or is a goalmouth if there is something such that it is a goalmouth. sent6: the gearbox is not a capillarity if the fact that the stingray is adsorbable but not a goalmouth does not hold. sent7: if the fleer is not moonlit the gearbox is a kind of a goalmouth and is Rastafarian. sent8: the scholar is not a goalmouth if the fact that the stingray is adsorbable thing that is not a capillarity is not right. sent9: that the fact that something does denaturalize Blucher but it is not Gandhian is not wrong does not hold if that it denaturalizes lechwe is right. sent10: if the fact that something does denaturalize Blucher but it is not Gandhian does not hold it is not moonlit. sent11: there is something such that it is a goalmouth and it is adsorbable. sent12: the stingray does parody stepdaughter if the scholar does parody stepdaughter. sent13: the fleer is not polygonal if there is something such that it denaturalizes watchman and is a kind of a Stephenson. sent14: that something does denaturalize weathercock and is not concave is not right if it parodies stepdaughter. sent15: if the scholar is not a kind of a goalmouth then the gearbox is a kind of a goalmouth but it is not concave.

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

that the crewman does denaturalize weathercock and is not concave is not true.

¬({GR}{hn} & ¬{C}{hn})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = something is a goalmouth but it is not concave. ; $context$ = sent1: the fleer does denaturalize lechwe and it is inequitable if it is not polygonal. sent2: the scholar is not a goalmouth if the stingray is a capillarity. sent3: if the stingray does parody stepdaughter then the crewman does parody stepdaughter. sent4: something does denaturalize watchman and it is a Stephenson. sent5: the scholar parodies stepdaughter and/or is a goalmouth if there is something such that it is a goalmouth. sent6: the gearbox is not a capillarity if the fact that the stingray is adsorbable but not a goalmouth does not hold. sent7: if the fleer is not moonlit the gearbox is a kind of a goalmouth and is Rastafarian. sent8: the scholar is not a goalmouth if the fact that the stingray is adsorbable thing that is not a capillarity is not right. sent9: that the fact that something does denaturalize Blucher but it is not Gandhian is not wrong does not hold if that it denaturalizes lechwe is right. sent10: if the fact that something does denaturalize Blucher but it is not Gandhian does not hold it is not moonlit. sent11: there is something such that it is a goalmouth and it is adsorbable. sent12: the stingray does parody stepdaughter if the scholar does parody stepdaughter. sent13: the fleer is not polygonal if there is something such that it denaturalizes watchman and is a kind of a Stephenson. sent14: that something does denaturalize weathercock and is not concave is not right if it parodies stepdaughter. sent15: if the scholar is not a kind of a goalmouth then the gearbox is a kind of a goalmouth but it is not concave. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the lard does hurtle pushup.

{C}{c}

sent1: that the lard is a halloo hold. sent2: the lard hurtles pushup if there exists something such that that it lathers moralism or it does not halloo or both is wrong. sent3: if that something does not lather moralism and is not a halloo is not true then it is a kind of a charitableness. sent4: if the fact that that the sutler does not parody Marsh and it is not a pothole is incorrect is correct then it is a pothole. sent5: something is not a Aiken or it is allotropic or both if it is a pothole. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it does halloo and/or it is a charitableness does not hold. sent7: that the sutler does not parody Marsh and is not a kind of a pothole does not hold. sent8: the guereza is a kind of a charitableness and it lathers Coolidge. sent9: if the guereza is a kind of a charitableness and it lathers Coolidge it is not a halloo.

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

the lard is a charitableness.

{AA}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the lard does hurtle pushup. ; $context$ = sent1: that the lard is a halloo hold. sent2: the lard hurtles pushup if there exists something such that that it lathers moralism or it does not halloo or both is wrong. sent3: if that something does not lather moralism and is not a halloo is not true then it is a kind of a charitableness. sent4: if the fact that that the sutler does not parody Marsh and it is not a pothole is incorrect is correct then it is a pothole. sent5: something is not a Aiken or it is allotropic or both if it is a pothole. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it does halloo and/or it is a charitableness does not hold. sent7: that the sutler does not parody Marsh and is not a kind of a pothole does not hold. sent8: the guereza is a kind of a charitableness and it lathers Coolidge. sent9: if the guereza is a kind of a charitableness and it lathers Coolidge it is not a halloo. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent8 -> int1: the guereza is not a halloo.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that if the fact that the den is the torridity is not false the den is a Mallotus is incorrect.

¬({A}{a} -> {C}{a})

sent1: the streptokinase is a kind of a torridity. sent2: if the den hurtles scapegrace the fact that it is a torridity is not false. sent3: the sandbur is fossorial. sent4: if something is fossorial then it is a Mallotus. sent5: if something lathers gull it is toroidal. sent6: the den is a Atlantic. sent7: the den is an upstage. sent8: if the den is a torridity it is fossorial. sent9: the Arminian is a kind of a torridity. sent10: if something is a kind of a bus it does lather jointure. sent11: something that is strange is a plumpness. sent12: if the den is intercontinental it denaturalizes Laricariidae. sent13: the den is a schist. sent14: something is a torridity if it is a Mallotus. sent15: if the den is a kind of a Mallotus then that it is a kind of a rational is not incorrect.

sent1: {A}{dd} sent2: {JE}{a} -> {A}{a} sent3: {B}{eo} sent4: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent5: (x): {BS}x -> {IH}x sent6: {GJ}{a} sent7: {EM}{a} sent8: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent9: {A}{it} sent10: (x): {DS}x -> {N}x sent11: (x): {BJ}x -> {HL}x sent12: {IL}{a} -> {EF}{a} sent13: {HO}{a} sent14: (x): {C}x -> {A}x sent15: {C}{a} -> {DB}{a}

the den is toroidal if it does lather gull.

{BS}{a} -> {IH}{a}

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that if the fact that the den is the torridity is not false the den is a Mallotus is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the streptokinase is a kind of a torridity. sent2: if the den hurtles scapegrace the fact that it is a torridity is not false. sent3: the sandbur is fossorial. sent4: if something is fossorial then it is a Mallotus. sent5: if something lathers gull it is toroidal. sent6: the den is a Atlantic. sent7: the den is an upstage. sent8: if the den is a torridity it is fossorial. sent9: the Arminian is a kind of a torridity. sent10: if something is a kind of a bus it does lather jointure. sent11: something that is strange is a plumpness. sent12: if the den is intercontinental it denaturalizes Laricariidae. sent13: the den is a schist. sent14: something is a torridity if it is a Mallotus. sent15: if the den is a kind of a Mallotus then that it is a kind of a rational is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the den is a kind of a torridity is not wrong.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the den is fossorial.; sent4 -> int2: the den is a Mallotus if it is fossorial.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the den is a Mallotus.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there is something such that it is not mitral and it is an annoyance is false.

¬((Ex): (¬{E}x & {F}x))

sent1: if the Merlot is thankless then the theosophist does lather sulfate. sent2: the theosophist does not fornicate and is thankless if the place-kicker lathers sulfate. sent3: if the spinmeister is non-mitral the Merlot is not an annoyance but it is non-mitral. sent4: there exists something such that it is a kind of woody a marsupial. sent5: the theosophist is three-dimensional. sent6: the fact that if the place-kicker is mitral that the spinmeister is thankless is not incorrect is correct. sent7: if something does not fornicate but it is thankless it is a vernix. sent8: something is three-dimensional and it is a bath. sent9: the Merlot is mitral if the spinmeister is thankless. sent10: the spinmeister is a kind of non-mitral an annoyance if the place-kicker is a kind of a vernix. sent11: if the Merlot is not thankless then the place-kicker does not fornicate but it is thankless. sent12: the fact that the Merlot does not lather sulfate hold. sent13: if a three-dimensional thing is a bath the theosophist does not lather sulfate.

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that it is not mitral and it is an annoyance is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Merlot is thankless then the theosophist does lather sulfate. sent2: the theosophist does not fornicate and is thankless if the place-kicker lathers sulfate. sent3: if the spinmeister is non-mitral the Merlot is not an annoyance but it is non-mitral. sent4: there exists something such that it is a kind of woody a marsupial. sent5: the theosophist is three-dimensional. sent6: the fact that if the place-kicker is mitral that the spinmeister is thankless is not incorrect is correct. sent7: if something does not fornicate but it is thankless it is a vernix. sent8: something is three-dimensional and it is a bath. sent9: the Merlot is mitral if the spinmeister is thankless. sent10: the spinmeister is a kind of non-mitral an annoyance if the place-kicker is a kind of a vernix. sent11: if the Merlot is not thankless then the place-kicker does not fornicate but it is thankless. sent12: the fact that the Merlot does not lather sulfate hold. sent13: if a three-dimensional thing is a bath the theosophist does not lather sulfate. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Merlot is thankless.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the theosophist lathers sulfate.; sent8 & sent13 -> int2: the theosophist does not lather sulfate.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the Merlot is not thankless.; int4 & sent11 -> int5: the place-kicker does not fornicate but it is thankless.; sent7 -> int6: the place-kicker is a vernix if it does not fornicate and it is not grateful.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the place-kicker is a vernix.; int7 & sent10 -> int8: the spinmeister is not mitral but an annoyance.; int8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the congee is a Sparganium.

{A}{a}

sent1: either something is a Sparganium or it is a dewdrop or both if it does not lather Oahu. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it is not a fossilization and is a Christchurch does not hold. sent3: if the pharmaceutical does not lather presage that the lake does not lather Oahu and it is not a dewdrop is wrong. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is not a fossilization and is a Christchurch is not correct the congee is a kind of a Sparganium. sent5: that the congee is a Sparganium is not false if something is a kind of a fossilization. sent6: something does not lather Oahu if the fact that it is not a kind of a puzzle or it does lather presage or both does not hold.

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

the teller is a Sparganium.

{A}{ho}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the congee is a Sparganium. ; $context$ = sent1: either something is a Sparganium or it is a dewdrop or both if it does not lather Oahu. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it is not a fossilization and is a Christchurch does not hold. sent3: if the pharmaceutical does not lather presage that the lake does not lather Oahu and it is not a dewdrop is wrong. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is not a fossilization and is a Christchurch is not correct the congee is a kind of a Sparganium. sent5: that the congee is a Sparganium is not false if something is a kind of a fossilization. sent6: something does not lather Oahu if the fact that it is not a kind of a puzzle or it does lather presage or both does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not near and it does denaturalize saber.

(Ex): (¬{H}x & {I}x)

sent1: the fact that the acyl is a salting is not wrong if that the porthole does not salting and is a precaution is not correct. sent2: something is myalgic if it is unclear. sent3: the acyl is a osier if that the Argyrol is myalgic is true. sent4: the Argyrol is unclear if it is an eyed. sent5: the Argyrol is an eyed. sent6: something does not animate if it denaturalizes snowblindness and is a salting. sent7: if the acyl does not animate then the Moon is not near but it denaturalizes saber. sent8: something that is a osier does denaturalize snowblindness. sent9: there is nothing that is not a salting but a precaution.

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it is not near and it does denaturalize saber. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the acyl is a salting is not wrong if that the porthole does not salting and is a precaution is not correct. sent2: something is myalgic if it is unclear. sent3: the acyl is a osier if that the Argyrol is myalgic is true. sent4: the Argyrol is unclear if it is an eyed. sent5: the Argyrol is an eyed. sent6: something does not animate if it denaturalizes snowblindness and is a salting. sent7: if the acyl does not animate then the Moon is not near but it denaturalizes saber. sent8: something that is a osier does denaturalize snowblindness. sent9: there is nothing that is not a salting but a precaution. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the Argyrol is not well-defined.; sent2 -> int2: the fact that the Argyrol is myalgic hold if it is unclear.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Argyrol is myalgic.; int3 & sent3 -> int4: the acyl is a osier.; sent8 -> int5: the acyl does denaturalize snowblindness if it is a osier.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the acyl denaturalizes snowblindness.; sent9 -> int7: that the porthole is not a salting and is a precaution is not true.; sent1 & int7 -> int8: the acyl is a kind of a salting.; int6 & int8 -> int9: the acyl denaturalizes snowblindness and it does salt.; sent6 -> int10: if the acyl denaturalizes snowblindness and does salt then it is not animate.; int9 & int10 -> int11: the acyl is not animate.; int11 & sent7 -> int12: the Moon is non-near thing that does denaturalize saber.; int12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the hurtling Oswald occurs.

{B}

sent1: if that the clucking occurs and the hurtling Oswald does not occur is false the neuroglialness happens. sent2: the Macedonianness does not occur if the fact that both the non-particularisticness and the Macedonianness occurs does not hold. sent3: the lathering mocking does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the denaturalizing improvisation does not occur is not wrong then the fact that the particularisticness does not occur and the rehabilitation does not occur does not hold. sent5: the cluck and the hurtling Oswald occurs if the Macedonianness does not occur. sent6: if the clucking occurs then the microelectronicsness does not occur. sent7: the hurtling prodigal does not occur and the microelectronicsness does not occur if the cluck happens. sent8: the microelectronicsness does not occur. sent9: the denaturalizing Persian does not occur and the hurtling landside does not occur. sent10: the lathering Wisconsin does not occur. sent11: the Macedonianness does not occur if that the particularisticness does not occur and the rehabilitation does not occur is wrong. sent12: that the clucking occurs but the hurtling Oswald does not occur is wrong if the Macedonian does not occur. sent13: the indexicalness does not occur and the notch does not occur. sent14: that the tour does not occur hold if the landlessness does not occur. sent15: the hurtling Oswald does not occur if the hurtling prodigal does not occur. sent16: the cluck occurs.

sent1: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) -> {HD} sent2: ¬(¬{D} & {C}) -> ¬{C} sent3: ¬{Q} sent4: ¬{F} -> ¬(¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent5: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent6: {A} -> ¬{AB} sent7: {A} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent8: ¬{AB} sent9: (¬{BF} & ¬{FK}) sent10: ¬{IG} sent11: ¬(¬{D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{C} sent12: ¬{C} -> ¬({A} & ¬{B}) sent13: (¬{IE} & ¬{BN}) sent14: ¬{CF} -> ¬{CB} sent15: ¬{AA} -> ¬{B} sent16: {A}

the hurtling Oswald occurs.

{B}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hurtling Oswald occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the clucking occurs and the hurtling Oswald does not occur is false the neuroglialness happens. sent2: the Macedonianness does not occur if the fact that both the non-particularisticness and the Macedonianness occurs does not hold. sent3: the lathering mocking does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the denaturalizing improvisation does not occur is not wrong then the fact that the particularisticness does not occur and the rehabilitation does not occur does not hold. sent5: the cluck and the hurtling Oswald occurs if the Macedonianness does not occur. sent6: if the clucking occurs then the microelectronicsness does not occur. sent7: the hurtling prodigal does not occur and the microelectronicsness does not occur if the cluck happens. sent8: the microelectronicsness does not occur. sent9: the denaturalizing Persian does not occur and the hurtling landside does not occur. sent10: the lathering Wisconsin does not occur. sent11: the Macedonianness does not occur if that the particularisticness does not occur and the rehabilitation does not occur is wrong. sent12: that the clucking occurs but the hurtling Oswald does not occur is wrong if the Macedonian does not occur. sent13: the indexicalness does not occur and the notch does not occur. sent14: that the tour does not occur hold if the landlessness does not occur. sent15: the hurtling Oswald does not occur if the hurtling prodigal does not occur. sent16: the cluck occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent16 -> int1: the hurtling prodigal does not occur and the microelectronicsness does not occur.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the hurtling prodigal does not occur is not false.; sent15 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the denaturalizing drugget does not occur and the cohabitation happens.

(¬{A} & {G})

sent1: that the cohabitation does not occur yields that the telluricness does not occur and the converse does not occur. sent2: the unintrusiveness does not occur if the lathering entrenchment happens. sent3: the telluricness does not occur if that the unintrusiveness does not occur is true. sent4: if the agonisticness does not occur the fact that both the parodying Braque and the lathering wage happens is false. sent5: the hungriness happens. sent6: if that not the birdying but the parodying Braque happens does not hold the parodying Braque does not occur. sent7: the lathering wage does not occur if that the lathering wage happens and the agonisticness happens does not hold. sent8: the parodying preschool and/or the ceilidh occurs if the sequence does not occur. sent9: the fact that the lathering wage and the agonisticness happens is not true if the parodying Braque does not occur. sent10: that the lathering entrenchment does not occur is prevented by the neutralization. sent11: if the denaturalizing drugget happens then the neutralization happens. sent12: the fact that the statuariness occurs but the birdying does not occur does not hold if the skedaddling happens. sent13: that the colorfulness happens and the cohabitation does not occur if the lathering wage does not occur is correct. sent14: that the telluricness and the converse occurs is incorrect. sent15: the sequencing does not occur. sent16: the insuring does not occur and the nonobservance happens. sent17: the cohabitation occurs. sent18: if the lathering wage does not occur then the colorfulness does not occur or the conversing does not occur or both. sent19: not the moresness but the lathering prospectus happens. sent20: the telluricness does not occur. sent21: if that the statuariness happens and the birdie does not occur is not right the agonisticness does not occur. sent22: that the skedaddle does not occur is prevented by the parodying preschool. sent23: the non-telluricness and the conversing happens if the unintrusiveness does not occur. sent24: if the fact that the parodying Braque occurs and the lathering wage occurs is wrong then the lathering wage does not occur. sent25: the converse does not occur if the colorfulness does not occur and/or the converse does not occur.

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

the gonadalness occurs.

{CR}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the denaturalizing drugget does not occur and the cohabitation happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the cohabitation does not occur yields that the telluricness does not occur and the converse does not occur. sent2: the unintrusiveness does not occur if the lathering entrenchment happens. sent3: the telluricness does not occur if that the unintrusiveness does not occur is true. sent4: if the agonisticness does not occur the fact that both the parodying Braque and the lathering wage happens is false. sent5: the hungriness happens. sent6: if that not the birdying but the parodying Braque happens does not hold the parodying Braque does not occur. sent7: the lathering wage does not occur if that the lathering wage happens and the agonisticness happens does not hold. sent8: the parodying preschool and/or the ceilidh occurs if the sequence does not occur. sent9: the fact that the lathering wage and the agonisticness happens is not true if the parodying Braque does not occur. sent10: that the lathering entrenchment does not occur is prevented by the neutralization. sent11: if the denaturalizing drugget happens then the neutralization happens. sent12: the fact that the statuariness occurs but the birdying does not occur does not hold if the skedaddling happens. sent13: that the colorfulness happens and the cohabitation does not occur if the lathering wage does not occur is correct. sent14: that the telluricness and the converse occurs is incorrect. sent15: the sequencing does not occur. sent16: the insuring does not occur and the nonobservance happens. sent17: the cohabitation occurs. sent18: if the lathering wage does not occur then the colorfulness does not occur or the conversing does not occur or both. sent19: not the moresness but the lathering prospectus happens. sent20: the telluricness does not occur. sent21: if that the statuariness happens and the birdie does not occur is not right the agonisticness does not occur. sent22: that the skedaddle does not occur is prevented by the parodying preschool. sent23: the non-telluricness and the conversing happens if the unintrusiveness does not occur. sent24: if the fact that the parodying Braque occurs and the lathering wage occurs is wrong then the lathering wage does not occur. sent25: the converse does not occur if the colorfulness does not occur and/or the converse does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the denaturalizing drugget happens.; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: the neutralization occurs.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the lathering entrenchment occurs.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: the unintrusiveness does not occur.; int3 & sent23 -> int4: the non-telluricness and the converse happens.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

either the lathering biochemistry does not occur or the carnivorousness does not occur or both.

(¬{E} v ¬{C})

sent1: the tightness does not occur and the denaturalizing dogging happens. sent2: the lathering biochemistry does not occur or the carnivorousness happens or both. sent3: the fact that the holocaust occurs is not wrong. sent4: the holocaust does not occur or the denaturalizing dogging occurs or both if the tightness occurs. sent5: if the holocaust does not occur that the denaturalizing jib and the non-comicness occurs does not hold. sent6: the denaturalizing BMDO happens and the comicness happens. sent7: that both the denaturalizing BMDO and the carnivorousness happens prevents the denaturalizing jib. sent8: if the denaturalizing BMDO does not occur then the fact that the lathering biochemistry does not occur or the carnivorousness does not occur or both is incorrect. sent9: the bolero happens. sent10: the holocaust and the denaturalizing jib happens if the tightness does not occur.

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

the fact that the lathering biochemistry does not occur or the carnivorousness does not occur or both is not right.

¬(¬{E} v ¬{C})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = either the lathering biochemistry does not occur or the carnivorousness does not occur or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the tightness does not occur and the denaturalizing dogging happens. sent2: the lathering biochemistry does not occur or the carnivorousness happens or both. sent3: the fact that the holocaust occurs is not wrong. sent4: the holocaust does not occur or the denaturalizing dogging occurs or both if the tightness occurs. sent5: if the holocaust does not occur that the denaturalizing jib and the non-comicness occurs does not hold. sent6: the denaturalizing BMDO happens and the comicness happens. sent7: that both the denaturalizing BMDO and the carnivorousness happens prevents the denaturalizing jib. sent8: if the denaturalizing BMDO does not occur then the fact that the lathering biochemistry does not occur or the carnivorousness does not occur or both is incorrect. sent9: the bolero happens. sent10: the holocaust and the denaturalizing jib happens if the tightness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: the denaturalizing BMDO occurs.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the carnivorousness happens.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the denaturalizing BMDO occurs and the carnivorousness occurs.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the denaturalizing jib does not occur.; sent1 -> int4: the tightness does not occur.; sent10 & int4 -> int5: both the holocaust and the denaturalizing jib occurs.; int5 -> int6: the denaturalizing jib occurs.; int3 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: that the carnivorousness does not occur is not wrong.; int8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if it is not non-isotopic then that it is not a kind of a Montevideo or it is not acanthotic or both is not correct.

(Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x)

sent1: there exists something such that if it is isotopic then that it is not a Montevideo or is acanthotic or both is not true. sent2: that something is not a kind of a backgammon and/or is not a kind of a cellblock does not hold if it is a kind of a annuitant. sent3: if the Host is isotopic the fact that either it is not a Montevideo or it is not acanthotic or both is not right. sent4: there is something such that if it is isotopic it is a kind of a Montevideo. sent5: there is something such that if it is isotopic then it is acanthotic. sent6: there is something such that if it is isotopic then it is not a Montevideo or it is not acanthotic or both. sent7: if the Indianan is a Montevideo then it is not a kind of a Marcionism or it does not lather boldness or both.

sent1: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent2: (x): {HT}x -> ¬(¬{EM}x v ¬{HS}x) sent3: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): {A}x -> {AA}x sent5: (Ex): {A}x -> {AB}x sent6: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent7: {AA}{ao} -> (¬{GK}{ao} v ¬{JG}{ao})

there is something such that if it is a annuitant the fact that it is not a backgammon and/or is not a cellblock does not hold.

(Ex): {HT}x -> ¬(¬{EM}x v ¬{HS}x)

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not non-isotopic then that it is not a kind of a Montevideo or it is not acanthotic or both is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is isotopic then that it is not a Montevideo or is acanthotic or both is not true. sent2: that something is not a kind of a backgammon and/or is not a kind of a cellblock does not hold if it is a kind of a annuitant. sent3: if the Host is isotopic the fact that either it is not a Montevideo or it is not acanthotic or both is not right. sent4: there is something such that if it is isotopic it is a kind of a Montevideo. sent5: there is something such that if it is isotopic then it is acanthotic. sent6: there is something such that if it is isotopic then it is not a Montevideo or it is not acanthotic or both. sent7: if the Indianan is a Montevideo then it is not a kind of a Marcionism or it does not lather boldness or both. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the porpoise is not substantival hold.

¬{C}{c}

sent1: the fact that the canton is tearless but it does not lather hand is incorrect if it does hurtle Descurainia. sent2: something is not a kind of a Sardinian if the fact that it is a dart that does hurtle Descurainia is not true. sent3: the canton is not a Sardinian if there is something such that that it is tearless but not courteous is not true. sent4: if the mishap does not lather hand the porpoise is not substantival. sent5: if the mishap lathers hand that it is a kind of tearless thing that is not courteous is not right. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Zapodidae. sent7: that the mishap does dart and it hurtles Descurainia is not true if there exists something such that it does parlay. sent8: the canton is a kind of Sardinian thing that does hurtle Descurainia. sent9: if something is not a Zapodidae the canton is a parlay and it is a Spirulidae.

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

that the porpoise is substantival is true.

{C}{c}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the porpoise is not substantival hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the canton is tearless but it does not lather hand is incorrect if it does hurtle Descurainia. sent2: something is not a kind of a Sardinian if the fact that it is a dart that does hurtle Descurainia is not true. sent3: the canton is not a Sardinian if there is something such that that it is tearless but not courteous is not true. sent4: if the mishap does not lather hand the porpoise is not substantival. sent5: if the mishap lathers hand that it is a kind of tearless thing that is not courteous is not right. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Zapodidae. sent7: that the mishap does dart and it hurtles Descurainia is not true if there exists something such that it does parlay. sent8: the canton is a kind of Sardinian thing that does hurtle Descurainia. sent9: if something is not a Zapodidae the canton is a parlay and it is a Spirulidae. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the mishap does lather hand.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: that the mishap is tearless but it is not courteous is false.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is tearless and is not courteous is wrong.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the canton is not a Sardinian.; sent8 -> int4: the canton is not non-Sardinian.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the mishap does not lather hand.; int6 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the affluent is not unpalatable.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: if that something is a kind of non-asexual thing that is meatless does not hold then it is not unpalatable. sent2: the burr is unpalatable. sent3: the affluent lathers mayonnaise. sent4: if the fact that something is megaloblastic but it does not parody fief does not hold it does not watch. sent5: the moralist is unpalatable. sent6: the fact that the affluent does truss is right. sent7: the affluent does patrol. sent8: the fact that the affluent is a kind of a enterostomy hold. sent9: the affluent is a buzz. sent10: that something is not meatless or it is not asexual or both is not false if it does not watch. sent11: the truant is unpalatable. sent12: the baldachin does not parody fief. sent13: the affluent is unpalatable. sent14: if the fact that the affluent is not unpalatable is not wrong the antidepressant is unpalatable. sent15: the baldachin is unpalatable. sent16: if the baldachin does not parody fief then it is megaloblastic and is a kind of a watch. sent17: the broadax is unpalatable.

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent2: {A}{ej} sent3: {AH}{a} sent4: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{D}x sent5: {A}{ck} sent6: {AN}{a} sent7: {JK}{a} sent8: {BQ}{a} sent9: {FO}{a} sent10: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{C}x v ¬{B}x) sent11: {A}{dl} sent12: ¬{F}{c} sent13: {A}{a} sent14: ¬{A}{a} -> {A}{gj} sent15: {A}{c} sent16: ¬{F}{c} -> ({E}{c} & {D}{c}) sent17: {A}{ai}

the antidepressant is unpalatable.

{A}{gj}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the affluent is not unpalatable. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is a kind of non-asexual thing that is meatless does not hold then it is not unpalatable. sent2: the burr is unpalatable. sent3: the affluent lathers mayonnaise. sent4: if the fact that something is megaloblastic but it does not parody fief does not hold it does not watch. sent5: the moralist is unpalatable. sent6: the fact that the affluent does truss is right. sent7: the affluent does patrol. sent8: the fact that the affluent is a kind of a enterostomy hold. sent9: the affluent is a buzz. sent10: that something is not meatless or it is not asexual or both is not false if it does not watch. sent11: the truant is unpalatable. sent12: the baldachin does not parody fief. sent13: the affluent is unpalatable. sent14: if the fact that the affluent is not unpalatable is not wrong the antidepressant is unpalatable. sent15: the baldachin is unpalatable. sent16: if the baldachin does not parody fief then it is megaloblastic and is a kind of a watch. sent17: the broadax is unpalatable. ; $proof$ =

sent13 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the regeneration occurs is correct then the hurtling inconceivability happens.

{A} -> {D}

sent1: the insecticidalness occurs. sent2: that the anatomy happens hold. sent3: that the immunity occurs is triggered by that the moral happens. sent4: the Saharan occurs if the regeneration happens. sent5: the immaterialness happens if the Saharanness occurs. sent6: the spatter happens. sent7: the intermolecularness is caused by that the parodying country-dance happens. sent8: the aberrating occurs. sent9: if the immaterialness happens then the hurtling inconceivability happens.

sent1: {JD} sent2: {IH} sent3: {HA} -> {FA} sent4: {A} -> {B} sent5: {B} -> {C} sent6: {FJ} sent7: {GA} -> {IU} sent8: {AL} sent9: {C} -> {D}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = if that the regeneration occurs is correct then the hurtling inconceivability happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the insecticidalness occurs. sent2: that the anatomy happens hold. sent3: that the immunity occurs is triggered by that the moral happens. sent4: the Saharan occurs if the regeneration happens. sent5: the immaterialness happens if the Saharanness occurs. sent6: the spatter happens. sent7: the intermolecularness is caused by that the parodying country-dance happens. sent8: the aberrating occurs. sent9: if the immaterialness happens then the hurtling inconceivability happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the regeneration happens.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the Saharanness happens.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the immaterialness occurs.; sent9 & int2 -> int3: the hurtling inconceivability occurs.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the boiling is not undemocratic.

¬{H}{e}

sent1: the amide lathers Comrade. sent2: there is nothing such that it does denaturalize Gallinula and is not Cappadocian. sent3: something does denaturalize Gallinula if that it is not a Trento and it does not lather drydock is not right. sent4: the anathema does not lather drydock if the fact that the amide is a paragonite is correct. sent5: if that the amide does not lather drydock and it is not tonal is false it is a Trento. sent6: if the anathema is not a paragonite and/or it does hurtle nasalization then the boiling is not undemocratic. sent7: the fact that the Comrade is not a Physidae and hurtles cantillation is not true if it is tonal. sent8: if the amide does not denaturalize Gallinula and does not lather Comrade then the fact that the boiling lather Comrade is not incorrect. sent9: the fact that the amide is not a Trento and it does not lather drydock does not hold if that it does lather Comrade is not incorrect. sent10: the amide is tonal if the Comrade is a Trento. sent11: the fact that the Comrade is non-tonal thing that does hurtle nasalization is incorrect. sent12: the scholar hurtles nasalization. sent13: the Comrade is tonal. sent14: something is undemocratic if it lathers Comrade. sent15: The Comrade lathers amide. sent16: if something is tonal it does hurtle cantillation. sent17: the Comrade is Cappadocian if the scholar is a Physidae. sent18: if the amide does denaturalize Gallinula the fact that the scholar is a kind of a Physidae is not incorrect. sent19: that the anathema is not a paragonite is not incorrect if the Comrade is Cappadocian thing that does hurtle cantillation.

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

the boiling is undemocratic.

{H}{e}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the boiling is not undemocratic. ; $context$ = sent1: the amide lathers Comrade. sent2: there is nothing such that it does denaturalize Gallinula and is not Cappadocian. sent3: something does denaturalize Gallinula if that it is not a Trento and it does not lather drydock is not right. sent4: the anathema does not lather drydock if the fact that the amide is a paragonite is correct. sent5: if that the amide does not lather drydock and it is not tonal is false it is a Trento. sent6: if the anathema is not a paragonite and/or it does hurtle nasalization then the boiling is not undemocratic. sent7: the fact that the Comrade is not a Physidae and hurtles cantillation is not true if it is tonal. sent8: if the amide does not denaturalize Gallinula and does not lather Comrade then the fact that the boiling lather Comrade is not incorrect. sent9: the fact that the amide is not a Trento and it does not lather drydock does not hold if that it does lather Comrade is not incorrect. sent10: the amide is tonal if the Comrade is a Trento. sent11: the fact that the Comrade is non-tonal thing that does hurtle nasalization is incorrect. sent12: the scholar hurtles nasalization. sent13: the Comrade is tonal. sent14: something is undemocratic if it lathers Comrade. sent15: The Comrade lathers amide. sent16: if something is tonal it does hurtle cantillation. sent17: the Comrade is Cappadocian if the scholar is a Physidae. sent18: if the amide does denaturalize Gallinula the fact that the scholar is a kind of a Physidae is not incorrect. sent19: that the anathema is not a paragonite is not incorrect if the Comrade is Cappadocian thing that does hurtle cantillation. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that that the amide is not a Trento and does not lather drydock is true is not true.; sent3 -> int2: the amide denaturalizes Gallinula if that it is not a Trento and it does not lather drydock is false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the amide does denaturalize Gallinula.; int3 & sent18 -> int4: the scholar is a Physidae.; int4 & sent17 -> int5: the Comrade is Cappadocian.; sent16 -> int6: if the Comrade is tonal then the fact that it hurtles cantillation is true.; int6 & sent13 -> int7: the Comrade hurtles cantillation.; int5 & int7 -> int8: the Comrade is Cappadocian and it hurtles cantillation.; int8 & sent19 -> int9: the anathema is not a kind of a paragonite.; int9 -> int10: the fact that the anathema is not a paragonite or it does hurtle nasalization or both hold.; int10 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the aureole is a piroplasm is not incorrect.

{D}{a}

sent1: the aureole is not a venturer. sent2: if the prodigal is not a kind of a Woolf the fact that the aureole is not a piroplasm hold. sent3: the prodigal is a streamliner. sent4: the fact that the prodigal is Caroline and anastomotic is not correct. sent5: if the fact that something is not a venturer but it does lather chalkpit does not hold it is a venturer. sent6: if something is a venturer then it is a Ozawa. sent7: the BB hurtles Arikara. sent8: the fact that either the prodigal is not a kind of a Woolf or it is not a piroplasm or both is true if there is something such that it is not a Coerebidae. sent9: if the prodigal hurtles illicitness then the fact that it is both Caroline and anastomotic does not hold. sent10: if something is a kind of a reproducer the fact that it is not a venturer and lathers chalkpit is incorrect. sent11: if the prodigal does not hurtle illicitness then either the aureole is a streamliner or it is a Woolf or both. sent12: the prodigal is not anastomotic if the aureole is not a Coerebidae. sent13: if the BB hurtles Arikara the uncle is sensory. sent14: if something is a kind of a Coerebidae that is a Woolf then it is not a kind of a streamliner. sent15: the fact that the prodigal is Caroline but it is not anastomotic is not true if it hurtles illicitness. sent16: if the aureole is not a kind of a venturer then it is a kind of a Ozawa. sent17: something is a piroplasm if it is not a kind of a streamliner. sent18: the BB does not hurtle illicitness. sent19: The illicitness hurtles prodigal. sent20: the aureole is a Ozawa. sent21: the fact that something is not a kind of a streamliner and does hurtle illicitness is not right if it is a kind of a Ozawa. sent22: the uncle is not a venturer or it does not hurtle illicitness or both if there is something such that it does not hurtle illicitness. sent23: the aureole is a Woolf and it is a Ozawa if it is not a venturer. sent24: if the aureole is not a Coerebidae then the prodigal is Caroline thing that is not anastomotic. sent25: the fact that something is a reproducer if it is sensory is not incorrect.

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

the hose is a piroplasm.

{D}{bp}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the aureole is a piroplasm is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the aureole is not a venturer. sent2: if the prodigal is not a kind of a Woolf the fact that the aureole is not a piroplasm hold. sent3: the prodigal is a streamliner. sent4: the fact that the prodigal is Caroline and anastomotic is not correct. sent5: if the fact that something is not a venturer but it does lather chalkpit does not hold it is a venturer. sent6: if something is a venturer then it is a Ozawa. sent7: the BB hurtles Arikara. sent8: the fact that either the prodigal is not a kind of a Woolf or it is not a piroplasm or both is true if there is something such that it is not a Coerebidae. sent9: if the prodigal hurtles illicitness then the fact that it is both Caroline and anastomotic does not hold. sent10: if something is a kind of a reproducer the fact that it is not a venturer and lathers chalkpit is incorrect. sent11: if the prodigal does not hurtle illicitness then either the aureole is a streamliner or it is a Woolf or both. sent12: the prodigal is not anastomotic if the aureole is not a Coerebidae. sent13: if the BB hurtles Arikara the uncle is sensory. sent14: if something is a kind of a Coerebidae that is a Woolf then it is not a kind of a streamliner. sent15: the fact that the prodigal is Caroline but it is not anastomotic is not true if it hurtles illicitness. sent16: if the aureole is not a kind of a venturer then it is a kind of a Ozawa. sent17: something is a piroplasm if it is not a kind of a streamliner. sent18: the BB does not hurtle illicitness. sent19: The illicitness hurtles prodigal. sent20: the aureole is a Ozawa. sent21: the fact that something is not a kind of a streamliner and does hurtle illicitness is not right if it is a kind of a Ozawa. sent22: the uncle is not a venturer or it does not hurtle illicitness or both if there is something such that it does not hurtle illicitness. sent23: the aureole is a Woolf and it is a Ozawa if it is not a venturer. sent24: if the aureole is not a Coerebidae then the prodigal is Caroline thing that is not anastomotic. sent25: the fact that something is a reproducer if it is sensory is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the aureole is not a kind of a Coerebidae.; sent24 & assump1 -> int1: the prodigal is Caroline and not anastomotic.; sent23 & sent1 -> int2: the aureole is a Woolf and a Ozawa.; int2 -> int3: the aureole is a Woolf.; sent14 -> int4: if the aureole is a Coerebidae and it is a Woolf then it is not a streamliner.; sent17 -> int5: the aureole is a kind of a piroplasm if it is not a streamliner.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the epithelialness does not occur and the dawn does not occur is false.

¬(¬{E} & ¬{F})

sent1: if that the denaturalizing mason does not occur but the malfeasance occurs is incorrect then the parodying strain does not occur. sent2: the dawn does not occur. sent3: the epithelialness does not occur if that the mininess does not occur and/or the swatter does not occur is wrong. sent4: the denaturalizing mason happens. sent5: if the mininess does not occur then the fact that not the denaturalizing mason but the malfeasance occurs is incorrect. sent6: the denaturalizing mason does not occur if the lathering subtraction does not occur. sent7: that the epithelialness happens and the dawn happens is caused by that the propulsion does not occur. sent8: the fact that either the mininess does not occur or the swatter does not occur or both is not true if the malfeasance occurs. sent9: that the lathering subtraction does not occur and the lot does not occur is triggered by that the malfeasance does not occur.

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

the parodying strain does not occur.

¬{EM}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the epithelialness does not occur and the dawn does not occur is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the denaturalizing mason does not occur but the malfeasance occurs is incorrect then the parodying strain does not occur. sent2: the dawn does not occur. sent3: the epithelialness does not occur if that the mininess does not occur and/or the swatter does not occur is wrong. sent4: the denaturalizing mason happens. sent5: if the mininess does not occur then the fact that not the denaturalizing mason but the malfeasance occurs is incorrect. sent6: the denaturalizing mason does not occur if the lathering subtraction does not occur. sent7: that the epithelialness happens and the dawn happens is caused by that the propulsion does not occur. sent8: the fact that either the mininess does not occur or the swatter does not occur or both is not true if the malfeasance occurs. sent9: that the lathering subtraction does not occur and the lot does not occur is triggered by that the malfeasance does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the malfeasance does not occur.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the lathering subtraction does not occur and the lotting does not occur.; int1 -> int2: the lathering subtraction does not occur.; int2 & sent6 -> int3: the denaturalizing mason does not occur.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the malfeasance happens.; int5 & sent8 -> int6: that that the mininess does not occur and/or the swattering does not occur is incorrect hold.; int6 & sent3 -> int7: that the epithelialness does not occur is right.; int7 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the dictionary is not anisogametic and not a bumper.

(¬{D}{c} & ¬{C}{c})

sent1: the fact that that the scholar does not ingrain and is not basidiomycetous is not correct is right if something denaturalizes scholar. sent2: the carrel is basidiomycetous if that either it is anisogametic or it is not a stick or both is wrong. sent3: that the scholar does not denaturalize scholar and it is not anisogametic is not true. sent4: if there is something such that it is anisogametic that the carrel is basidiomycetous thing that is not a stick does not hold. sent5: the fact that the dictionary is not anisogametic but it ingrains is wrong. sent6: the carrel does ingrain. sent7: that the carrel does not ingrain and is apostrophic is not true. sent8: if the scholar denaturalizes scholar then the carrel is basidiomycetous. sent9: if something is basidiomycetous that the fact that the dictionary is a kind of non-anisogametic thing that is not a kind of a bumper does not hold hold. sent10: if the fact that the scholar does not ingrain and/or is not a stick is not right then it denaturalizes scholar. sent11: that the carrel hurtles abscissa hold. sent12: the fact that the scholar does not ingrain and is not a bumper is not true if that something is anisogametic hold. sent13: the carrel is a bumper. sent14: the scholar is a wyvern. sent15: the scholar parodies scalp. sent16: that the dictionary does denaturalize scholar and is not anisogametic is incorrect. sent17: the fact that the scholar does not ingrain and/or is not a stick does not hold. sent18: that the carrel is not a bumper but it is basidiomycetous is wrong. sent19: that the dictionary does not denaturalize snowflake and is regimental is wrong. sent20: the fact that the carrel is not vicennial and/or it does not denaturalize Carangidae is false. sent21: if there exists something such that it denaturalizes scholar then that the dictionary is not a stick and it is not a bumper is incorrect. sent22: that the scholar is not a kind of a stick and does not denaturalize scholar is not right if there exists something such that it is anisogametic.

sent1: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent2: ¬({D}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) -> {A}{b} sent3: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent4: (x): {D}x -> ¬({A}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent5: ¬(¬{D}{c} & {AA}{c}) sent6: {AA}{b} sent7: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {FJ}{b}) sent8: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent9: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{D}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent10: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent11: {FQ}{b} sent12: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent13: {C}{b} sent14: {GO}{a} sent15: {FF}{a} sent16: ¬({B}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent17: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent18: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {A}{b}) sent19: ¬(¬{JK}{c} & {AM}{c}) sent20: ¬(¬{FE}{b} v ¬{AL}{b}) sent21: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{AB}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent22: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{AB}{a} & ¬{B}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the dictionary is not anisogametic and not a bumper. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that that the scholar does not ingrain and is not basidiomycetous is not correct is right if something denaturalizes scholar. sent2: the carrel is basidiomycetous if that either it is anisogametic or it is not a stick or both is wrong. sent3: that the scholar does not denaturalize scholar and it is not anisogametic is not true. sent4: if there is something such that it is anisogametic that the carrel is basidiomycetous thing that is not a stick does not hold. sent5: the fact that the dictionary is not anisogametic but it ingrains is wrong. sent6: the carrel does ingrain. sent7: that the carrel does not ingrain and is apostrophic is not true. sent8: if the scholar denaturalizes scholar then the carrel is basidiomycetous. sent9: if something is basidiomycetous that the fact that the dictionary is a kind of non-anisogametic thing that is not a kind of a bumper does not hold hold. sent10: if the fact that the scholar does not ingrain and/or is not a stick is not right then it denaturalizes scholar. sent11: that the carrel hurtles abscissa hold. sent12: the fact that the scholar does not ingrain and is not a bumper is not true if that something is anisogametic hold. sent13: the carrel is a bumper. sent14: the scholar is a wyvern. sent15: the scholar parodies scalp. sent16: that the dictionary does denaturalize scholar and is not anisogametic is incorrect. sent17: the fact that the scholar does not ingrain and/or is not a stick does not hold. sent18: that the carrel is not a bumper but it is basidiomycetous is wrong. sent19: that the dictionary does not denaturalize snowflake and is regimental is wrong. sent20: the fact that the carrel is not vicennial and/or it does not denaturalize Carangidae is false. sent21: if there exists something such that it denaturalizes scholar then that the dictionary is not a stick and it is not a bumper is incorrect. sent22: that the scholar is not a kind of a stick and does not denaturalize scholar is not right if there exists something such that it is anisogametic. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent17 -> int1: the scholar does denaturalize scholar.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the carrel is basidiomycetous.; int2 -> int3: there exists something such that it is basidiomycetous.; int3 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the denaturalizing underworld does not occur and the anthropometricness does not occur.

(¬{A} & ¬{G})

sent1: the non-avocationalness results in that the lathering landside happens but the hurtling Indra does not occur. sent2: the fact that the denaturalizing underworld does not occur and the anthropometricness does not occur is incorrect if the denaturalizing algorism does not occur. sent3: the hurtling piperacillin does not occur but the collusion happens if the viceroyship does not occur. sent4: the paroxysm occurs. sent5: if the dispensation occurs the hurtling piperacillin does not occur. sent6: the viceroyship is triggered by that the lathering landside but not the hurtling Indra happens. sent7: if the viceroyship happens then not the collusion but the scrabbling happens. sent8: that the chaffiness occurs and the denaturalizing Nerium occurs is brought about by that the scrabbling does not occur. sent9: the hurtling piperacillin does not occur if the denaturalizing Nerium does not occur. sent10: the avocationalness does not occur. sent11: if not the collusion but the scrabbling occurs then the hurtling piperacillin happens. sent12: that the denaturalizing underworld and the denaturalizing algorism happens prevents that the chaffiness happens. sent13: that the chaffiness does not occur brings about either that the dispensation happens or that the denaturalizing Nerium does not occur or both. sent14: the dispensation occurs if the hurtling piperacillin does not occur and the collusion happens. sent15: the denaturalizing algorism is prevented by that both the dispensation and the chaffiness occurs. sent16: the fact that the denaturalizing self-esteem does not occur is right. sent17: the trivalentness occurs. sent18: the denaturalizing algorism happens.

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

the fact that the denaturalizing underworld does not occur and the anthropometricness does not occur is wrong.

¬(¬{A} & ¬{G})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the denaturalizing underworld does not occur and the anthropometricness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the non-avocationalness results in that the lathering landside happens but the hurtling Indra does not occur. sent2: the fact that the denaturalizing underworld does not occur and the anthropometricness does not occur is incorrect if the denaturalizing algorism does not occur. sent3: the hurtling piperacillin does not occur but the collusion happens if the viceroyship does not occur. sent4: the paroxysm occurs. sent5: if the dispensation occurs the hurtling piperacillin does not occur. sent6: the viceroyship is triggered by that the lathering landside but not the hurtling Indra happens. sent7: if the viceroyship happens then not the collusion but the scrabbling happens. sent8: that the chaffiness occurs and the denaturalizing Nerium occurs is brought about by that the scrabbling does not occur. sent9: the hurtling piperacillin does not occur if the denaturalizing Nerium does not occur. sent10: the avocationalness does not occur. sent11: if not the collusion but the scrabbling occurs then the hurtling piperacillin happens. sent12: that the denaturalizing underworld and the denaturalizing algorism happens prevents that the chaffiness happens. sent13: that the chaffiness does not occur brings about either that the dispensation happens or that the denaturalizing Nerium does not occur or both. sent14: the dispensation occurs if the hurtling piperacillin does not occur and the collusion happens. sent15: the denaturalizing algorism is prevented by that both the dispensation and the chaffiness occurs. sent16: the fact that the denaturalizing self-esteem does not occur is right. sent17: the trivalentness occurs. sent18: the denaturalizing algorism happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the denaturalizing underworld occurs.; assump1 & sent18 -> int1: the denaturalizing underworld and the denaturalizing algorism happens.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the chaffiness does not occur.; int2 & sent13 -> int3: either the dispensation occurs or the denaturalizing Nerium does not occur or both.; int3 & sent5 & sent9 -> int4: the hurtling piperacillin does not occur.; sent1 & sent10 -> int5: the lathering landside occurs but the hurtling Indra does not occur.; sent6 & int5 -> int6: the viceroyship happens.; sent7 & int6 -> int7: the collusion does not occur and the scrabbling happens.; sent11 & int7 -> int8: the hurtling piperacillin occurs.; int4 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> int10: the denaturalizing underworld does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that that there exists something such that if that it is not a Taricha and it is not avionics is wrong it is a kind of a hoe is not incorrect is false.

¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x)

sent1: if that something is not a nearness and not a boast is wrong it is a Lydian. sent2: there exists something such that if that it is both not a Taricha and avionics is not correct then it hoes. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a Taricha and not avionics it is a hoe. sent4: there exists something such that if that it is a Taricha and it is not avionics is false then it is a hoe. sent5: the hindrance is a kind of a Cabell if that it is not a putoff and it is not a hoe is incorrect. sent6: there is something such that if that it is not a disquisition and it does not lather stub does not hold it denaturalizes bimillennium. sent7: the fishery is avionics if the fact that it is not a kind of a remit and it does not condition is not right. sent8: there exists something such that if that it does not mist and it is not a rhinoplasty is not true then it is hydrostatics. sent9: there exists something such that if it is avionics then it is a hoe. sent10: if the fact that the hindrance is not a Taricha and is not avionics is wrong then it is a kind of a hoe. sent11: the hindrance is a hoe if that it is a kind of a Taricha and it is not avionics does not hold. sent12: there is something such that if that it is not a kind of a Lotus and it is not enthusiastic does not hold then it is diagonalizable. sent13: if the fact that something does not denaturalize saltine and is not a fundamentalist does not hold it hoes. sent14: the fact that if the hindrance is avionics the hindrance is a kind of a hoe is true. sent15: if the hindrance is not a Taricha and it is not avionics then it is a hoe. sent16: there exists something such that if it is a Taricha it is a hoe.

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{GA}x & ¬{IT}x) -> {GT}x sent2: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent3: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: ¬(¬{IF}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) -> {GQ}{aa} sent6: (Ex): ¬(¬{CI}x & ¬{GR}x) -> {FJ}x sent7: ¬(¬{FI}{cr} & ¬{FR}{cr}) -> {AB}{cr} sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{HK}x & ¬{AD}x) -> {S}x sent9: (Ex): {AB}x -> {B}x sent10: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent11: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent12: (Ex): ¬(¬{T}x & ¬{BJ}x) -> {FP}x sent13: (x): ¬(¬{IU}x & ¬{BT}x) -> {B}x sent14: {AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent15: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent16: (Ex): {AA}x -> {B}x

there exists something such that if that it is not a nearness and does not boast does not hold then it is a Lydian.

(Ex): ¬(¬{GA}x & ¬{IT}x) -> {GT}x

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that that there exists something such that if that it is not a Taricha and it is not avionics is wrong it is a kind of a hoe is not incorrect is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is not a nearness and not a boast is wrong it is a Lydian. sent2: there exists something such that if that it is both not a Taricha and avionics is not correct then it hoes. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a Taricha and not avionics it is a hoe. sent4: there exists something such that if that it is a Taricha and it is not avionics is false then it is a hoe. sent5: the hindrance is a kind of a Cabell if that it is not a putoff and it is not a hoe is incorrect. sent6: there is something such that if that it is not a disquisition and it does not lather stub does not hold it denaturalizes bimillennium. sent7: the fishery is avionics if the fact that it is not a kind of a remit and it does not condition is not right. sent8: there exists something such that if that it does not mist and it is not a rhinoplasty is not true then it is hydrostatics. sent9: there exists something such that if it is avionics then it is a hoe. sent10: if the fact that the hindrance is not a Taricha and is not avionics is wrong then it is a kind of a hoe. sent11: the hindrance is a hoe if that it is a kind of a Taricha and it is not avionics does not hold. sent12: there is something such that if that it is not a kind of a Lotus and it is not enthusiastic does not hold then it is diagonalizable. sent13: if the fact that something does not denaturalize saltine and is not a fundamentalist does not hold it hoes. sent14: the fact that if the hindrance is avionics the hindrance is a kind of a hoe is true. sent15: if the hindrance is not a Taricha and it is not avionics then it is a hoe. sent16: there exists something such that if it is a Taricha it is a hoe. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not thoughtless.

(Ex): ¬{J}x

sent1: something is a dado if it is orchestral. sent2: something is proper if it is a Aesculus. sent3: if something is a naprapath and it is a Hardy it is not clinical. sent4: the materialist does not lather resolution and/or is mathematical if it is not clinical. sent5: the fact that the anklebone is mathematical hold. sent6: if the wheelwork is not a signboard and/or it is not bimorphemic then it does not denaturalize impenetrability. sent7: if the marshal is over-the-counter then the anklebone is a Aesculus. sent8: if the materialist is over-the-counter then it is mathematical and it is not clinical. sent9: if the anklebone is proper then the materialist does denaturalize impenetrability. sent10: something is a lemma if it is not non-Iraqi. sent11: something is thoughtless. sent12: that something is not thoughtless is not false if either it does not lather resolution or it is non-mathematical or both. sent13: if the materialist denaturalizes impenetrability then it is a naprapath that is not a Hardy. sent14: if the materialist is a kind of a naprapath and it is a Hardy then it is not clinical. sent15: the marshal is over-the-counter. sent16: the perihelion is mathematical. sent17: either the materialist does not lather resolution or it is not mathematical or both if that it is clinical does not hold. sent18: if something that is a naprapath is not a Hardy then it is not clinical. sent19: either the materialist does not lather resolution or it is not non-mathematical or both. sent20: the materialist lathers resolution or is not mathematical or both. sent21: the materialist does lather resolution and/or is not mathematical if it is not clinical. sent22: the materialist is not a kind of a Hardy if that it does denaturalize impenetrability is true. sent23: that the materialist is not a Hardy is right. sent24: if something is a scholar then it is a kind of a Iraqi.

sent1: (x): {K}x -> {FL}x sent2: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent3: (x): ({E}x & {F}x) -> ¬{G}x sent4: ¬{G}{c} -> (¬{H}{c} v {I}{c}) sent5: {I}{b} sent6: (¬{JA}{hd} v ¬{FF}{hd}) -> ¬{D}{hd} sent7: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent8: {A}{c} -> ({I}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) sent9: {C}{b} -> {D}{c} sent10: (x): {HM}x -> {CH}x sent11: (Ex): {J}x sent12: (x): (¬{H}x v ¬{I}x) -> ¬{J}x sent13: {D}{c} -> ({E}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) sent14: ({E}{c} & {F}{c}) -> ¬{G}{c} sent15: {A}{a} sent16: {I}{at} sent17: ¬{G}{c} -> (¬{H}{c} v ¬{I}{c}) sent18: (x): ({E}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{G}x sent19: (¬{H}{c} v {I}{c}) sent20: ({H}{c} v ¬{I}{c}) sent21: ¬{G}{c} -> ({H}{c} v ¬{I}{c}) sent22: {D}{c} -> ¬{F}{c} sent23: ¬{F}{c} sent24: (x): {IF}x -> {HM}x

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it is not thoughtless. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a dado if it is orchestral. sent2: something is proper if it is a Aesculus. sent3: if something is a naprapath and it is a Hardy it is not clinical. sent4: the materialist does not lather resolution and/or is mathematical if it is not clinical. sent5: the fact that the anklebone is mathematical hold. sent6: if the wheelwork is not a signboard and/or it is not bimorphemic then it does not denaturalize impenetrability. sent7: if the marshal is over-the-counter then the anklebone is a Aesculus. sent8: if the materialist is over-the-counter then it is mathematical and it is not clinical. sent9: if the anklebone is proper then the materialist does denaturalize impenetrability. sent10: something is a lemma if it is not non-Iraqi. sent11: something is thoughtless. sent12: that something is not thoughtless is not false if either it does not lather resolution or it is non-mathematical or both. sent13: if the materialist denaturalizes impenetrability then it is a naprapath that is not a Hardy. sent14: if the materialist is a kind of a naprapath and it is a Hardy then it is not clinical. sent15: the marshal is over-the-counter. sent16: the perihelion is mathematical. sent17: either the materialist does not lather resolution or it is not mathematical or both if that it is clinical does not hold. sent18: if something that is a naprapath is not a Hardy then it is not clinical. sent19: either the materialist does not lather resolution or it is not non-mathematical or both. sent20: the materialist lathers resolution or is not mathematical or both. sent21: the materialist does lather resolution and/or is not mathematical if it is not clinical. sent22: the materialist is not a kind of a Hardy if that it does denaturalize impenetrability is true. sent23: that the materialist is not a Hardy is right. sent24: if something is a scholar then it is a kind of a Iraqi. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent15 -> int1: the anklebone is a Aesculus.; sent2 -> int2: if the anklebone is a kind of a Aesculus it is proper.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the anklebone is proper.; int3 & sent9 -> int4: the materialist denaturalizes impenetrability.; int4 & sent13 -> int5: the materialist is a kind of a naprapath but it is not a Hardy.; sent18 -> int6: if the materialist is a naprapath that is not a Hardy then it is not clinical.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the materialist is not clinical.; int7 & sent17 -> int8: either the materialist does not lather resolution or it is not mathematical or both.; sent12 -> int9: if the materialist does not lather resolution or it is not mathematical or both then it is not thoughtless.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the materialist is not thoughtless.; int10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that the fact that it is not opened and it is a kind of an acquirer is wrong.

(Ex): ¬(¬{E}x & {F}x)

sent1: something that is not a kind of a sled is not a titanium or is nondisposable or both. sent2: something is not a rhombus if that it is not anisogametic and/or it is not an apostrophe is false. sent3: if the shrew does sled then it is hydrometric. sent4: if that the shrew does damascene is not incorrect then it is exteroceptive. sent5: the fact that something is both not an opened and not an acquirer does not hold if it is exteroceptive. sent6: the veneering is a kind of a last. sent7: the flood is not a sled. sent8: that the homosexuality does not sled but it is a kind of an acquirer is not right. sent9: that the entrecote does not last hold if the veneering is not a hulking and/or is a sled. sent10: there exists something such that the fact that it is opened thing that does not sled does not hold. sent11: something does not denaturalize popgun and is not non-sociolinguistic. sent12: there exists something such that that it severs and it is not a kind of a conflagration does not hold. sent13: the homosexuality does not last if the entrecote is non-opened and/or it is an acquirer. sent14: there exists something such that that it is both hydrometric and not a titanium is wrong. sent15: something does damascene and it is a wally if it is not a rhombus. sent16: that that the entrecote is a kind of a hulking and it is a last does not hold is true. sent17: there exists nothing such that it either is not anisogametic or is not an apostrophe or both. sent18: if the shrew is not a sled then the veneering is not a hulking or sled or both. sent19: if there exists something such that either it is not hydrometric or it is not a hulking or both then the veneering is not a kind of a sled. sent20: if there exists something such that that it is hydrometric but not a titanium is not true the shrew is not hydrometric. sent21: something is not opened but it is a sled. sent22: if something is not a last either it is not hydrometric or it is not a kind of a hulking or both.

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

the veneering is not a titanium or is nondisposable or both.

(¬{H}{b} v {FI}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that the fact that it is not opened and it is a kind of an acquirer is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: something that is not a kind of a sled is not a titanium or is nondisposable or both. sent2: something is not a rhombus if that it is not anisogametic and/or it is not an apostrophe is false. sent3: if the shrew does sled then it is hydrometric. sent4: if that the shrew does damascene is not incorrect then it is exteroceptive. sent5: the fact that something is both not an opened and not an acquirer does not hold if it is exteroceptive. sent6: the veneering is a kind of a last. sent7: the flood is not a sled. sent8: that the homosexuality does not sled but it is a kind of an acquirer is not right. sent9: that the entrecote does not last hold if the veneering is not a hulking and/or is a sled. sent10: there exists something such that the fact that it is opened thing that does not sled does not hold. sent11: something does not denaturalize popgun and is not non-sociolinguistic. sent12: there exists something such that that it severs and it is not a kind of a conflagration does not hold. sent13: the homosexuality does not last if the entrecote is non-opened and/or it is an acquirer. sent14: there exists something such that that it is both hydrometric and not a titanium is wrong. sent15: something does damascene and it is a wally if it is not a rhombus. sent16: that that the entrecote is a kind of a hulking and it is a last does not hold is true. sent17: there exists nothing such that it either is not anisogametic or is not an apostrophe or both. sent18: if the shrew is not a sled then the veneering is not a hulking or sled or both. sent19: if there exists something such that either it is not hydrometric or it is not a hulking or both then the veneering is not a kind of a sled. sent20: if there exists something such that that it is hydrometric but not a titanium is not true the shrew is not hydrometric. sent21: something is not opened but it is a sled. sent22: if something is not a last either it is not hydrometric or it is not a kind of a hulking or both. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the shrew is a sled.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the shrew is hydrometric.; sent14 & sent20 -> int2: the shrew is not hydrometric.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the shrew is not a kind of a sled.; int4 & sent18 -> int5: the veneering is not a hulking and/or is a sled.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: the fact that the entrecote is not a kind of a last is true.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the auditorium is not purgatorial.

¬{F}{b}

sent1: if the loganberry is aeromedical but it is not a tomtit the prefecture is intuitionist. sent2: the fact that if that the loganberry is not the reprieve is not false the loganberry is non-aeromedical is correct. sent3: the loganberry is not a kind of a reprieve if there is something such that it is not a kind of a vitrification. sent4: that either something is not a vitrification or it reprieves or both is correct. sent5: something does not reprieve if it is non-stereoscopic. sent6: if the auditorium is not stereoscopic and is not Zolaesque then it denaturalizes waggery. sent7: the prefecture is a kind of a hygrometer that is purgatorial. sent8: something is not aeromedical and it is not a tomtit if it does not reprieve. sent9: the loganberry is not aeromedical. sent10: that the loganberry is intuitionist if the prefecture is aeromedical and is not a tomtit hold. sent11: something is not a vitrification or it does not reprieve or both. sent12: something is not a Bellow if it is not a reprieve. sent13: the fact that the loganberry is not a reprieve if something is not a vitrification or it is not a reprieve or both is correct. sent14: the fact that the prefecture is a kind of Zolaesque thing that does not denaturalize waggery does not hold if it is purgatorial. sent15: if something is intuitionist then it is not a reprieve. sent16: if something denaturalizes waggery it is purgatorial. sent17: the prefecture is intuitionist if the loganberry is both not aeromedical and not a tomtit. sent18: if something is intuitionist the auditorium is not stereoscopic and is not Zolaesque. sent19: if the auditorium is stereoscopic but it is not Zolaesque then it denaturalizes waggery. sent20: the fact that either something is a kind of a vitrification or it is not a reprieve or both hold. sent21: something is intuitionist and/or it is not stereoscopic if it is not Zolaesque.

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

the auditorium is not a Bellow.

¬{HS}{b}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the auditorium is not purgatorial. ; $context$ = sent1: if the loganberry is aeromedical but it is not a tomtit the prefecture is intuitionist. sent2: the fact that if that the loganberry is not the reprieve is not false the loganberry is non-aeromedical is correct. sent3: the loganberry is not a kind of a reprieve if there is something such that it is not a kind of a vitrification. sent4: that either something is not a vitrification or it reprieves or both is correct. sent5: something does not reprieve if it is non-stereoscopic. sent6: if the auditorium is not stereoscopic and is not Zolaesque then it denaturalizes waggery. sent7: the prefecture is a kind of a hygrometer that is purgatorial. sent8: something is not aeromedical and it is not a tomtit if it does not reprieve. sent9: the loganberry is not aeromedical. sent10: that the loganberry is intuitionist if the prefecture is aeromedical and is not a tomtit hold. sent11: something is not a vitrification or it does not reprieve or both. sent12: something is not a Bellow if it is not a reprieve. sent13: the fact that the loganberry is not a reprieve if something is not a vitrification or it is not a reprieve or both is correct. sent14: the fact that the prefecture is a kind of Zolaesque thing that does not denaturalize waggery does not hold if it is purgatorial. sent15: if something is intuitionist then it is not a reprieve. sent16: if something denaturalizes waggery it is purgatorial. sent17: the prefecture is intuitionist if the loganberry is both not aeromedical and not a tomtit. sent18: if something is intuitionist the auditorium is not stereoscopic and is not Zolaesque. sent19: if the auditorium is stereoscopic but it is not Zolaesque then it denaturalizes waggery. sent20: the fact that either something is a kind of a vitrification or it is not a reprieve or both hold. sent21: something is intuitionist and/or it is not stereoscopic if it is not Zolaesque. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the loganberry is both not aeromedical and not a tomtit if it is not a reprieve.; sent11 & sent13 -> int2: the loganberry is not a reprieve.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the loganberry is non-aeromedical and it is not a tomtit.; int3 & sent17 -> int4: the prefecture is intuitionist.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that it is intuitionist.; int5 & sent18 -> int6: the auditorium is non-stereoscopic thing that is not Zolaesque.; int6 & sent6 -> int7: the auditorium does denaturalize waggery.; sent16 -> int8: the auditorium is purgatorial if it does denaturalize waggery.; int7 & int8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there is something such that if it is not a kind of a godparent then it is abnormal and is calyceal is incorrect.

¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x))

sent1: if the whittler is not a godparent then it is abnormal and it is calyceal. sent2: the whittler is a dissidence and is squinty if it does not hurtle stacks. sent3: if the whittler is a godparent the fact that it is abnormal and calyceal hold. sent4: there is something such that if it is a godparent it is both abnormal and calyceal. sent5: the lolly is a kind of abnormal thing that does parody 1760s if it does not lather renewal. sent6: there exists something such that if it does not undervalue then it does denaturalize dare and is elastic. sent7: the checkerbloom is a brocket and does hurtle pocketknife if it is non-marmorean. sent8: the whittler is a kind of a godparent and is sessile if that it is not mesoblastic is not false. sent9: the fact that there is something such that if it does not denaturalize Carangidae it does lather Mahayanist and it is a kind of a Dorotheanthus is not incorrect. sent10: if the whittler does not lather dissuasion then it is a brocket and is Linnaean. sent11: something is static and it is a snowmobile if it is not a transition. sent12: there exists something such that if it does not lather watchman it does denaturalize brevet and does underlie. sent13: there exists something such that if it is not holistic it is both a endomorphy and not invariable. sent14: a non-free thing is static and is abnormal. sent15: there exists something such that if that it is not a kind of a godparent is true then it is calyceal. sent16: there is something such that if it is not variable then it lathers dissuasion and does hurtle goldthread. sent17: if the whittler is not a godparent it is calyceal. sent18: if the whittler does not hurtle goldthread then it is a stepdaughter and a about-face. sent19: there exists something such that if it is not a godparent the fact that it is abnormal is not wrong. sent20: if something is not quiet it is a rut that underlies.

sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: ¬{DA}{aa} -> ({BE}{aa} & {IH}{aa}) sent3: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: ¬{DQ}{r} -> ({AA}{r} & {ED}{r}) sent6: (Ex): ¬{Q}x -> ({E}x & {CC}x) sent7: ¬{ES}{fb} -> ({IE}{fb} & {FF}{fb}) sent8: ¬{GS}{aa} -> ({A}{aa} & {IF}{aa}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{AP}x -> ({IR}x & {EK}x) sent10: ¬{IB}{aa} -> ({IE}{aa} & {GU}{aa}) sent11: (x): ¬{EM}x -> ({AQ}x & {BJ}x) sent12: (Ex): ¬{B}x -> ({GI}x & {IN}x) sent13: (Ex): ¬{EO}x -> ({DT}x & {HE}x) sent14: (x): ¬{HS}x -> ({AQ}x & {AA}x) sent15: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x sent16: (Ex): ¬{HE}x -> ({IB}x & {AK}x) sent17: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent18: ¬{AK}{aa} -> ({CH}{aa} & {EF}{aa}) sent19: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AA}x sent20: (x): ¬{AT}x -> ({I}x & {IN}x)

there exists something such that if it is not quiet then it ruts and it underlies.

(Ex): ¬{AT}x -> ({I}x & {IN}x)

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it is not a kind of a godparent then it is abnormal and is calyceal is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the whittler is not a godparent then it is abnormal and it is calyceal. sent2: the whittler is a dissidence and is squinty if it does not hurtle stacks. sent3: if the whittler is a godparent the fact that it is abnormal and calyceal hold. sent4: there is something such that if it is a godparent it is both abnormal and calyceal. sent5: the lolly is a kind of abnormal thing that does parody 1760s if it does not lather renewal. sent6: there exists something such that if it does not undervalue then it does denaturalize dare and is elastic. sent7: the checkerbloom is a brocket and does hurtle pocketknife if it is non-marmorean. sent8: the whittler is a kind of a godparent and is sessile if that it is not mesoblastic is not false. sent9: the fact that there is something such that if it does not denaturalize Carangidae it does lather Mahayanist and it is a kind of a Dorotheanthus is not incorrect. sent10: if the whittler does not lather dissuasion then it is a brocket and is Linnaean. sent11: something is static and it is a snowmobile if it is not a transition. sent12: there exists something such that if it does not lather watchman it does denaturalize brevet and does underlie. sent13: there exists something such that if it is not holistic it is both a endomorphy and not invariable. sent14: a non-free thing is static and is abnormal. sent15: there exists something such that if that it is not a kind of a godparent is true then it is calyceal. sent16: there is something such that if it is not variable then it lathers dissuasion and does hurtle goldthread. sent17: if the whittler is not a godparent it is calyceal. sent18: if the whittler does not hurtle goldthread then it is a stepdaughter and a about-face. sent19: there exists something such that if it is not a godparent the fact that it is abnormal is not wrong. sent20: if something is not quiet it is a rut that underlies. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if it does pan it is not a pedophile and hurtles pyocyanin.

(Ex): {B}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: if the fact that the retardation is a Bedlam is not wrong it is not a reproducer. sent2: that there exists something such that if it is a Siva then it is uncooperative and it denaturalizes basidium is not false. sent3: there exists something such that if it lathers pasha then it lathers oncology. sent4: the jilt does not parody Cebuan but it is a pedophile. sent5: the fact that if something is a pan then it does not hurtle crunch and it denaturalizes cleistothecium is not false. sent6: the retardation is not a pan if the fact that it is not a kind of a pedophile and does hurtle pyocyanin is not right. sent7: the retardation does not lather pasha. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it is holophytic is true it does not parody habitus. sent9: the helvella does not bulwark but it does bat if it is a kind of a pan. sent10: that the sutler does not hurtle pyocyanin is not wrong. sent11: if the kingcup hurtles pyocyanin then it is not a stopper. sent12: the leucothoe is a pedophile. sent13: if the retardation teems it does not hurtle pyocyanin and it does denaturalize unapproachability.

sent1: {II}{a} -> ¬{BG}{a} sent2: (Ex): {HL}x -> ({L}x & {DK}x) sent3: (Ex): {HM}x -> {AL}x sent4: (¬{IM}{fe} & {AA}{fe}) sent5: (x): {B}x -> (¬{DS}x & {T}x) sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: ¬{HM}{a} sent8: (Ex): {GQ}x -> ¬{BK}x sent9: {B}{eq} -> (¬{BI}{eq} & {DR}{eq}) sent10: ¬{AB}{fr} sent11: {AB}{cg} -> ¬{DI}{cg} sent12: {AA}{cp} sent13: {IP}{a} -> (¬{AB}{a} & {DE}{a})

the retardation does not hurtle crunch but it does denaturalize cleistothecium if it is a pan.

{B}{a} -> (¬{DS}{a} & {T}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does pan it is not a pedophile and hurtles pyocyanin. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the retardation is a Bedlam is not wrong it is not a reproducer. sent2: that there exists something such that if it is a Siva then it is uncooperative and it denaturalizes basidium is not false. sent3: there exists something such that if it lathers pasha then it lathers oncology. sent4: the jilt does not parody Cebuan but it is a pedophile. sent5: the fact that if something is a pan then it does not hurtle crunch and it denaturalizes cleistothecium is not false. sent6: the retardation is not a pan if the fact that it is not a kind of a pedophile and does hurtle pyocyanin is not right. sent7: the retardation does not lather pasha. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it is holophytic is true it does not parody habitus. sent9: the helvella does not bulwark but it does bat if it is a kind of a pan. sent10: that the sutler does not hurtle pyocyanin is not wrong. sent11: if the kingcup hurtles pyocyanin then it is not a stopper. sent12: the leucothoe is a pedophile. sent13: if the retardation teems it does not hurtle pyocyanin and it does denaturalize unapproachability. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the retardation is not a pedophile and does hurtle pyocyanin does not hold.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the retardation is not a kind of a pan.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the retardation does pan.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the retardation is not a pedophile but it does hurtle pyocyanin.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: if the retardation does pan then it is not a kind of a pedophile and hurtles pyocyanin.; int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the frijole is not a kind of a Nanak.

¬{D}{aa}

sent1: something is not a patter and it is not a Nanak if it is nontaxable. sent2: if the fact that the lambda is basidiomycetous is correct then the fact that it does not denaturalize masseur or is not a kind of a automat or both is right. sent3: if something is not basidiomycetous then the fact that it does not denaturalize masseur and/or is biaxial is not right. sent4: the frijole is not a patter. sent5: the frijole is not a kind of a patter if it is nontaxable. sent6: there is something such that it is not biaxial. sent7: the frijole is not a GHB if that it is not positionable is correct. sent8: if the fact that the frijole is not prescriptive but it is not non-positionable does not hold then it is not a GHB. sent9: that the respirator is a Nanak and/or it is a GHB is not false if the lambda is not nontaxable. sent10: the fact that something is not nontaxable hold if it is a kind of a patter. sent11: there exists something such that it is biaxial. sent12: if there is something such that it does not denaturalize masseur and/or it is not a automat the respirator does not denaturalize masseur. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a GHB and/or is not a patter is not true then the splitworm is not nontaxable. sent14: if something does not denaturalize masseur then it is a kind of a Nanak and it is biaxial. sent15: if there are non-biaxial things then the frijole is a kind of a GHB. sent16: that the lambda is basidiomycetous is correct. sent17: an afraid thing is not inexpedient and not a pyxie.

sent1: (x): {A}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) sent2: {G}{b} -> (¬{F}{b} v ¬{H}{b}) sent3: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬(¬{F}x v {E}x) sent4: ¬{C}{aa} sent5: {A}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent6: (Ex): ¬{E}x sent7: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent8: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent9: ¬{A}{b} -> ({D}{a} v {B}{a}) sent10: (x): {C}x -> ¬{A}x sent11: (Ex): {E}x sent12: (x): (¬{F}x v ¬{H}x) -> ¬{F}{a} sent13: (x): ¬(¬{B}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}{cq} sent14: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({D}x & {E}x) sent15: (x): ¬{E}x -> {B}{aa} sent16: {G}{b} sent17: (x): {GS}x -> (¬{AN}x & ¬{JC}x)

the frijole is a Nanak.

{D}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the frijole is not a kind of a Nanak. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a patter and it is not a Nanak if it is nontaxable. sent2: if the fact that the lambda is basidiomycetous is correct then the fact that it does not denaturalize masseur or is not a kind of a automat or both is right. sent3: if something is not basidiomycetous then the fact that it does not denaturalize masseur and/or is biaxial is not right. sent4: the frijole is not a patter. sent5: the frijole is not a kind of a patter if it is nontaxable. sent6: there is something such that it is not biaxial. sent7: the frijole is not a GHB if that it is not positionable is correct. sent8: if the fact that the frijole is not prescriptive but it is not non-positionable does not hold then it is not a GHB. sent9: that the respirator is a Nanak and/or it is a GHB is not false if the lambda is not nontaxable. sent10: the fact that something is not nontaxable hold if it is a kind of a patter. sent11: there exists something such that it is biaxial. sent12: if there is something such that it does not denaturalize masseur and/or it is not a automat the respirator does not denaturalize masseur. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a GHB and/or is not a patter is not true then the splitworm is not nontaxable. sent14: if something does not denaturalize masseur then it is a kind of a Nanak and it is biaxial. sent15: if there are non-biaxial things then the frijole is a kind of a GHB. sent16: that the lambda is basidiomycetous is correct. sent17: an afraid thing is not inexpedient and not a pyxie. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the frijole is not nontaxable.; sent6 & sent15 -> int1: the frijole is a GHB.; sent1 -> int2: the frijole does not patter and is not a Nanak if the fact that it is nontaxable is correct.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the sutler is not an insubordination if the fact that the footbath does not lather lectin and is irresistible is wrong is not correct.

¬(¬(¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a})

sent1: if the footbath is resistible the sutler is not an insubordination. sent2: everything does not lather rewrite. sent3: if the sutler is an insubordination it is not a ruddle and it is a alpha-naphthol. sent4: the sutler is a alpha-naphthol if it is an insubordination. sent5: if something does not lather rewrite the fact that that it lathers lectin and it is a concreteness hold is wrong. sent6: the sutler is not an insubordination if the footbath does not lather lectin and is not resistible. sent7: if the sutler is inglorious then the footbath is not resistible. sent8: if that the footbath does not lather lectin and it is not resistible is not correct the sutler is a kind of an insubordination. sent9: if something is not a ruddle but it is a kind of a alpha-naphthol it is inglorious. sent10: if the sutler is inglorious the footbath does lather lectin and is not resistible. sent11: the sutler is not an insubordination if that the footbath does lather lectin and is not resistible is false. sent12: the footbath ruddles. sent13: the footbath is not resistible. sent14: the sutler is a alpha-naphthol. sent15: if the sutler is inglorious then the footbath does not lather lectin and it is not resistible. sent16: that the footbath does not lather lectin but it is resistible does not hold.

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

the dictionary is irresistible.

¬{C}{ac}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the sutler is not an insubordination if the fact that the footbath does not lather lectin and is irresistible is wrong is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the footbath is resistible the sutler is not an insubordination. sent2: everything does not lather rewrite. sent3: if the sutler is an insubordination it is not a ruddle and it is a alpha-naphthol. sent4: the sutler is a alpha-naphthol if it is an insubordination. sent5: if something does not lather rewrite the fact that that it lathers lectin and it is a concreteness hold is wrong. sent6: the sutler is not an insubordination if the footbath does not lather lectin and is not resistible. sent7: if the sutler is inglorious then the footbath is not resistible. sent8: if that the footbath does not lather lectin and it is not resistible is not correct the sutler is a kind of an insubordination. sent9: if something is not a ruddle but it is a kind of a alpha-naphthol it is inglorious. sent10: if the sutler is inglorious the footbath does lather lectin and is not resistible. sent11: the sutler is not an insubordination if that the footbath does lather lectin and is not resistible is false. sent12: the footbath ruddles. sent13: the footbath is not resistible. sent14: the sutler is a alpha-naphthol. sent15: if the sutler is inglorious then the footbath does not lather lectin and it is not resistible. sent16: that the footbath does not lather lectin but it is resistible does not hold. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump2: Let's assume that the sutler is an insubordination.; sent3 & assump2 -> int1: the sutler is not a ruddle but a alpha-naphthol.; sent9 -> int2: if the sutler is not a kind of a ruddle but it is a kind of a alpha-naphthol then it is inglorious.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sutler is inglorious.; int3 & sent15 -> int4: the footbath does not lather lectin and is not resistible.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the footbath does not lather lectin and is not resistible is not right.; int4 & assump1 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int5 -> int6: the sutler is not a kind of an insubordination.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the rhodopsin does not denaturalize Belisarius.

¬{E}{c}

sent1: something does not ruffle if that it is both a artlessness and not aeromechanics is not correct. sent2: something either is not intolerable or is not a kind of a Gaelic or both if it does not denaturalize keystone. sent3: the driveway is not intolerable if the carrycot is not a kind of a Gaelic. sent4: that the hipline is isentropic and it is a cider does not hold. sent5: the hipline does not lather scapegrace and it does not denaturalize keystone if it is not isentropic. sent6: if the carrycot is not intolerable the driveway is not intolerable. sent7: something is aeromechanics and it is a block if it is not a kind of a artlessness. sent8: if something does lather scapegrace then it is not a artlessness and does not denaturalize Belisarius. sent9: if the fact that the hipline is isentropic and it is a cider does not hold then the carrycot does not denaturalize keystone. sent10: that the fact that the carrycot is intolerable but it is not a artlessness is correct is false. sent11: the carrycot is intolerable and it ruffles. sent12: if something is not intolerable it does ruffle. sent13: if the carrycot does not ruffle then the rhodopsin is intolerable thing that does denaturalize Belisarius. sent14: that if the fact that something is a kind of intolerable thing that is not a artlessness is incorrect the fact that it is not aeromechanics is not wrong is true. sent15: that something is both a artlessness and not aeromechanics is false if that it is a Gaelic is not wrong. sent16: the fact that the hipline is intolerable thing that is not a artlessness is not correct if the carrycot is intolerable.

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

that the driveway ruffles and does block is true.

({B}{ee} & {JG}{ee})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the rhodopsin does not denaturalize Belisarius. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not ruffle if that it is both a artlessness and not aeromechanics is not correct. sent2: something either is not intolerable or is not a kind of a Gaelic or both if it does not denaturalize keystone. sent3: the driveway is not intolerable if the carrycot is not a kind of a Gaelic. sent4: that the hipline is isentropic and it is a cider does not hold. sent5: the hipline does not lather scapegrace and it does not denaturalize keystone if it is not isentropic. sent6: if the carrycot is not intolerable the driveway is not intolerable. sent7: something is aeromechanics and it is a block if it is not a kind of a artlessness. sent8: if something does lather scapegrace then it is not a artlessness and does not denaturalize Belisarius. sent9: if the fact that the hipline is isentropic and it is a cider does not hold then the carrycot does not denaturalize keystone. sent10: that the fact that the carrycot is intolerable but it is not a artlessness is correct is false. sent11: the carrycot is intolerable and it ruffles. sent12: if something is not intolerable it does ruffle. sent13: if the carrycot does not ruffle then the rhodopsin is intolerable thing that does denaturalize Belisarius. sent14: that if the fact that something is a kind of intolerable thing that is not a artlessness is incorrect the fact that it is not aeromechanics is not wrong is true. sent15: that something is both a artlessness and not aeromechanics is false if that it is a Gaelic is not wrong. sent16: the fact that the hipline is intolerable thing that is not a artlessness is not correct if the carrycot is intolerable. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> int1: the carrycot is intolerable.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: that that the hipline is intolerable and is not a kind of a artlessness hold is false.; sent14 -> int3: if the fact that the hipline is intolerable but it is not a kind of a artlessness is wrong it is not aeromechanics.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the hipline is not aeromechanics.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the helvella is neoplastic.

{D}{b}

sent1: the Methodists is not neoplastic if that it is a kind of psycholinguistic thing that is not a curette is not right. sent2: if something is a glasnost the fact that the Methodists is a then and is a kind of an immaturity is not correct. sent3: there exists something such that it does denaturalize Paterson. sent4: the helvella is a kind of a then if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of an immaturity and it is not non-neoplastic is not correct. sent5: that the helvella is neoplastic is correct if there exists something such that the fact that it is a then that is an immaturity is not correct. sent6: that the Methodists is both not non-psycholinguistic and not a curette is not true. sent7: if something is a glasnost it is not neoplastic. sent8: if something is not an immaturity then the fact that the helvella is neoplastic is right. sent9: that something ransoms is not wrong. sent10: there is something such that it is not a baddeleyite. sent11: a non-boskopoid thing is a curette that is an immaturity. sent12: if the squark is a then then the Methodists is a then. sent13: the fact that if the Methodists is not a kind of the battering then that the Methodists does not flinch but it is boskopoid is false hold. sent14: if the fact that something does not flinch but it is boskopoid is not right then it is not boskopoid. sent15: something that is not a then denaturalizes nautch and is a kind of a glasnost. sent16: the Methodists is not a battering. sent17: that the Methodists is neoplastic and it is a then does not hold.

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

the helvella is not neoplastic.

¬{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the helvella is neoplastic. ; $context$ = sent1: the Methodists is not neoplastic if that it is a kind of psycholinguistic thing that is not a curette is not right. sent2: if something is a glasnost the fact that the Methodists is a then and is a kind of an immaturity is not correct. sent3: there exists something such that it does denaturalize Paterson. sent4: the helvella is a kind of a then if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of an immaturity and it is not non-neoplastic is not correct. sent5: that the helvella is neoplastic is correct if there exists something such that the fact that it is a then that is an immaturity is not correct. sent6: that the Methodists is both not non-psycholinguistic and not a curette is not true. sent7: if something is a glasnost it is not neoplastic. sent8: if something is not an immaturity then the fact that the helvella is neoplastic is right. sent9: that something ransoms is not wrong. sent10: there is something such that it is not a baddeleyite. sent11: a non-boskopoid thing is a curette that is an immaturity. sent12: if the squark is a then then the Methodists is a then. sent13: the fact that if the Methodists is not a kind of the battering then that the Methodists does not flinch but it is boskopoid is false hold. sent14: if the fact that something does not flinch but it is boskopoid is not right then it is not boskopoid. sent15: something that is not a then denaturalizes nautch and is a kind of a glasnost. sent16: the Methodists is not a battering. sent17: that the Methodists is neoplastic and it is a then does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the thermionicsness does not occur and the zizz does not occur is right if the fact that the rotating happens is not wrong.

{B} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{A})

sent1: the unattributableness happens. sent2: the fact that that the target does not occur but the unstableness occurs is not false is caused by that the hurtling ninth occurs. sent3: that the pyrolatry does not occur and the rotating does not occur triggers that the zizz occurs. sent4: the hatlessness and the multiple happens if the lending does not occur. sent5: the pyrolatry does not occur and the zizz does not occur if that the hatlessness happens is right. sent6: the zizz yields that the eccentric happens. sent7: the fact that the lending does not occur and the multiple does not occur is not true if the target does not occur. sent8: the lending does not occur.

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

the eccentric happens.

{CK}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the thermionicsness does not occur and the zizz does not occur is right if the fact that the rotating happens is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the unattributableness happens. sent2: the fact that that the target does not occur but the unstableness occurs is not false is caused by that the hurtling ninth occurs. sent3: that the pyrolatry does not occur and the rotating does not occur triggers that the zizz occurs. sent4: the hatlessness and the multiple happens if the lending does not occur. sent5: the pyrolatry does not occur and the zizz does not occur if that the hatlessness happens is right. sent6: the zizz yields that the eccentric happens. sent7: the fact that the lending does not occur and the multiple does not occur is not true if the target does not occur. sent8: the lending does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the fact that the thermionicsness does not occur and the lathering nones does not occur is right is wrong.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the rotating occurs.; sent4 & sent8 -> int1: the hatlessness occurs and the multipleness happens.; int1 -> int2: the hatlessness happens.; sent5 & int2 -> int3: the pyrolatry does not occur and the zizz does not occur.; int3 -> int4: the zizz does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that there is something such that it does parody optometrist and it does not tingle does not hold.

¬((Ex): ({D}x & ¬{B}x))

sent1: the sparrow impregnates but it is not a toadshade. sent2: the brakes is unavailable if the fact that it is not a toadshade is correct. sent3: the thunderbolt tingles. sent4: the fact that something is a counterbalance that is a kind of a recission is not correct if it does not tingle. sent5: something is a kind of unavailable thing that does parody optometrist if that it is a kind of a toadshade is not true. sent6: that the thunderbolt is not a counterbalance hold if the fact that there is something such that the fact that it denaturalizes Plutarch and does surrender does not hold hold. sent7: the sparrow is not a counterbalance but it does impregnate if the thunderbolt is not a kind of a counterbalance. sent8: everything is not a kind of a toadshade. sent9: if that something is a counterbalance that is a kind of a recission is not correct it is not a recission. sent10: the host does impregnate. sent11: there exists something such that that it does denaturalize Plutarch and it is a surrender is false. sent12: if the sparrow is not a counterbalance but it impregnates then the brakes does not tingle.

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

everything is not a recission.

(x): ¬{FT}x

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that it does parody optometrist and it does not tingle does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the sparrow impregnates but it is not a toadshade. sent2: the brakes is unavailable if the fact that it is not a toadshade is correct. sent3: the thunderbolt tingles. sent4: the fact that something is a counterbalance that is a kind of a recission is not correct if it does not tingle. sent5: something is a kind of unavailable thing that does parody optometrist if that it is a kind of a toadshade is not true. sent6: that the thunderbolt is not a counterbalance hold if the fact that there is something such that the fact that it denaturalizes Plutarch and does surrender does not hold hold. sent7: the sparrow is not a counterbalance but it does impregnate if the thunderbolt is not a kind of a counterbalance. sent8: everything is not a kind of a toadshade. sent9: if that something is a counterbalance that is a kind of a recission is not correct it is not a recission. sent10: the host does impregnate. sent11: there exists something such that that it does denaturalize Plutarch and it is a surrender is false. sent12: if the sparrow is not a counterbalance but it impregnates then the brakes does not tingle. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent6 -> int1: that the thunderbolt is not a counterbalance is right.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the sparrow is not a counterbalance but it does impregnate.; int2 & sent12 -> int3: the brakes does not tingle.; sent5 -> int4: the brakes is unavailable and it does parody optometrist if it is not a toadshade.; sent8 -> int5: the brakes is not a toadshade.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the brakes is unavailable and it does parody optometrist.; int6 -> int7: the brakes does parody optometrist.; int3 & int7 -> int8: the brakes does parody optometrist and does not tingle.; int8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the haymaker does not lather fettuccine or it does not seel or both does not hold.

¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa})

sent1: if there is something such that that it does not variegate and is not a separationism does not hold then the Nanticoke variegate. sent2: the fact that something does not lather falangist but it is transcendental is not correct if it is Jungian. sent3: the amiodarone is a kind of transcendental thing that is not a Jungian. sent4: that the aculeus is a Jungian is not wrong if the fact that the Nanticoke does variegate hold. sent5: the ureter is a kind of a Jungian if the aculeus is a kind of a Jungian. sent6: if there is something such that that it is non-cosmic thing that is not a bilby is not right the amiodarone does not lather fettuccine. sent7: if something is not cosmic or it is not careful or both it does denature. sent8: if the Tatar is not an isomer that it does not denaturalize Morrison is not wrong. sent9: that the beaver is not cosmic and it is not a bilby does not hold if the ureter is not transcendental. sent10: if something is cosmic then it is a bilby. sent11: the Tatar is not a kind of an isomer. sent12: if that something does not lather falangist and is transcendental is false it is not transcendental. sent13: if the haymaker is a bilby then the fact that the amiodarone is transcendental but it is not a kind of a Jungian does not hold. sent14: if the Tatar does not denaturalize Morrison then that it does not variegate and it is not a kind of a separationism does not hold.

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

if the slope is not cosmic and/or is not careful then it denatures.

(¬{B}{dg} v ¬{BQ}{dg}) -> {EP}{dg}

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the haymaker does not lather fettuccine or it does not seel or both does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that that it does not variegate and is not a separationism does not hold then the Nanticoke variegate. sent2: the fact that something does not lather falangist but it is transcendental is not correct if it is Jungian. sent3: the amiodarone is a kind of transcendental thing that is not a Jungian. sent4: that the aculeus is a Jungian is not wrong if the fact that the Nanticoke does variegate hold. sent5: the ureter is a kind of a Jungian if the aculeus is a kind of a Jungian. sent6: if there is something such that that it is non-cosmic thing that is not a bilby is not right the amiodarone does not lather fettuccine. sent7: if something is not cosmic or it is not careful or both it does denature. sent8: if the Tatar is not an isomer that it does not denaturalize Morrison is not wrong. sent9: that the beaver is not cosmic and it is not a bilby does not hold if the ureter is not transcendental. sent10: if something is cosmic then it is a bilby. sent11: the Tatar is not a kind of an isomer. sent12: if that something does not lather falangist and is transcendental is false it is not transcendental. sent13: if the haymaker is a bilby then the fact that the amiodarone is transcendental but it is not a kind of a Jungian does not hold. sent14: if the Tatar does not denaturalize Morrison then that it does not variegate and it is not a kind of a separationism does not hold. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that either the haymaker does not lather fettuccine or it does not seel or both.; sent10 -> int1: if the haymaker is not non-cosmic then it is a kind of a bilby.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the isoagglutinin is not a kind of a citation.

¬{J}{f}

sent1: if the Fox is not a kind of a Chartist then that the patroness is not secretarial hold. sent2: if the peahen is a Shreveport then that the instillation does lather AEC but it is not a kind of a musk does not hold. sent3: the fact that the isoagglutinin does not frolic and/or it lathers canecutter is incorrect if that the autacoid is not a kind of a firetrap hold. sent4: if something is not a lapsed and it does not denaturalize bromoform it is not a club. sent5: if that something either does not frolic or lathers canecutter or both does not hold it is not a citation. sent6: that the Fox is not a airmailer and does not denaturalize Urocyon is not right. sent7: the isoagglutinin is a citation if the Fox is secretarial. sent8: the autacoid is not a firetrap if that that the instillation lathers AEC and is not a kind of a musk does not hold hold. sent9: the Fox is not a kind of a Chartist if the fact that it is not a airmailer and does not denaturalize Urocyon is not correct. sent10: the patroness is not a lapsed and does not denaturalize bromoform if the fact that the liar is a kind of a rounded is correct. sent11: the liar is rounded. sent12: the peahen is a kind of a Shreveport if the patroness is non-secretarial thing that does not club.

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

the isoagglutinin is a citation.

{J}{f}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the isoagglutinin is not a kind of a citation. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Fox is not a kind of a Chartist then that the patroness is not secretarial hold. sent2: if the peahen is a Shreveport then that the instillation does lather AEC but it is not a kind of a musk does not hold. sent3: the fact that the isoagglutinin does not frolic and/or it lathers canecutter is incorrect if that the autacoid is not a kind of a firetrap hold. sent4: if something is not a lapsed and it does not denaturalize bromoform it is not a club. sent5: if that something either does not frolic or lathers canecutter or both does not hold it is not a citation. sent6: that the Fox is not a airmailer and does not denaturalize Urocyon is not right. sent7: the isoagglutinin is a citation if the Fox is secretarial. sent8: the autacoid is not a firetrap if that that the instillation lathers AEC and is not a kind of a musk does not hold hold. sent9: the Fox is not a kind of a Chartist if the fact that it is not a airmailer and does not denaturalize Urocyon is not correct. sent10: the patroness is not a lapsed and does not denaturalize bromoform if the fact that the liar is a kind of a rounded is correct. sent11: the liar is rounded. sent12: the peahen is a kind of a Shreveport if the patroness is non-secretarial thing that does not club. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent6 -> int1: the Fox is not a kind of a Chartist.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the patroness is not secretarial.; sent4 -> int3: the patroness is not a club if it does not lapse and does not denaturalize bromoform.; sent10 & sent11 -> int4: the patroness is not a lapsed and does not denaturalize bromoform.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the patroness is not a club.; int2 & int5 -> int6: the patroness is non-secretarial thing that does not club.; int6 & sent12 -> int7: the peahen is a Shreveport.; int7 & sent2 -> int8: the fact that the instillation lathers AEC and is not a kind of a musk is not true.; int8 & sent8 -> int9: the autacoid is not a firetrap.; int9 & sent3 -> int10: that the isoagglutinin either does not frolic or lathers canecutter or both is false.; sent5 -> int11: the fact that the isoagglutinin is not the citation if that the isoagglutinin does not frolic and/or it does lather canecutter is not true hold.; int10 & int11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it does not denaturalize abjurer it is not a metonymy and it is a kind of an ingot.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: there is something such that if the fact that it does not denaturalize abjurer hold it is a kind of a metonymy and it is an ingot. sent2: if something is not a kind of a metonymy that it is not trustful and denaturalizes wombat is not false. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a dope then it hurtles evocation and is a word. sent4: something is not a metonymy but an ingot if it denaturalizes abjurer. sent5: there exists something such that if it does denaturalize abjurer it is not a kind of a metonymy and it is an ingot. sent6: there exists something such that if the fact that it does not denaturalize abjurer is not incorrect it is not a kind of a metonymy. sent7: if the car-ferry is cross-sentential then it does not denaturalize abjurer and is anaphoric. sent8: the car-ferry is not a kind of a metonymy if it does not denaturalize abjurer. sent9: if something is not fraternal it is a nuisance.

sent1: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (x): ¬{AA}x -> (¬{CR}x & {G}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬{EM}x -> ({BE}x & {IH}x) sent4: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent7: {DM}{aa} -> (¬{A}{aa} & {BO}{aa}) sent8: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬{HG}x -> {DU}x

the orthodontist is a kind of non-trustful thing that denaturalizes wombat if it is not a kind of a metonymy.

¬{AA}{jj} -> (¬{CR}{jj} & {G}{jj})

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it does not denaturalize abjurer it is not a metonymy and it is a kind of an ingot. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if the fact that it does not denaturalize abjurer hold it is a kind of a metonymy and it is an ingot. sent2: if something is not a kind of a metonymy that it is not trustful and denaturalizes wombat is not false. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a dope then it hurtles evocation and is a word. sent4: something is not a metonymy but an ingot if it denaturalizes abjurer. sent5: there exists something such that if it does denaturalize abjurer it is not a kind of a metonymy and it is an ingot. sent6: there exists something such that if the fact that it does not denaturalize abjurer is not incorrect it is not a kind of a metonymy. sent7: if the car-ferry is cross-sentential then it does not denaturalize abjurer and is anaphoric. sent8: the car-ferry is not a kind of a metonymy if it does not denaturalize abjurer. sent9: if something is not fraternal it is a nuisance. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the sectarianness does not occur if the hurtling sexpot happens is not right.

¬({C} -> ¬{D})

sent1: the presenting occurs. sent2: the bladderiness happens and the denaturalizing rollback occurs. sent3: if the figure occurs the aureole does not occur. sent4: the sectarianness happens. sent5: if the sculpturalness and the theist happens then the nonarbitrableness does not occur. sent6: the fact that the tie and the refund occurs is incorrect. sent7: the complex occurs. sent8: the fact that if the serendipity happens the complexness happens is right. sent9: if that not the sculpturalness but the quarantining occurs is not right the Dorian does not occur. sent10: that the fadeout does not occur is triggered by that not the recurring but the hurtling license happens. sent11: the denaturalizing pedophile does not occur if the fact that not the larceny but the eruptiveness happens is not correct. sent12: the sectarianness is prevented by that not the denaturalizing pedophile but the hurtling sexpot happens. sent13: if the eruptiveness does not occur the denaturalizing pedophile does not occur. sent14: the schismaticness happens. sent15: that not the denaturalizing pedophile but the hurtling sexpot occurs causes that the sectarianness occurs. sent16: that the larceny does not occur but the eruptiveness occurs yields the non-bladderiness.

sent1: {EU} sent2: ({B} & {E}) sent3: {DC} -> ¬{DS} sent4: {D} sent5: ({JC} & {IM}) -> ¬{DK} sent6: ¬({EG} & {JB}) sent7: {FK} sent8: {S} -> {FK} sent9: ¬(¬{JC} & {J}) -> ¬{HH} sent10: (¬{IO} & {IP}) -> ¬{BQ} sent11: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{A} sent12: (¬{A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent13: ¬{AB} -> ¬{A} sent14: {ER} sent15: (¬{A} & {C}) -> {D} sent16: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the sectarianness does not occur if the hurtling sexpot happens is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the presenting occurs. sent2: the bladderiness happens and the denaturalizing rollback occurs. sent3: if the figure occurs the aureole does not occur. sent4: the sectarianness happens. sent5: if the sculpturalness and the theist happens then the nonarbitrableness does not occur. sent6: the fact that the tie and the refund occurs is incorrect. sent7: the complex occurs. sent8: the fact that if the serendipity happens the complexness happens is right. sent9: if that not the sculpturalness but the quarantining occurs is not right the Dorian does not occur. sent10: that the fadeout does not occur is triggered by that not the recurring but the hurtling license happens. sent11: the denaturalizing pedophile does not occur if the fact that not the larceny but the eruptiveness happens is not correct. sent12: the sectarianness is prevented by that not the denaturalizing pedophile but the hurtling sexpot happens. sent13: if the eruptiveness does not occur the denaturalizing pedophile does not occur. sent14: the schismaticness happens. sent15: that not the denaturalizing pedophile but the hurtling sexpot occurs causes that the sectarianness occurs. sent16: that the larceny does not occur but the eruptiveness occurs yields the non-bladderiness. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that not the larceny but the eruptiveness happens.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the bladderiness does not occur.; sent2 -> int2: the bladderiness occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that not the larceny but the eruptiveness occurs does not hold.; int4 & sent11 -> int5: the denaturalizing pedophile does not occur.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the hurtling sexpot happens.; int5 & assump2 -> int6: not the denaturalizing pedophile but the hurtling sexpot happens.; int6 & sent12 -> int7: the sectarianness does not occur.; [assump2] & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

either the soffit is autotomic or it is a transudate or both.

({F}{d} v {E}{d})

sent1: that something is inexplicable thing that is not reverent is wrong if it is not an incisor. sent2: if the fact that the ferret is not explicable and it is not reverent does not hold then the soffit is a transudate. sent3: the fruitlet is a klondike. sent4: something is not explicable if it is not reverent. sent5: if there exists something such that that it is not a cloister and it does not lather pedophile is false then the ferret is not an incisor. sent6: the fact that something is autotomic and/or is a transudate is not true if the fact that it is not a klondike is not incorrect.

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

that the soffit is autotomic and/or it is a kind of a transudate is false.

¬({F}{d} v {E}{d})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = either the soffit is autotomic or it is a transudate or both. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is inexplicable thing that is not reverent is wrong if it is not an incisor. sent2: if the fact that the ferret is not explicable and it is not reverent does not hold then the soffit is a transudate. sent3: the fruitlet is a klondike. sent4: something is not explicable if it is not reverent. sent5: if there exists something such that that it is not a cloister and it does not lather pedophile is false then the ferret is not an incisor. sent6: the fact that something is autotomic and/or is a transudate is not true if the fact that it is not a klondike is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the fact that the ferret is not explicable and is not reverent is wrong if it is not a kind of an incisor.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the helvella is not a Joliot and/or is not a Aleut is not true.

¬(¬{D}{a} v ¬{E}{a})

sent1: the midwife is euclidian. sent2: The rollback does hurtle midwife. sent3: if the accretion is a kind of a prodigal the helvella is a prodigal. sent4: if something is not a Aleut the fact that it is a semi-climber and is not a kind of a prodigal is not correct. sent5: the helvella does not hurtle citation but it is a semi-climber. sent6: the midwife does not hurtle motmot if that it hurtles rollback is not false. sent7: the fact that the accretion is a kind of actuarial thing that is a Aleut does not hold. sent8: if the fact that the helvella is not a Joliot but it hurtles motmot is not true then that the Merlot crumbles is not false. sent9: the midwife does hurtle rollback. sent10: the midwife is a kind of a semi-climber and it does hurtle motmot if the accretion is not a prodigal. sent11: if the accretion does hurtle motmot it is a kind of a prodigal. sent12: the Merlot is not a Aleut. sent13: if something does not hurtle rollback the fact that it is not a Joliot and does hurtle motmot is false. sent14: if that the helvella does not hurtle citation but it is unfit is incorrect then it is not a kind of a Joliot. sent15: the midwife does not hurtle citation. sent16: if the helvella does not hurtle citation but it is unfit then the accretion is not a kind of a prodigal. sent17: something is a semi-climber if the fact that it is a prodigal is not wrong. sent18: the zarf is unfit. sent19: if the fact that something is a kind of a semi-climber but it is not a prodigal is false then it is a Miocene.

sent1: {ET}{c} sent2: {AE}{ac} sent3: {B}{b} -> {B}{a} sent4: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent5: (¬{AA}{a} & {A}{a}) sent6: {F}{c} -> ¬{C}{c} sent7: ¬({HR}{b} & {E}{b}) sent8: ¬(¬{D}{a} & {C}{a}) -> {FP}{et} sent9: {F}{c} sent10: ¬{B}{b} -> ({A}{c} & {C}{c}) sent11: {C}{b} -> {B}{b} sent12: ¬{E}{et} sent13: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) sent14: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent15: ¬{AA}{c} sent16: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent17: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent18: {AB}{em} sent19: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {FJ}x

that the fact that either the helvella is not a Joliot or it is not a Aleut or both is not true is true.

¬(¬{D}{a} v ¬{E}{a})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the helvella is not a Joliot and/or is not a Aleut is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the midwife is euclidian. sent2: The rollback does hurtle midwife. sent3: if the accretion is a kind of a prodigal the helvella is a prodigal. sent4: if something is not a Aleut the fact that it is a semi-climber and is not a kind of a prodigal is not correct. sent5: the helvella does not hurtle citation but it is a semi-climber. sent6: the midwife does not hurtle motmot if that it hurtles rollback is not false. sent7: the fact that the accretion is a kind of actuarial thing that is a Aleut does not hold. sent8: if the fact that the helvella is not a Joliot but it hurtles motmot is not true then that the Merlot crumbles is not false. sent9: the midwife does hurtle rollback. sent10: the midwife is a kind of a semi-climber and it does hurtle motmot if the accretion is not a prodigal. sent11: if the accretion does hurtle motmot it is a kind of a prodigal. sent12: the Merlot is not a Aleut. sent13: if something does not hurtle rollback the fact that it is not a Joliot and does hurtle motmot is false. sent14: if that the helvella does not hurtle citation but it is unfit is incorrect then it is not a kind of a Joliot. sent15: the midwife does not hurtle citation. sent16: if the helvella does not hurtle citation but it is unfit then the accretion is not a kind of a prodigal. sent17: something is a semi-climber if the fact that it is a prodigal is not wrong. sent18: the zarf is unfit. sent19: if the fact that something is a kind of a semi-climber but it is not a prodigal is false then it is a Miocene. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the helvella does not hurtle citation but it is unfit.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the accretion is not a kind of a prodigal is not incorrect.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the midwife is a kind of a semi-climber and hurtles motmot.; int2 -> int3: the midwife hurtles motmot.; sent6 & sent9 -> int4: that the midwife does not hurtle motmot is right.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the fact that the helvella does not hurtle citation but it is unfit is not true.; int6 & sent14 -> int7: the helvella is not a Joliot.; int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the broadbill is not overt is not wrong either the broody is a separate or it parodies strain or both.

¬{A}{b} -> ({E}{c} v {D}{c})

sent1: the fact that the anticholinesterase is a kind of a Ukrainian but it is not a kind of a Cattell does not hold. sent2: if the fact that the anticholinesterase is not a Ukrainian and it is not a Cattell does not hold the broadbill is not a kind of a Syzygium. sent3: there is something such that it is effective. sent4: the broody is a separate and/or parodies strain if there exists something such that it does lope. sent5: something is a endomorphy if it does not parody warpath and is not an internationalization. sent6: if the fact that the broody does not parody strain is right the broadbill is a Cattell and/or a Syzygium. sent7: that the anticholinesterase is a kind of non-Ukrainian thing that is not a Cattell is false. sent8: if something that is not a kind of a Syzygium is not overt then it lopes. sent9: if the anticholinesterase is a Ukrainian then the broadbill is not a Syzygium. sent10: something that is not a Cattell and does not lope is not a Syzygium. sent11: the broody is a kind of a separate and/or it does parody strain if the broadbill is overt.

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = if the fact that the broadbill is not overt is not wrong either the broody is a separate or it parodies strain or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the anticholinesterase is a kind of a Ukrainian but it is not a kind of a Cattell does not hold. sent2: if the fact that the anticholinesterase is not a Ukrainian and it is not a Cattell does not hold the broadbill is not a kind of a Syzygium. sent3: there is something such that it is effective. sent4: the broody is a separate and/or parodies strain if there exists something such that it does lope. sent5: something is a endomorphy if it does not parody warpath and is not an internationalization. sent6: if the fact that the broody does not parody strain is right the broadbill is a Cattell and/or a Syzygium. sent7: that the anticholinesterase is a kind of non-Ukrainian thing that is not a Cattell is false. sent8: if something that is not a kind of a Syzygium is not overt then it lopes. sent9: if the anticholinesterase is a Ukrainian then the broadbill is not a Syzygium. sent10: something that is not a Cattell and does not lope is not a Syzygium. sent11: the broody is a kind of a separate and/or it does parody strain if the broadbill is overt. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the fact that the broadbill is not a Syzygium is not wrong.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the broadbill is not overt.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the broadbill is not a Syzygium and it is not overt.; sent8 -> int3: if the broadbill is not a Syzygium and it is not overt then it lopes.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the broadbill does lope.; int4 -> int5: the fact that something lopes is correct.; int5 & sent4 -> int6: that the broody separates and/or it parodies strain hold.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the hurtling babirusa occurs.

{G}

sent1: the fact that the hurtling babirusa does not occur hold if that either the attributiveness happens or the deportation does not occur or both is incorrect. sent2: the pyloricness happens if the typeset does not occur. sent3: the fracturing happens. sent4: the attributiveness happens. sent5: the parodying inactiveness occurs and the take-up does not occur if the deportation does not occur. sent6: that the eviction happens leads to that the troll does not occur and/or the Alpinism happens. sent7: that the attributiveness happens or the deportation does not occur or both does not hold if the take-up occurs. sent8: if the eviction does not occur the hurtling babirusa happens. sent9: the pedunculateness does not occur if that the attributiveness occurs and/or the deportation does not occur does not hold. sent10: if the unawaresness but not the equilibration occurs the attributiveness does not occur. sent11: that the synchronization does not occur triggers that not the denaturalizing Eglevsky but the eviction occurs. sent12: the troll happens and the Alpinism happens. sent13: that the eviction does not occur is triggered by that both the parodying inactiveness and the troll occurs.

sent1: ¬({B} v ¬{A}) -> ¬{G} sent2: ¬{BO} -> {HJ} sent3: {DD} sent4: {B} sent5: ¬{A} -> ({D} & ¬{C}) sent6: {F} -> (¬{E} v {H}) sent7: {C} -> ¬({B} v ¬{A}) sent8: ¬{F} -> {G} sent9: ¬({B} v ¬{A}) -> ¬{IL} sent10: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent11: ¬{J} -> (¬{I} & {F}) sent12: ({E} & {H}) sent13: ({D} & {E}) -> ¬{F}

the pedunculateness does not occur.

¬{IL}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hurtling babirusa occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the hurtling babirusa does not occur hold if that either the attributiveness happens or the deportation does not occur or both is incorrect. sent2: the pyloricness happens if the typeset does not occur. sent3: the fracturing happens. sent4: the attributiveness happens. sent5: the parodying inactiveness occurs and the take-up does not occur if the deportation does not occur. sent6: that the eviction happens leads to that the troll does not occur and/or the Alpinism happens. sent7: that the attributiveness happens or the deportation does not occur or both does not hold if the take-up occurs. sent8: if the eviction does not occur the hurtling babirusa happens. sent9: the pedunculateness does not occur if that the attributiveness occurs and/or the deportation does not occur does not hold. sent10: if the unawaresness but not the equilibration occurs the attributiveness does not occur. sent11: that the synchronization does not occur triggers that not the denaturalizing Eglevsky but the eviction occurs. sent12: the troll happens and the Alpinism happens. sent13: that the eviction does not occur is triggered by that both the parodying inactiveness and the troll occurs. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the deportation happens.; sent12 -> int1: the troll happens.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the bonfire but not the tympaniticness happens is brought about by that the transeuntness happens.

{B} -> ({A} & ¬{C})

sent1: the hurtling ashtray yields that the meningealness but not the fabianness occurs. sent2: the omissiveness does not occur if that the bonfire does not occur and the transeuntness does not occur is not true. sent3: that the soul and the non-virtuousness happens is brought about by that the clickety-clack happens. sent4: the mist does not occur. sent5: that the bonfire does not occur prevents the transeuntness. sent6: the mechanicalness does not occur and the clenching does not occur. sent7: that the hurtling bribery happens yields that the clickety-clack but not the hurtling Masorah occurs. sent8: the simulation does not occur. sent9: the follicularness happens. sent10: the non-transeuntness is prevented by that the bonfire does not occur. sent11: that the lathering redtail happens hold. sent12: the fact that the lathering Devon does not occur is true. sent13: the tuberculateness does not occur.

sent1: {EN} -> ({JB} & ¬{AE}) sent2: ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{GI} sent3: {HH} -> ({DU} & ¬{AB}) sent4: ¬{D} sent5: ¬{A} -> ¬{B} sent6: (¬{AO} & ¬{CT}) sent7: {HM} -> ({HH} & ¬{BK}) sent8: ¬{EK} sent9: {BC} sent10: ¬{A} -> {B} sent11: {DQ} sent12: ¬{BB} sent13: ¬{BT}

the omissiveness does not occur.

¬{GI}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the bonfire but not the tympaniticness happens is brought about by that the transeuntness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the hurtling ashtray yields that the meningealness but not the fabianness occurs. sent2: the omissiveness does not occur if that the bonfire does not occur and the transeuntness does not occur is not true. sent3: that the soul and the non-virtuousness happens is brought about by that the clickety-clack happens. sent4: the mist does not occur. sent5: that the bonfire does not occur prevents the transeuntness. sent6: the mechanicalness does not occur and the clenching does not occur. sent7: that the hurtling bribery happens yields that the clickety-clack but not the hurtling Masorah occurs. sent8: the simulation does not occur. sent9: the follicularness happens. sent10: the non-transeuntness is prevented by that the bonfire does not occur. sent11: that the lathering redtail happens hold. sent12: the fact that the lathering Devon does not occur is true. sent13: the tuberculateness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bonfire does not occur.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: that the transeuntness does not occur is true.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the transeuntness occurs.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the bonfire happens.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that if the fact that the denaturalizing Squalidae does not occur is true then both the extraterrestrialness and the indelicacy happens does not hold.

¬(¬{D} -> ({E} & {F}))

sent1: if that the hurtling phonophobia and the mot occurs is not true then the hurtling phonophobia does not occur. sent2: if the denaturalizing nones happens then the fact that the undulation and the non-Quechuanness happens does not hold. sent3: the endarterectomy does not occur. sent4: that the extraterrestrialness happens is caused by that the communications happens. sent5: both the indelicacy and the backhandedness happens. sent6: if that the undulation but not the Quechuanness occurs does not hold then the oral does not occur. sent7: if the endarterectomy does not occur then the catachresticness does not occur and/or the docking does not occur. sent8: if the backhandedness does not occur then both the non-extraterrestrialness and the indelicacy happens. sent9: if the awainess does not occur both the non-mousyness and the non-bellylessness occurs. sent10: that the backhandedness occurs is prevented by that the mousiness does not occur and the bellylessness does not occur. sent11: the backhanding occurs. sent12: that the hurtling phonophobia happens and the mot occurs is not correct if the lathering nasalization does not occur. sent13: the hurtling blockage and the gastromy happens. sent14: both the denaturalizing nones and the tip-off happens if that the hurtling phonophobia does not occur is right. sent15: if the encounter happens the paroling and the lathering ashtray happens. sent16: the denaturalizing Squalidae occurs if the accompaniment but not the communications happens. sent17: that the denaturalizing uplifting and the accompaniment occurs is correct. sent18: that the communications does not occur or the denaturalizing Squalidae does not occur or both is triggered by the non-extraterrestrialness. sent19: the denaturalizing uplifting occurs and the Jacobinicness happens if the accompaniment does not occur. sent20: both the singlesness and the hurtling blockage occurs if the oralness does not occur. sent21: that not the awainess but the inconvertibleness happens is triggered by that the singles occurs. sent22: the lathering nasalization does not occur if the catachresticness does not occur.

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

the Jacobinicness occurs.

{GS}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that if the fact that the denaturalizing Squalidae does not occur is true then both the extraterrestrialness and the indelicacy happens does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the hurtling phonophobia and the mot occurs is not true then the hurtling phonophobia does not occur. sent2: if the denaturalizing nones happens then the fact that the undulation and the non-Quechuanness happens does not hold. sent3: the endarterectomy does not occur. sent4: that the extraterrestrialness happens is caused by that the communications happens. sent5: both the indelicacy and the backhandedness happens. sent6: if that the undulation but not the Quechuanness occurs does not hold then the oral does not occur. sent7: if the endarterectomy does not occur then the catachresticness does not occur and/or the docking does not occur. sent8: if the backhandedness does not occur then both the non-extraterrestrialness and the indelicacy happens. sent9: if the awainess does not occur both the non-mousyness and the non-bellylessness occurs. sent10: that the backhandedness occurs is prevented by that the mousiness does not occur and the bellylessness does not occur. sent11: the backhanding occurs. sent12: that the hurtling phonophobia happens and the mot occurs is not correct if the lathering nasalization does not occur. sent13: the hurtling blockage and the gastromy happens. sent14: both the denaturalizing nones and the tip-off happens if that the hurtling phonophobia does not occur is right. sent15: if the encounter happens the paroling and the lathering ashtray happens. sent16: the denaturalizing Squalidae occurs if the accompaniment but not the communications happens. sent17: that the denaturalizing uplifting and the accompaniment occurs is correct. sent18: that the communications does not occur or the denaturalizing Squalidae does not occur or both is triggered by the non-extraterrestrialness. sent19: the denaturalizing uplifting occurs and the Jacobinicness happens if the accompaniment does not occur. sent20: both the singlesness and the hurtling blockage occurs if the oralness does not occur. sent21: that not the awainess but the inconvertibleness happens is triggered by that the singles occurs. sent22: the lathering nasalization does not occur if the catachresticness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent17 -> int1: the accompaniment happens.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the communications does not occur.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the accompaniment occurs and the communications does not occur.; int2 & sent16 -> int3: the denaturalizing Squalidae occurs.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the denaturalizing Squalidae does not occur.; int3 & assump2 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the communications occurs.; int5 & sent4 -> int6: the fact that the extraterrestrial happens is correct.; sent5 -> int7: the indelicacy happens.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the extraterrestrial happens and the indelicacy happens.; [assump2] & int8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the currycomb is both a trad and a yard.

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

sent1: if something is not a caper that it is a trad and it is a yard is not right. sent2: if the currycomb does not hurtle backgammon and it does not toss it is a trad. sent3: the tie is not insatiate but it is a kind of a caper. sent4: if that something is a kind of a archipallium and/or it is insatiate is false then it is not a caper. sent5: the currycomb is a yard. sent6: if the cephaloglycin is not a archipallium then the fact that the tie is satiate a caper is not correct. sent7: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a caper then the bartlett does not toss.

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

the fact that the currycomb is a trad and a yard is incorrect.

¬({D}{a} & {E}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the currycomb is both a trad and a yard. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a caper that it is a trad and it is a yard is not right. sent2: if the currycomb does not hurtle backgammon and it does not toss it is a trad. sent3: the tie is not insatiate but it is a kind of a caper. sent4: if that something is a kind of a archipallium and/or it is insatiate is false then it is not a caper. sent5: the currycomb is a yard. sent6: if the cephaloglycin is not a archipallium then the fact that the tie is satiate a caper is not correct. sent7: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a caper then the bartlett does not toss. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the timidness happens if the Syrian occurs.

{D} -> {G}

sent1: that the bone occurs is brought about by that the parodying improvisation and the doing occurs. sent2: the nontaxableness occurs and the spluttering happens. sent3: the vengeance happens. sent4: that the spluttering happens and the Sunnah happens prevents that the Syrianness happens. sent5: the denaturalizing eeriness does not occur if the Sunnah does not occur. sent6: that the Sunnah does not occur yields that the denaturalizing Astor happens and the denaturalizing eeriness does not occur. sent7: that both the cinerariness and the boustrophedonicness occurs brings about the non-untranslatableness. sent8: that the saturation does not occur is correct. sent9: the denaturalizing eeriness does not occur. sent10: the lathering doom does not occur if the haploid does not occur. sent11: the nontaxableness occurs. sent12: the self-preservation happens. sent13: the concert happens but the formal does not occur. sent14: that the denaturalizing Astor occurs and the denaturalizing eeriness does not occur causes that the timidness occurs. sent15: if the spluttering happens and the Sunnah occurs then the Syrianness occurs. sent16: if both the denaturalizing Astor and the denaturalizing eeriness happens the timidness occurs. sent17: the fact that the lathering Termitidae happens is not wrong.

sent1: ({EG} & {U}) -> {HL} sent2: ({A} & {B}) sent3: {R} sent4: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent5: ¬{C} -> ¬{E} sent6: ¬{C} -> ({F} & ¬{E}) sent7: ({HS} & {EM}) -> ¬{CH} sent8: ¬{J} sent9: ¬{E} sent10: ¬{DJ} -> ¬{DA} sent11: {A} sent12: {EU} sent13: ({DR} & ¬{EB}) sent14: ({F} & ¬{E}) -> {G} sent15: ({B} & {C}) -> {D} sent16: ({F} & {E}) -> {G} sent17: {IH}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the timidness happens if the Syrian occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the bone occurs is brought about by that the parodying improvisation and the doing occurs. sent2: the nontaxableness occurs and the spluttering happens. sent3: the vengeance happens. sent4: that the spluttering happens and the Sunnah happens prevents that the Syrianness happens. sent5: the denaturalizing eeriness does not occur if the Sunnah does not occur. sent6: that the Sunnah does not occur yields that the denaturalizing Astor happens and the denaturalizing eeriness does not occur. sent7: that both the cinerariness and the boustrophedonicness occurs brings about the non-untranslatableness. sent8: that the saturation does not occur is correct. sent9: the denaturalizing eeriness does not occur. sent10: the lathering doom does not occur if the haploid does not occur. sent11: the nontaxableness occurs. sent12: the self-preservation happens. sent13: the concert happens but the formal does not occur. sent14: that the denaturalizing Astor occurs and the denaturalizing eeriness does not occur causes that the timidness occurs. sent15: if the spluttering happens and the Sunnah occurs then the Syrianness occurs. sent16: if both the denaturalizing Astor and the denaturalizing eeriness happens the timidness occurs. sent17: the fact that the lathering Termitidae happens is not wrong. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump2: Let's assume that the Syrianness occurs.; sent2 -> int1: the spluttering occurs.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Sunnah occurs.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the spluttering occurs and the Sunnah happens.; sent4 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the Syrian does not occur is right.; assump2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the Sunnah does not occur.; sent6 & int5 -> int6: the denaturalizing Astor happens and the denaturalizing eeriness does not occur.; sent14 & int6 -> int7: the timidness occurs.; [assump2] & int7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the pleuralness does not occur.

¬{A}

sent1: that the denaturalizing Livy does not occur but the hurtling telpher occurs is not correct. sent2: if the fact that the denaturalizing Livy does not occur but the hurtling telpher occurs is incorrect the hurtling telpher does not occur. sent3: the immorality occurs and the denaturalizing conference occurs. sent4: that the Zaireanness happens is brought about by the pleuralness.

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pleuralness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the denaturalizing Livy does not occur but the hurtling telpher occurs is not correct. sent2: if the fact that the denaturalizing Livy does not occur but the hurtling telpher occurs is incorrect the hurtling telpher does not occur. sent3: the immorality occurs and the denaturalizing conference occurs. sent4: that the Zaireanness happens is brought about by the pleuralness. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pleuralness happens.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the Zaireanness occurs.; sent2 & sent1 -> int2: the hurtling telpher does not occur.; sent3 -> int3: the denaturalizing conference happens.; int2 & int3 -> int4: not the hurtling telpher but the denaturalizing conference happens.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the klaxon is a kind of a disenchantment and lathers resh.

({G}{e} & {H}{e})

sent1: the virago is not a grantor if the fact that the liquefaction is a skiing but it is not a kind of a osteology is not right. sent2: the fact that the yard is not genetics and/or it hurtles secularism is not false. sent3: if the crape is not unshockable the klaxon is both taxable and a disenchantment. sent4: the trench is papal if the liquefaction is not a kind of a ruddle and/or it is a grantor. sent5: if the liquefaction is a ruddle the fact that it is both a disenchantment and not a grantor is not right. sent6: that the klaxon does lather resh hold if something either does not hurtle secularism or is not a kind of a modernist or both. sent7: the fact that the liquefaction is not a ruddle is not wrong. sent8: the crape is a migrator and it does hurtle Quincy. sent9: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Pica and is a kind of a Sabine does not hold. sent10: the virago is not unshockable if either it is not unshockable or it is a kind of a disenchantment or both. sent11: the tarn is not papal. sent12: that the liquefaction is a kind of a skiing but it is not a kind of a osteology is not correct if it is not a kind of a ruddle. sent13: the fact that the yard lathers resh is not incorrect. sent14: there exists something such that the fact that it does not inscribe and is not a disenchantment is not right. sent15: that the yard is a kind of non-genetics thing that does not inscribe is not right if the virago is not a grantor. sent16: there is something such that the fact that it is non-genetics thing that does inscribe is not correct. sent17: that the saltine is shockable a algometer is not correct. sent18: something is not a disenchantment if the fact that it is a disenchantment and it is not a grantor is false. sent19: the klaxon is a modernist if there exists something such that it is nontaxable. sent20: the crape is not unshockable if there exists something such that the fact that it is not genetics and does not inscribe is not right. sent21: if the yard is not a grantor that the liquefaction is not genetics but it does ruddle is not right. sent22: something is genetics and it does inscribe if it is not unshockable. sent23: the tarn does not hurtle secularism if it is not papal. sent24: something is both not a steenbok and not unobjectionable.

sent1: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: (¬{C}{c} v {J}{c}) sent3: ¬{E}{d} -> ({F}{e} & {G}{e}) sent4: (¬{A}{a} v {B}{a}) -> {K}{fo} sent5: {A}{a} -> ¬({G}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent6: (x): (¬{J}x v ¬{I}x) -> {H}{e} sent7: ¬{A}{a} sent8: ({FG}{d} & {HM}{d}) sent9: (Ex): ¬(¬{EF}x & {AL}x) sent10: (¬{E}{b} v {G}{b}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent11: ¬{K}{f} sent12: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent13: {H}{c} sent14: (Ex): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{G}x) sent15: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent16: (Ex): ¬(¬{C}x & {D}x) sent17: ¬(¬{E}{bm} & {CU}{bm}) sent18: (x): ¬({G}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{G}x sent19: (x): ¬{F}x -> {I}{e} sent20: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{E}{d} sent21: ¬{B}{c} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} & {A}{a}) sent22: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x & {D}x) sent23: ¬{K}{f} -> ¬{J}{f} sent24: (Ex): (¬{BP}x & ¬{HE}x)

the fact that the klaxon is a kind of a disenchantment and it lathers resh does not hold.

¬({G}{e} & {H}{e})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the klaxon is a kind of a disenchantment and lathers resh. ; $context$ = sent1: the virago is not a grantor if the fact that the liquefaction is a skiing but it is not a kind of a osteology is not right. sent2: the fact that the yard is not genetics and/or it hurtles secularism is not false. sent3: if the crape is not unshockable the klaxon is both taxable and a disenchantment. sent4: the trench is papal if the liquefaction is not a kind of a ruddle and/or it is a grantor. sent5: if the liquefaction is a ruddle the fact that it is both a disenchantment and not a grantor is not right. sent6: that the klaxon does lather resh hold if something either does not hurtle secularism or is not a kind of a modernist or both. sent7: the fact that the liquefaction is not a ruddle is not wrong. sent8: the crape is a migrator and it does hurtle Quincy. sent9: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Pica and is a kind of a Sabine does not hold. sent10: the virago is not unshockable if either it is not unshockable or it is a kind of a disenchantment or both. sent11: the tarn is not papal. sent12: that the liquefaction is a kind of a skiing but it is not a kind of a osteology is not correct if it is not a kind of a ruddle. sent13: the fact that the yard lathers resh is not incorrect. sent14: there exists something such that the fact that it does not inscribe and is not a disenchantment is not right. sent15: that the yard is a kind of non-genetics thing that does not inscribe is not right if the virago is not a grantor. sent16: there is something such that the fact that it is non-genetics thing that does inscribe is not correct. sent17: that the saltine is shockable a algometer is not correct. sent18: something is not a disenchantment if the fact that it is a disenchantment and it is not a grantor is false. sent19: the klaxon is a modernist if there exists something such that it is nontaxable. sent20: the crape is not unshockable if there exists something such that the fact that it is not genetics and does not inscribe is not right. sent21: if the yard is not a grantor that the liquefaction is not genetics but it does ruddle is not right. sent22: something is genetics and it does inscribe if it is not unshockable. sent23: the tarn does not hurtle secularism if it is not papal. sent24: something is both not a steenbok and not unobjectionable. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent7 -> int1: that the liquefaction does ski and is not a osteology is false.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the virago is not a grantor.; int2 & sent15 -> int3: that the yard is non-genetics and it does not inscribe is not correct.; int3 -> int4: there exists something such that the fact that it is non-genetics and it does not inscribe is incorrect.; int4 & sent20 -> int5: the crape is not unshockable.; int5 & sent3 -> int6: the klaxon is a kind of taxable a disenchantment.; int6 -> int7: the klaxon is a disenchantment.; sent23 & sent11 -> int8: the tarn does not hurtle secularism.; int8 -> int9: the tarn does not hurtle secularism and/or it is not a modernist.; int9 -> int10: either something does not hurtle secularism or it is not a modernist or both.; int10 & sent6 -> int11: the klaxon lathers resh.; int7 & int11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the pecan is not wolflike.

¬{G}{d}

sent1: the bullet is a kind of a Clay. sent2: the Blackshirt is a kind of a achondrite if the rockers is a Clay. sent3: if the rockers is a Mimosoideae it is both not a fell and a Clay. sent4: the pecan is not wolflike if the fact that it is undue is true. sent5: the Blackshirt is wolflike. sent6: the bullet is not undue. sent7: if the bullet is a kind of a halma then the rockers is a Mimosoideae. sent8: if the Blackshirt is a kind of a achondrite then the pecan is not non-wolflike. sent9: the stepfather does lather astrodome but it is not a fell. sent10: the bullet is a halma but it is not undue.

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the pecan is not wolflike. ; $context$ = sent1: the bullet is a kind of a Clay. sent2: the Blackshirt is a kind of a achondrite if the rockers is a Clay. sent3: if the rockers is a Mimosoideae it is both not a fell and a Clay. sent4: the pecan is not wolflike if the fact that it is undue is true. sent5: the Blackshirt is wolflike. sent6: the bullet is not undue. sent7: if the bullet is a kind of a halma then the rockers is a Mimosoideae. sent8: if the Blackshirt is a kind of a achondrite then the pecan is not non-wolflike. sent9: the stepfather does lather astrodome but it is not a fell. sent10: the bullet is a halma but it is not undue. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the bullet is a kind of a halma.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the rockers is a Mimosoideae.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the rockers is not a fell and is a Clay.; int3 -> int4: the fact that the rockers is a Clay is not incorrect.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: the Blackshirt is a achondrite.; int5 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

not the interrupt but the artillery occurs.

(¬{C} & {D})

sent1: the susceptibleness occurs if the upper-classness occurs. sent2: that the lathering modernism occurs yields that not the inculcation but the injury happens. sent3: that the interrupt does not occur but the artillery occurs is brought about by the susceptibleness. sent4: the interrupting does not occur if the susceptibleness occurs. sent5: the maxillomandibularness does not occur. sent6: the fact that the pyrogenicness happens hold. sent7: if the susceptibleness does not occur but the lathering warpath happens the fact that the upper-classness does not occur is right. sent8: that the maxillomandibularness does not occur leads to the parodying Pitman and/or that the saunter happens. sent9: the fact that the parodying cape does not occur is incorrect. sent10: the interrupt does not occur. sent11: the artillery does not occur and the interrupting does not occur if the lathering warpath does not occur. sent12: not the pressing but the roar happens if the quantitativeness occurs. sent13: the sallow does not occur and the lathering argon occurs. sent14: the population does not occur if that both the repercussion and the population occurs does not hold. sent15: the fact that the lathering warpath does not occur is not false if that the leaning and the hopscotch occurs is wrong. sent16: not the lathering musketry but the diffusing happens. sent17: the susceptibleness does not occur and the hopscotch does not occur if the population occurs. sent18: if the parodying Pitman happens the population occurs. sent19: the upper-classness happens. sent20: that the interrupting does not occur and the artillery occurs is not true if the upper-classness does not occur.

sent1: {A} -> {B} sent2: {FU} -> (¬{GR} & {AK}) sent3: {B} -> (¬{C} & {D}) sent4: {B} -> ¬{C} sent5: ¬{N} sent6: {BR} sent7: (¬{B} & {E}) -> ¬{A} sent8: ¬{N} -> ({J} v {K}) sent9: {BF} sent10: ¬{C} sent11: ¬{E} -> (¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent12: {CA} -> (¬{IL} & {AQ}) sent13: (¬{CQ} & {GL}) sent14: ¬({I} & {H}) -> ¬{H} sent15: ¬({G} & {F}) -> ¬{E} sent16: (¬{HK} & {AS}) sent17: {H} -> (¬{B} & ¬{F}) sent18: {J} -> {H} sent19: {A} sent20: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{C} & {D})

the denaturalizing Descurainia happens.

{BK}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = not the interrupt but the artillery occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the susceptibleness occurs if the upper-classness occurs. sent2: that the lathering modernism occurs yields that not the inculcation but the injury happens. sent3: that the interrupt does not occur but the artillery occurs is brought about by the susceptibleness. sent4: the interrupting does not occur if the susceptibleness occurs. sent5: the maxillomandibularness does not occur. sent6: the fact that the pyrogenicness happens hold. sent7: if the susceptibleness does not occur but the lathering warpath happens the fact that the upper-classness does not occur is right. sent8: that the maxillomandibularness does not occur leads to the parodying Pitman and/or that the saunter happens. sent9: the fact that the parodying cape does not occur is incorrect. sent10: the interrupt does not occur. sent11: the artillery does not occur and the interrupting does not occur if the lathering warpath does not occur. sent12: not the pressing but the roar happens if the quantitativeness occurs. sent13: the sallow does not occur and the lathering argon occurs. sent14: the population does not occur if that both the repercussion and the population occurs does not hold. sent15: the fact that the lathering warpath does not occur is not false if that the leaning and the hopscotch occurs is wrong. sent16: not the lathering musketry but the diffusing happens. sent17: the susceptibleness does not occur and the hopscotch does not occur if the population occurs. sent18: if the parodying Pitman happens the population occurs. sent19: the upper-classness happens. sent20: that the interrupting does not occur and the artillery occurs is not true if the upper-classness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent19 -> int1: the susceptibleness happens.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the grinding proofs and is not an intuition is not true.

¬({F}{a} & ¬{B}{a})

sent1: the fact that the grinding does fluctuate and is a flowchart is right if it is not a kind of a Dumuzi. sent2: the Liverpudlian is punitive. sent3: if the tie is not a bull the fact that the hacker does not denaturalize storybook and it is not punitive is incorrect. sent4: the fact that the hacker is not a flowchart and/or it is not a Dumuzi is wrong if the tie does not fluctuate. sent5: the fact that the grinding is a flowchart hold. sent6: if that the zinkenite is a mount that is inaesthetic is not true then it does not fluctuate. sent7: if there is something such that it is not an intuition that the grinding is an intuition and it is an arm is not correct. sent8: if the grinding is not a Dumuzi then it is a flowchart. sent9: that the grinding denaturalizes storybook and it is punitive is not right. sent10: something is not an arm if the fact that it is a kind of an intuition and it is an arm does not hold. sent11: the fact that the grinding proofs hold. sent12: the fact that the grinding does lather sugarcane and it wrecks hold. sent13: the grinding does not fluctuate if the fact that it denaturalizes storybook and is punitive is wrong. sent14: the hacker does not fluctuate if that it does not denaturalize storybook and it is not punitive is not true. sent15: if something is not an arm that it is both a desperation and a proof is incorrect. sent16: the fact that something is not a flowchart and is a kind of a Dumuzi is not correct if it does not fluctuate. sent17: the idesia is not critical and/or it is a kind of a keloid. sent18: the grinding hurtles Paterson and it is anguine. sent19: the Epistle is a flowchart and it is anguine. sent20: if the grinding is an arm and/or is an intuition it is not a kind of a Dumuzi. sent21: if there is something such that it is punitive the tie does not fluctuate. sent22: if that the grinding arms is not incorrect then it is not a Dumuzi. sent23: the fact that the grinding does denaturalize mugginess but it is not a tact is not incorrect.

sent1: ¬{C}{a} -> ({E}{a} & {D}{a}) sent2: {G}{d} sent3: ¬{I}{c} -> ¬(¬{H}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) sent4: ¬{E}{c} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} v ¬{C}{b}) sent5: {D}{a} sent6: ¬({JA}{ah} & {GP}{ah}) -> ¬{E}{ah} sent7: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {A}{a}) sent8: ¬{C}{a} -> {D}{a} sent9: ¬({H}{a} & {G}{a}) sent10: (x): ¬({B}x & {A}x) -> ¬{A}x sent11: {F}{a} sent12: ({AH}{a} & {IC}{a}) sent13: ¬({H}{a} & {G}{a}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent14: ¬(¬{H}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent15: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({EU}x & {F}x) sent16: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) sent17: ({CS}{el} v {FJ}{el}) sent18: ({FK}{a} & {DJ}{a}) sent19: ({D}{ha} & {DJ}{ha}) sent20: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent21: (x): {G}x -> ¬{E}{c} sent22: {A}{a} -> ¬{C}{a} sent23: ({DE}{a} & ¬{DC}{a})

that the grinding proofs but it is not a kind of an intuition is not right.

¬({F}{a} & ¬{B}{a})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the grinding proofs and is not an intuition is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the grinding does fluctuate and is a flowchart is right if it is not a kind of a Dumuzi. sent2: the Liverpudlian is punitive. sent3: if the tie is not a bull the fact that the hacker does not denaturalize storybook and it is not punitive is incorrect. sent4: the fact that the hacker is not a flowchart and/or it is not a Dumuzi is wrong if the tie does not fluctuate. sent5: the fact that the grinding is a flowchart hold. sent6: if that the zinkenite is a mount that is inaesthetic is not true then it does not fluctuate. sent7: if there is something such that it is not an intuition that the grinding is an intuition and it is an arm is not correct. sent8: if the grinding is not a Dumuzi then it is a flowchart. sent9: that the grinding denaturalizes storybook and it is punitive is not right. sent10: something is not an arm if the fact that it is a kind of an intuition and it is an arm does not hold. sent11: the fact that the grinding proofs hold. sent12: the fact that the grinding does lather sugarcane and it wrecks hold. sent13: the grinding does not fluctuate if the fact that it denaturalizes storybook and is punitive is wrong. sent14: the hacker does not fluctuate if that it does not denaturalize storybook and it is not punitive is not true. sent15: if something is not an arm that it is both a desperation and a proof is incorrect. sent16: the fact that something is not a flowchart and is a kind of a Dumuzi is not correct if it does not fluctuate. sent17: the idesia is not critical and/or it is a kind of a keloid. sent18: the grinding hurtles Paterson and it is anguine. sent19: the Epistle is a flowchart and it is anguine. sent20: if the grinding is an arm and/or is an intuition it is not a kind of a Dumuzi. sent21: if there is something such that it is punitive the tie does not fluctuate. sent22: if that the grinding arms is not incorrect then it is not a Dumuzi. sent23: the fact that the grinding does denaturalize mugginess but it is not a tact is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the grinding is a kind of an intuition hold.; assump1 -> int1: the grinding arms or it is a kind of an intuition or both.; int1 & sent20 -> int2: the grinding is not a Dumuzi.; int2 & sent1 -> int3: the grinding does fluctuate and it is a flowchart.; int3 -> int4: the grinding fluctuates.; sent13 & sent9 -> int5: the grinding does not fluctuate.; int4 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the fact that the grinding is not an intuition is correct.; int7 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

either the skin-diving happens or the intrapulmonariness happens or both if the dullness does not occur.

¬{A} -> ({C} v {D})

sent1: that the decoupling does not occur and the diminution does not occur is caused by that the chrysotherapy does not occur. sent2: the audio-lingualness does not occur. sent3: the hurtling Branchiostegidae happens or the importing occurs or both if the Paleozoic does not occur. sent4: the Bell does not occur. sent5: the hammering does not occur. sent6: the fact that the inheriting does not occur is not false. sent7: that the consolation does not occur is caused by that the aciculateness does not occur and the enrolling does not occur. sent8: if the dulling occurs either the skin-dive occurs or the intrapulmonariness occurs or both. sent9: that the copout does not occur triggers that the nasopharyngealness and/or the extropicness happens. sent10: that the reason does not occur and the vocationalness does not occur is brought about by the non-dullness. sent11: if the dulling does not occur the reasoning does not occur. sent12: the pectinealness does not occur and the accountancy does not occur. sent13: that the reason and the non-vocationalness occurs prevents the postglacialness. sent14: the reason does not occur and the vocationalness does not occur if the fact that the dullness happens is right. sent15: either the lathering midstream occurs or the lathering Boselaphus happens or both if the hop-step-and-jump does not occur. sent16: that the skin-diving does not occur is prevented by the non-postglacialness. sent17: the reasoning does not occur.

sent1: ¬{AP} -> (¬{DQ} & ¬{IU}) sent2: ¬{GE} sent3: ¬{BP} -> ({HR} v {IL}) sent4: ¬{I} sent5: ¬{CQ} sent6: ¬{EK} sent7: (¬{BO} & ¬{EF}) -> ¬{CK} sent8: {A} -> ({C} v {D}) sent9: ¬{EU} -> ({EM} v {DS}) sent10: ¬{A} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent11: ¬{A} -> ¬{AA} sent12: (¬{GJ} & ¬{CO}) sent13: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent14: {A} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent15: ¬{GS} -> ({DR} v {AR}) sent16: ¬{B} -> {C} sent17: ¬{AA}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = either the skin-diving happens or the intrapulmonariness happens or both if the dullness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the decoupling does not occur and the diminution does not occur is caused by that the chrysotherapy does not occur. sent2: the audio-lingualness does not occur. sent3: the hurtling Branchiostegidae happens or the importing occurs or both if the Paleozoic does not occur. sent4: the Bell does not occur. sent5: the hammering does not occur. sent6: the fact that the inheriting does not occur is not false. sent7: that the consolation does not occur is caused by that the aciculateness does not occur and the enrolling does not occur. sent8: if the dulling occurs either the skin-dive occurs or the intrapulmonariness occurs or both. sent9: that the copout does not occur triggers that the nasopharyngealness and/or the extropicness happens. sent10: that the reason does not occur and the vocationalness does not occur is brought about by the non-dullness. sent11: if the dulling does not occur the reasoning does not occur. sent12: the pectinealness does not occur and the accountancy does not occur. sent13: that the reason and the non-vocationalness occurs prevents the postglacialness. sent14: the reason does not occur and the vocationalness does not occur if the fact that the dullness happens is right. sent15: either the lathering midstream occurs or the lathering Boselaphus happens or both if the hop-step-and-jump does not occur. sent16: that the skin-diving does not occur is prevented by the non-postglacialness. sent17: the reasoning does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the dullness does not occur.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the reason does not occur and the vocationalness does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the lip is monomorphemic.

{C}{a}

sent1: That the butterscotch does not lather array hold. sent2: there exists something such that it is a matted. sent3: if the cybernaut is dominical it does denaturalize paddock. sent4: the wolverine is a kind of a bilges that is not monomorphemic. sent5: the lip is a trudge. sent6: the cybernaut lathers butterscotch if something does abound and is not a trudge. sent7: that the array does not lather butterscotch hold. sent8: if something lathers butterscotch it is a kind of a matted. sent9: there is something such that it is a matted and is dominical. sent10: the lip is not impressionable. sent11: if the array does not lather butterscotch the cybernaut is a trudge. sent12: if the array does not lather butterscotch the cybernaut is a kind of a matted and it is a trudge. sent13: if the array is not a trudge then the fact that the lip is both not a matted and dominical is not true. sent14: if the fact that something is not a matted but dominical is incorrect then it is not monomorphemic. sent15: the lip denaturalizes paddock and is not a oxyphencyclimine. sent16: the valley is developmental but it is not a matted. sent17: something is not a doorplate. sent18: the cybernaut is not monomorphemic. sent19: something denaturalizes paddock and does not abound if it is dominical. sent20: that the cybernaut does denaturalize paddock but it does not abound is not right. sent21: if something is a matted and not dominical the lip is monomorphemic.

sent1: ¬{AC}{ab} sent2: (Ex): {B}x sent3: {A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa} sent4: ({CG}{eu} & ¬{C}{eu}) sent5: {D}{a} sent6: (x): ({AB}x & ¬{D}x) -> {E}{aa} sent7: ¬{E}{b} sent8: (x): {E}x -> {B}x sent9: (Ex): ({B}x & {A}x) sent10: ¬{II}{a} sent11: ¬{E}{b} -> {D}{aa} sent12: ¬{E}{b} -> ({B}{aa} & {D}{aa}) sent13: ¬{D}{b} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a}) sent14: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent15: ({AA}{a} & ¬{DU}{a}) sent16: ({EU}{hf} & ¬{B}{hf}) sent17: (Ex): ¬{IP}x sent18: ¬{C}{aa} sent19: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent20: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent21: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {C}{a}

the lip is not monomorphemic.

¬{C}{a}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the lip is monomorphemic. ; $context$ = sent1: That the butterscotch does not lather array hold. sent2: there exists something such that it is a matted. sent3: if the cybernaut is dominical it does denaturalize paddock. sent4: the wolverine is a kind of a bilges that is not monomorphemic. sent5: the lip is a trudge. sent6: the cybernaut lathers butterscotch if something does abound and is not a trudge. sent7: that the array does not lather butterscotch hold. sent8: if something lathers butterscotch it is a kind of a matted. sent9: there is something such that it is a matted and is dominical. sent10: the lip is not impressionable. sent11: if the array does not lather butterscotch the cybernaut is a trudge. sent12: if the array does not lather butterscotch the cybernaut is a kind of a matted and it is a trudge. sent13: if the array is not a trudge then the fact that the lip is both not a matted and dominical is not true. sent14: if the fact that something is not a matted but dominical is incorrect then it is not monomorphemic. sent15: the lip denaturalizes paddock and is not a oxyphencyclimine. sent16: the valley is developmental but it is not a matted. sent17: something is not a doorplate. sent18: the cybernaut is not monomorphemic. sent19: something denaturalizes paddock and does not abound if it is dominical. sent20: that the cybernaut does denaturalize paddock but it does not abound is not right. sent21: if something is a matted and not dominical the lip is monomorphemic. ; $proof$ =

sent19 -> int1: the cybernaut denaturalizes paddock but it does not abound if it is dominical.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the cybernaut is dominical is not incorrect.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the cybernaut denaturalizes paddock and does not abound.; int2 & sent20 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the cybernaut is not dominical.; sent12 & sent7 -> int5: the cybernaut is a matted and it is a kind of a trudge.; int5 -> int6: the cybernaut is a matted.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the cybernaut is a kind of a matted that is not dominical.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a matted and not dominical is right.; int8 & sent21 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the bioterrorism does not occur is triggered by that the non-vocationalness and the stocktaking happens.

(¬{C} & {D}) -> ¬{E}

sent1: if the fact that the basipetalness does not occur and the denaturalizing plop does not occur is incorrect the bioterrorism does not occur. sent2: that the basipetalness occurs triggers that the non-spasticness and the grounding happens. sent3: that both the non-vocationalness and the stocktaking occurs does not hold if the denaturalizing plop does not occur. sent4: that the vocationalness and the stocktaking happens is wrong if the denaturalizing plop does not occur.

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

the spastic does not occur but the grounding happens.

(¬{AF} & {ID})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the bioterrorism does not occur is triggered by that the non-vocationalness and the stocktaking happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the basipetalness does not occur and the denaturalizing plop does not occur is incorrect the bioterrorism does not occur. sent2: that the basipetalness occurs triggers that the non-spasticness and the grounding happens. sent3: that both the non-vocationalness and the stocktaking occurs does not hold if the denaturalizing plop does not occur. sent4: that the vocationalness and the stocktaking happens is wrong if the denaturalizing plop does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that both the non-vocationalness and the stocktaking occurs.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the basipetalness does not occur and the denaturalizing plop does not occur.; assump2 -> int1: the denaturalizing plop does not occur.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the vocationalness does not occur but the stocktaking occurs is false.; assump1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: that the basipetalness does not occur and the denaturalizing plop does not occur is wrong.; sent1 & int4 -> int5: the bioterrorism does not occur.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Shahaptian is a jubilee.

{E}{e}

sent1: if that the Ranger is a lactase hold the sulky does not lather contester. sent2: the sulky shouts if the peach obscures. sent3: the fact that the handbook is not a cumin hold. sent4: if the jaggery is not an anecdote that it hurtles bitok and is not a favorite is not right. sent5: the peach does obscure or it tides or both if there exists something such that it does not hurtle punch. sent6: the sulky does not lather contester but it enrolls if the Ranger is a kind of a lactase. sent7: something is not a kind of a blob if that it does not shout and tides is wrong. sent8: if the sulky does lather contester and does enroll then the peach is a kind of a blob. sent9: something is a favorite if the fact that it hurtles bitok and it is not a favorite is not correct. sent10: if that the handbook is not etiological and/or it is a cumin is wrong then the Shahaptian is not a jubilee. sent11: that the handbook is not a cumin is not wrong if the fact that the Ranger is not a lactase is right. sent12: if the Shahaptian is not a blob then that the peach does not shout and/or it is a jubilee is not true. sent13: something is a kind of a lactase and it is a kind of a jubilee if it is not a blob. sent14: the fact that either the handbook is not etiological or it is a cumin or both is incorrect if that the Ranger is not a kind of a lactase is right. sent15: the disaccharide is not a greatcoat but it is a lactase. sent16: if the Ranger is a kind of a cumin but it is not etiological then the fact that the Shahaptian is not a blob is right. sent17: the jaggery is not a kind of an anecdote. sent18: if the peach is a lactase the fact that it does not tide and it enrolls is incorrect. sent19: the peach does obscure. sent20: if the sulky does not lather contester and enrolls the peach is a blob. sent21: something is not a blob if it is not a kind of a tide. sent22: the fact that the peach does not shout but it is a tide is not right if it does obscure. sent23: if the jaggery is a favorite then the handbook does not hurtle punch. sent24: if the peach is not a tide then it is not a kind of a blob.

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

the Shahaptian is a kind of a jubilee.

{E}{e}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Shahaptian is a jubilee. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the Ranger is a lactase hold the sulky does not lather contester. sent2: the sulky shouts if the peach obscures. sent3: the fact that the handbook is not a cumin hold. sent4: if the jaggery is not an anecdote that it hurtles bitok and is not a favorite is not right. sent5: the peach does obscure or it tides or both if there exists something such that it does not hurtle punch. sent6: the sulky does not lather contester but it enrolls if the Ranger is a kind of a lactase. sent7: something is not a kind of a blob if that it does not shout and tides is wrong. sent8: if the sulky does lather contester and does enroll then the peach is a kind of a blob. sent9: something is a favorite if the fact that it hurtles bitok and it is not a favorite is not correct. sent10: if that the handbook is not etiological and/or it is a cumin is wrong then the Shahaptian is not a jubilee. sent11: that the handbook is not a cumin is not wrong if the fact that the Ranger is not a lactase is right. sent12: if the Shahaptian is not a blob then that the peach does not shout and/or it is a jubilee is not true. sent13: something is a kind of a lactase and it is a kind of a jubilee if it is not a blob. sent14: the fact that either the handbook is not etiological or it is a cumin or both is incorrect if that the Ranger is not a kind of a lactase is right. sent15: the disaccharide is not a greatcoat but it is a lactase. sent16: if the Ranger is a kind of a cumin but it is not etiological then the fact that the Shahaptian is not a blob is right. sent17: the jaggery is not a kind of an anecdote. sent18: if the peach is a lactase the fact that it does not tide and it enrolls is incorrect. sent19: the peach does obscure. sent20: if the sulky does not lather contester and enrolls the peach is a blob. sent21: something is not a blob if it is not a kind of a tide. sent22: the fact that the peach does not shout but it is a tide is not right if it does obscure. sent23: if the jaggery is a favorite then the handbook does not hurtle punch. sent24: if the peach is not a tide then it is not a kind of a blob. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the Ranger is a lactase hold.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the sulky does not lather contester and does enroll.; int1 & sent20 -> int2: the peach is a kind of a blob.; sent7 -> int3: if the fact that that the peach does not shout but it tides is false is true then it is not a kind of a blob.; sent22 & sent19 -> int4: the fact that the peach does not shout but it tides does not hold.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the peach is not a blob.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the Ranger is not a lactase.; int7 & sent14 -> int8: that either the handbook is not etiological or it is a cumin or both does not hold.; int8 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Jeroboam is broadband.

{F}{b}

sent1: the reeve is both implausible and bivariate. sent2: if that something is not a Geomyidae but phalangeal is not true then it is not a halloo. sent3: if that something is a kind of a halloo and it is broadband is not true then it is not broadband. sent4: the Jeroboam is broadband if it does titrate. sent5: the Eyeish is not a kind of a halloo if there exists something such that that it is not a Ephesians but a halloo is incorrect. sent6: if something is not a Geomyidae but it is phalangeal it is not Ephesians. sent7: the Sinhalese is not implausible and not bivariate. sent8: that the Jeroboam is both a Geomyidae and not a Ephesians is not correct if that the reeve is not broadband is not wrong. sent9: if the Sinhalese is a purchase the fact that it is not Ephesians and it does halloo is false. sent10: the reeve is implausible. sent11: the fact that if something is bivariate then it does halloo is right. sent12: something that is a Geomyidae is not a halloo. sent13: the reeve is not a Geomyidae. sent14: that the Eyeish is a kind of an irritant and it is a purchase does not hold if the reeve is not Ephesians. sent15: if something is a Geomyidae and phalangeal it is not a Ephesians. sent16: that the Eyeish is an irritant but it is not a kind of a purchase does not hold if the reeve is not a Ephesians. sent17: the Sinhalese does not titrate if it is plausible thing that is not bivariate. sent18: the fact that the Eyeish is an irritant and it is a purchase is incorrect. sent19: something is an irritant and it is a purchase if it does not titrate.

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

that the Jeroboam is not broadband is not wrong.

¬{F}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Jeroboam is broadband. ; $context$ = sent1: the reeve is both implausible and bivariate. sent2: if that something is not a Geomyidae but phalangeal is not true then it is not a halloo. sent3: if that something is a kind of a halloo and it is broadband is not true then it is not broadband. sent4: the Jeroboam is broadband if it does titrate. sent5: the Eyeish is not a kind of a halloo if there exists something such that that it is not a Ephesians but a halloo is incorrect. sent6: if something is not a Geomyidae but it is phalangeal it is not Ephesians. sent7: the Sinhalese is not implausible and not bivariate. sent8: that the Jeroboam is both a Geomyidae and not a Ephesians is not correct if that the reeve is not broadband is not wrong. sent9: if the Sinhalese is a purchase the fact that it is not Ephesians and it does halloo is false. sent10: the reeve is implausible. sent11: the fact that if something is bivariate then it does halloo is right. sent12: something that is a Geomyidae is not a halloo. sent13: the reeve is not a Geomyidae. sent14: that the Eyeish is a kind of an irritant and it is a purchase does not hold if the reeve is not Ephesians. sent15: if something is a Geomyidae and phalangeal it is not a Ephesians. sent16: that the Eyeish is an irritant but it is not a kind of a purchase does not hold if the reeve is not a Ephesians. sent17: the Sinhalese does not titrate if it is plausible thing that is not bivariate. sent18: the fact that the Eyeish is an irritant and it is a purchase is incorrect. sent19: something is an irritant and it is a purchase if it does not titrate. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the reeve does not halloo if the fact that it is not a Geomyidae and is phalangeal is false.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the reeve is not a Geomyidae but it is phalangeal is incorrect.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the reeve does not halloo.; sent11 -> int3: if the reeve is bivariate it halloos.; sent1 -> int4: the reeve is bivariate.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the reeve is a kind of a halloo.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the reeve is both not a Geomyidae and phalangeal.; sent6 -> int8: if the reeve is not a Geomyidae but it is not non-phalangeal it is not a Ephesians.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the reeve is not a Ephesians.; int9 & sent16 -> int10: that the Eyeish is an irritant but it is not a purchase is false.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the clack is not non-conjugal but it does not lather Leonurus.

({F}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

sent1: the CFO is not a kind of a Marathon if the fact that it is not a kind of a Andrenidae and it is a Oedipus is wrong. sent2: The washerman does not lather antimony. sent3: if the CFO does lather Leonurus then the clack is conjugal but it does not lather Leonurus. sent4: that the antimony is not tasteful if the fact that the antimony is betulaceous thing that is tasteful is not correct is not incorrect. sent5: if the antimony does not lather washerman then it is judgmental. sent6: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a breakable that the clack is conjugal and it is breakable is not true. sent7: the fact that the derringer does not hurtle feverroot is correct. sent8: if that something does not disengage but it is a kind of a breakable does not hold then it is not a Andrenidae. sent9: the fruiterer is not tasteful. sent10: the antimony does not lather washerman. sent11: something does lather washerman and is not non-betulaceous if it is not a Selar. sent12: that the clack is not judgmental but tasteful if the antimony lathers washerman is true. sent13: if the antimony does not disengage but it is breakable it is not judgmental. sent14: something is not a Andrenidae if it is not judgmental and it is tasteful. sent15: if something that is not a kind of a Andrenidae is not tasteful then the CFO does lather Leonurus. sent16: that something is conjugal and does not lather Leonurus is not true if it is not a Andrenidae.

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

the fact that the clack is conjugal and does not lather Leonurus is not true.

¬({F}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the clack is not non-conjugal but it does not lather Leonurus. ; $context$ = sent1: the CFO is not a kind of a Marathon if the fact that it is not a kind of a Andrenidae and it is a Oedipus is wrong. sent2: The washerman does not lather antimony. sent3: if the CFO does lather Leonurus then the clack is conjugal but it does not lather Leonurus. sent4: that the antimony is not tasteful if the fact that the antimony is betulaceous thing that is tasteful is not correct is not incorrect. sent5: if the antimony does not lather washerman then it is judgmental. sent6: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a breakable that the clack is conjugal and it is breakable is not true. sent7: the fact that the derringer does not hurtle feverroot is correct. sent8: if that something does not disengage but it is a kind of a breakable does not hold then it is not a Andrenidae. sent9: the fruiterer is not tasteful. sent10: the antimony does not lather washerman. sent11: something does lather washerman and is not non-betulaceous if it is not a Selar. sent12: that the clack is not judgmental but tasteful if the antimony lathers washerman is true. sent13: if the antimony does not disengage but it is breakable it is not judgmental. sent14: something is not a Andrenidae if it is not judgmental and it is tasteful. sent15: if something that is not a kind of a Andrenidae is not tasteful then the CFO does lather Leonurus. sent16: that something is conjugal and does not lather Leonurus is not true if it is not a Andrenidae. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the antimony does not disengage and is breakable.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the antimony is not judgmental.; sent5 & sent10 -> int2: the antimony is judgmental.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the antimony does not disengage but it is a breakable is not correct.; sent8 -> int5: the antimony is not a Andrenidae if that the fact that it does not disengage and is a breakable hold is false.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the antimony is not a Andrenidae.; sent9 -> int7: something is not tasteful.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that if the emergence happens both the non-domiciliariness and the unobjectionableness happens is false.

¬({A} -> (¬{D} & {C}))

sent1: the symptomaticness happens. sent2: if the penetrableness does not occur then the superhumanness but not the denaturalizing storybook occurs. sent3: the lathering capillary occurs if the emergence happens. sent4: the penetrableness does not occur if the denaturalizing Nasua does not occur. sent5: if the lathering capillary occurs the domiciliariness does not occur and the unobjectionableness happens. sent6: the domiciliariness does not occur if the lathering capillary happens. sent7: if the fact that both the scoring and the derision happens does not hold the scoring does not occur. sent8: if the score does not occur the tickle does not occur and the accipitrineness does not occur. sent9: if the fact that not the lathering capillary but the emergence happens does not hold then that the Hasidicness happens hold. sent10: the domiciliariness does not occur. sent11: if the fact that the emergence occurs hold then the domiciliariness does not occur. sent12: the fact that both the scoring and the derision occurs is not correct if that the denaturalizing storybook does not occur is not wrong. sent13: if the domiciliariness occurs the non-unobjectionableness or the ingress or both happens. sent14: both the discriminating and the Labour happens. sent15: that the Rorschach does not occur prevents that the denaturalizing Nasua occurs. sent16: if the fact that the score happens is not wrong then not the Ravel but the denaturalizing midstream happens. sent17: that either the unobjectionableness does not occur or the ingress happens or both prevents that the unobjectionableness occurs. sent18: if the tickling does not occur then the domiciliariness and the rbi happens.

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

the Hasidicness happens.

{CR}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that if the emergence happens both the non-domiciliariness and the unobjectionableness happens is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the symptomaticness happens. sent2: if the penetrableness does not occur then the superhumanness but not the denaturalizing storybook occurs. sent3: the lathering capillary occurs if the emergence happens. sent4: the penetrableness does not occur if the denaturalizing Nasua does not occur. sent5: if the lathering capillary occurs the domiciliariness does not occur and the unobjectionableness happens. sent6: the domiciliariness does not occur if the lathering capillary happens. sent7: if the fact that both the scoring and the derision happens does not hold the scoring does not occur. sent8: if the score does not occur the tickle does not occur and the accipitrineness does not occur. sent9: if the fact that not the lathering capillary but the emergence happens does not hold then that the Hasidicness happens hold. sent10: the domiciliariness does not occur. sent11: if the fact that the emergence occurs hold then the domiciliariness does not occur. sent12: the fact that both the scoring and the derision occurs is not correct if that the denaturalizing storybook does not occur is not wrong. sent13: if the domiciliariness occurs the non-unobjectionableness or the ingress or both happens. sent14: both the discriminating and the Labour happens. sent15: that the Rorschach does not occur prevents that the denaturalizing Nasua occurs. sent16: if the fact that the score happens is not wrong then not the Ravel but the denaturalizing midstream happens. sent17: that either the unobjectionableness does not occur or the ingress happens or both prevents that the unobjectionableness occurs. sent18: if the tickling does not occur then the domiciliariness and the rbi happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the emergence happens.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the lathering capillary occurs.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: not the domiciliariness but the unobjectionableness occurs.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the tormentor lathers ward-heeler then it is not a Michigander and it is a saddle.

{G}{b} -> (¬{H}{b} & {I}{b})

sent1: the fact that the tormentor is not two-wheel is correct if it is not factual. sent2: something is a spam. sent3: if the Brazilian is a kind of a burrow then the tormentor does burrow. sent4: there is something such that it is not untraceable. sent5: the tormentor is mithraic if something that is not non-auxinic hurtles clack. sent6: the tormentor does saddle if it does not spam and it is not two-wheel. sent7: if something is not a burrow the fact that it is not non-auxinic and it is mithraic is incorrect. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not untraceable then the sepal is a kind of non-mononuclear thing that is not a burrow. sent9: if something is not untraceable then the fact that it is not factual and not mononuclear is false. sent10: the tormentor does not spam. sent11: something is auxinic if it lathers ward-heeler. sent12: the Brazilian lathers ward-heeler if that the clack spams is not incorrect. sent13: if the sepal is not mithraic the fact that it does lather ward-heeler and does hurtle clack does not hold. sent14: the Brazilian does hurtle clack if there is something such that the fact that it is not a Michigander but a saddle does not hold. sent15: that the weeder is not a Michigander but it is a saddle is not right. sent16: if the clack lathers ward-heeler then the Brazilian lathers ward-heeler. sent17: the tormentor is not factual. sent18: the largemouth is not arbitrative and it is not a kind of a jug. sent19: the tormentor does not hurtle clack if there is something such that that it is both auxinic and mithraic is incorrect. sent20: if there exists something such that it does not burrow and/or it is mithraic the sepal is not mononuclear. sent21: the clack either is a kind of a spam or lathers ward-heeler or both if there is something such that it does spam. sent22: the sepal does not hurtle clack. sent23: the CFO is not two-wheel. sent24: if there is something such that the fact that it is non-mononuclear hold the litterer is untraceable but it is not a baddeleyite.

sent1: ¬{L}{b} -> ¬{J}{b} sent2: (Ex): {K}x sent3: {C}{c} -> {C}{b} sent4: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent5: (x): ({E}x & {F}x) -> {D}{b} sent6: (¬{K}{b} & ¬{J}{b}) -> {I}{b} sent7: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({E}x & {D}x) sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{L}x & ¬{B}x) sent10: ¬{K}{b} sent11: (x): {G}x -> {E}x sent12: {K}{d} -> {G}{c} sent13: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬({G}{a} & {F}{a}) sent14: (x): ¬(¬{H}x & {I}x) -> {F}{c} sent15: ¬(¬{H}{e} & {I}{e}) sent16: {G}{d} -> {G}{c} sent17: ¬{L}{b} sent18: (¬{II}{ci} & ¬{BJ}{ci}) sent19: (x): ¬({E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{F}{b} sent20: (x): (¬{C}x v {D}x) -> ¬{B}{a} sent21: (x): {K}x -> ({K}{d} v {G}{d}) sent22: ¬{F}{a} sent23: ¬{J}{j} sent24: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}{gp} & ¬{DL}{gp})

the litterer is not a kind of a baddeleyite.

¬{DL}{gp}

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = if the tormentor lathers ward-heeler then it is not a Michigander and it is a saddle. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the tormentor is not two-wheel is correct if it is not factual. sent2: something is a spam. sent3: if the Brazilian is a kind of a burrow then the tormentor does burrow. sent4: there is something such that it is not untraceable. sent5: the tormentor is mithraic if something that is not non-auxinic hurtles clack. sent6: the tormentor does saddle if it does not spam and it is not two-wheel. sent7: if something is not a burrow the fact that it is not non-auxinic and it is mithraic is incorrect. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not untraceable then the sepal is a kind of non-mononuclear thing that is not a burrow. sent9: if something is not untraceable then the fact that it is not factual and not mononuclear is false. sent10: the tormentor does not spam. sent11: something is auxinic if it lathers ward-heeler. sent12: the Brazilian lathers ward-heeler if that the clack spams is not incorrect. sent13: if the sepal is not mithraic the fact that it does lather ward-heeler and does hurtle clack does not hold. sent14: the Brazilian does hurtle clack if there is something such that the fact that it is not a Michigander but a saddle does not hold. sent15: that the weeder is not a Michigander but it is a saddle is not right. sent16: if the clack lathers ward-heeler then the Brazilian lathers ward-heeler. sent17: the tormentor is not factual. sent18: the largemouth is not arbitrative and it is not a kind of a jug. sent19: the tormentor does not hurtle clack if there is something such that that it is both auxinic and mithraic is incorrect. sent20: if there exists something such that it does not burrow and/or it is mithraic the sepal is not mononuclear. sent21: the clack either is a kind of a spam or lathers ward-heeler or both if there is something such that it does spam. sent22: the sepal does not hurtle clack. sent23: the CFO is not two-wheel. sent24: if there is something such that the fact that it is non-mononuclear hold the litterer is untraceable but it is not a baddeleyite. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent8 -> int1: the sepal is not mononuclear and it is not a burrow.; int1 -> int2: the sepal is not a burrow.; sent7 -> int3: if the sepal is not a burrow the fact that it is auxinic and it is mithraic is not true.; int2 & int3 -> int4: that the sepal is both not non-auxinic and not non-mithraic is not true.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that the fact that it is auxinic and mithraic is wrong.; int5 & sent19 -> int6: the tormentor does not hurtle clack.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the tormentor lathers ward-heeler.; int6 & assump1 -> int7: the tormentor does not hurtle clack but it lathers ward-heeler.; sent1 & sent17 -> int8: the fact that the tormentor is not two-wheel is true.; sent10 & int8 -> int9: the tormentor is not a spam and is not two-wheel.; sent6 & int9 -> int10: the tormentor is a saddle.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if that it is not a kind of a Lombard and it lathers biochemistry is not correct it is not a kind of a western.

(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a Lombard and does lather biochemistry it is not a western. sent2: there is something such that if the fact that it is not angry and it is sublingual is wrong the fact that it is not a kind of a gypsum hold. sent3: the fact that there exists something such that if it does not lather biochemistry it is not a western is true. sent4: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not injectable and it is a Zweig does not hold then it is not a mobcap. sent5: if that the piperacillin is a kind of a Lombard that lathers biochemistry is not right it is not western. sent6: if the fact that the piperacillin does not parody demonization but it is a Lombard is not correct it is not a kind of a cookstove. sent7: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of a Lombard and it lathers biochemistry is false then the fact that it is a kind of a western hold. sent8: there is something such that if that it is not a loungewear and it is ritualistic is not true then it is not angry. sent9: if the piperacillin does not lather biochemistry then it is not a kind of a western. sent10: if the piperacillin is not a Lombard and does lather biochemistry it is non-western. sent11: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of a Meliphagidae and it is postglacial is not correct then it does not hurtle eye. sent12: if something that is not a Lombard does lather biochemistry then it is not a western. sent13: there exists something such that if that it does not elope and does hurtle seismography is wrong then it is not bounded. sent14: if the fact that something is a Lombard and it lathers biochemistry is not right then it is not a kind of a western. sent15: if that something is not a Lombard but it lathers biochemistry is false it is not non-western. sent16: the piperacillin is not a double if the fact that it does not lather biochemistry and is bibless is incorrect. sent17: if something does not lather biochemistry the fact that it is non-western is not false. sent18: if that the piperacillin is not a kind of a Lombard and does lather biochemistry is not right then it is a western. sent19: there is something such that if the fact that it is a Lombard and lathers biochemistry is wrong then the fact that it is not a western is correct. sent20: there is something such that if that the fact that it is not apogean and it is a tapa is not false is not correct then it is not a backpack.

sent1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: (Ex): ¬(¬{A}x & {FR}x) -> ¬{IL}x sent3: (Ex): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{J}x & {BI}x) -> ¬{EO}x sent5: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent6: ¬(¬{AS}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) -> ¬{FF}{aa} sent7: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{FQ}x & {AQ}x) -> ¬{A}x sent9: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent10: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent11: (Ex): ¬(¬{IM}x & {JF}x) -> ¬{C}x sent12: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent13: (Ex): ¬(¬{DF}x & {M}x) -> ¬{E}x sent14: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent15: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent16: ¬(¬{AB}{aa} & {CF}{aa}) -> ¬{GO}{aa} sent17: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent18: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent19: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent20: (Ex): ¬(¬{JC}x & {BO}x) -> ¬{HM}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if that it is not a kind of a Lombard and it lathers biochemistry is not correct it is not a kind of a western. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a Lombard and does lather biochemistry it is not a western. sent2: there is something such that if the fact that it is not angry and it is sublingual is wrong the fact that it is not a kind of a gypsum hold. sent3: the fact that there exists something such that if it does not lather biochemistry it is not a western is true. sent4: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not injectable and it is a Zweig does not hold then it is not a mobcap. sent5: if that the piperacillin is a kind of a Lombard that lathers biochemistry is not right it is not western. sent6: if the fact that the piperacillin does not parody demonization but it is a Lombard is not correct it is not a kind of a cookstove. sent7: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of a Lombard and it lathers biochemistry is false then the fact that it is a kind of a western hold. sent8: there is something such that if that it is not a loungewear and it is ritualistic is not true then it is not angry. sent9: if the piperacillin does not lather biochemistry then it is not a kind of a western. sent10: if the piperacillin is not a Lombard and does lather biochemistry it is non-western. sent11: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of a Meliphagidae and it is postglacial is not correct then it does not hurtle eye. sent12: if something that is not a Lombard does lather biochemistry then it is not a western. sent13: there exists something such that if that it does not elope and does hurtle seismography is wrong then it is not bounded. sent14: if the fact that something is a Lombard and it lathers biochemistry is not right then it is not a kind of a western. sent15: if that something is not a Lombard but it lathers biochemistry is false it is not non-western. sent16: the piperacillin is not a double if the fact that it does not lather biochemistry and is bibless is incorrect. sent17: if something does not lather biochemistry the fact that it is non-western is not false. sent18: if that the piperacillin is not a kind of a Lombard and does lather biochemistry is not right then it is a western. sent19: there is something such that if the fact that it is a Lombard and lathers biochemistry is wrong then the fact that it is not a western is correct. sent20: there is something such that if that the fact that it is not apogean and it is a tapa is not false is not correct then it is not a backpack. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the admiralty does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: the wildfire happens. sent2: the denaturalizing underachievement happens. sent3: both the denaturalizing underachievement and the lathering paralegal occurs. sent4: the admiralty does not occur if the lathering paralegal happens and the denaturalizing horseman happens. sent5: if the denaturalizing underachievement does not occur the Aeolianness does not occur. sent6: the wildfire occurs and the denaturalizing horseman happens.

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

the Aeolian does not occur.

¬{IK}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the admiralty does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the wildfire happens. sent2: the denaturalizing underachievement happens. sent3: both the denaturalizing underachievement and the lathering paralegal occurs. sent4: the admiralty does not occur if the lathering paralegal happens and the denaturalizing horseman happens. sent5: if the denaturalizing underachievement does not occur the Aeolianness does not occur. sent6: the wildfire occurs and the denaturalizing horseman happens. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the fact that the lathering paralegal occurs hold.; sent6 -> int2: that the denaturalizing horseman happens hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the lathering paralegal and the denaturalizing horseman occurs.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the viscount is not a lameness.

¬{H}{d}

sent1: something chants and/or it is not cuticular. sent2: that something is a chant or not cuticular or both is wrong if it is a playschool. sent3: the viscount is a lameness if there is something such that the fact that it is meaningful and it is not a kind of a landscapist is not correct. sent4: something is meaningful and not a landscapist. sent5: if the DNA is not a kind of a tuckahoe that the Federal is meaningful but it is not a landscapist is not true. sent6: something is not a chant if the fact that it is a playschool is not incorrect. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that either it does chant or it is cuticular or both does not hold. sent8: the viscount is a lameness if there is something such that it is not meaningful. sent9: the cataloger is not a chant. sent10: the DNA is not a tuckahoe if there exists something such that that it is a chant or not cuticular or both is false. sent11: something is cuticular. sent12: that the viscount is either a lameness or not meaningful or both is wrong if it is a kind of a playschool. sent13: if that something either is bisontine or is not a playschool or both is not correct then it is not a lameness. sent14: the cataloger is a playschool if it is bisontine. sent15: the cataloger is bisontine. sent16: there exists something such that the fact that it is both meaningful and a landscapist is wrong. sent17: the cataloger is not a chant if it is a playschool. sent18: there exists something such that it does not chant.

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

the viscount is not a lameness.

¬{H}{d}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the viscount is not a lameness. ; $context$ = sent1: something chants and/or it is not cuticular. sent2: that something is a chant or not cuticular or both is wrong if it is a playschool. sent3: the viscount is a lameness if there is something such that the fact that it is meaningful and it is not a kind of a landscapist is not correct. sent4: something is meaningful and not a landscapist. sent5: if the DNA is not a kind of a tuckahoe that the Federal is meaningful but it is not a landscapist is not true. sent6: something is not a chant if the fact that it is a playschool is not incorrect. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that either it does chant or it is cuticular or both does not hold. sent8: the viscount is a lameness if there is something such that it is not meaningful. sent9: the cataloger is not a chant. sent10: the DNA is not a tuckahoe if there exists something such that that it is a chant or not cuticular or both is false. sent11: something is cuticular. sent12: that the viscount is either a lameness or not meaningful or both is wrong if it is a kind of a playschool. sent13: if that something either is bisontine or is not a playschool or both is not correct then it is not a lameness. sent14: the cataloger is a playschool if it is bisontine. sent15: the cataloger is bisontine. sent16: there exists something such that the fact that it is both meaningful and a landscapist is wrong. sent17: the cataloger is not a chant if it is a playschool. sent18: there exists something such that it does not chant. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent15 -> int1: the cataloger is a playschool.; sent2 -> int2: that the cataloger is a chant or not cuticular or both does not hold if it is a playschool.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that either the cataloger chants or it is not cuticular or both does not hold.; int3 -> int4: there exists something such that that either it chants or it is not cuticular or both does not hold.; int4 & sent10 -> int5: the DNA is not a tuckahoe.; int5 & sent5 -> int6: that the fact that the Federal is meaningful but not a landscapist is not correct is not incorrect.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that that it is meaningful and it is not a landscapist is not correct.; int7 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the piperacillin is not a kind of a Adad and it does not certify is wrong.

¬(¬{D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})

sent1: if something is not unsusceptible the frog is a Adad or it certifies or both. sent2: the pseudopod is a plumpness and cacodemonic if there is something such that that it does not hurtle piperacillin is true. sent3: everything does lather Colony and it lathers convertible. sent4: the fact that the piperacillin is not a kind of a Adad and does certify is not right. sent5: that the pseudopod hurtles piperacillin is not incorrect. sent6: if something that is good is not a kind of a kaon it is not unsusceptible. sent7: The piperacillin does not hurtle neopallium. sent8: that the pseudopod is a kind of a good is correct. sent9: there is something such that it hurtles piperacillin. sent10: there is something such that it is cacodemonic. sent11: if something does certify it is a plumpness. sent12: if that something does not hurtle piperacillin and is cacodemonic is not true then it does hurtle piperacillin. sent13: that something is not cacodemonic and it is not dirty does not hold if the fact that it does hurtle piperacillin is right. sent14: the neopallium does not hurtle piperacillin. sent15: if something is a plumpness it does hurtle piperacillin. sent16: the fact that the piperacillin is a kind of a Adad but it does not certify is wrong. sent17: that the piperacillin is not a Adad and does certify does not hold if the pseudopod is a kind of a plumpness. sent18: something is not a kind of a kaon but it is riparian if it does lather Colony. sent19: something is a kind of a plumpness if the fact that it is a Adad is not incorrect.

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

the fact that the frog is non-cacodemonic and not dirty is false.

¬(¬{B}{be} & ¬{AB}{be})

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the piperacillin is not a kind of a Adad and it does not certify is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not unsusceptible the frog is a Adad or it certifies or both. sent2: the pseudopod is a plumpness and cacodemonic if there is something such that that it does not hurtle piperacillin is true. sent3: everything does lather Colony and it lathers convertible. sent4: the fact that the piperacillin is not a kind of a Adad and does certify is not right. sent5: that the pseudopod hurtles piperacillin is not incorrect. sent6: if something that is good is not a kind of a kaon it is not unsusceptible. sent7: The piperacillin does not hurtle neopallium. sent8: that the pseudopod is a kind of a good is correct. sent9: there is something such that it hurtles piperacillin. sent10: there is something such that it is cacodemonic. sent11: if something does certify it is a plumpness. sent12: if that something does not hurtle piperacillin and is cacodemonic is not true then it does hurtle piperacillin. sent13: that something is not cacodemonic and it is not dirty does not hold if the fact that it does hurtle piperacillin is right. sent14: the neopallium does not hurtle piperacillin. sent15: if something is a plumpness it does hurtle piperacillin. sent16: the fact that the piperacillin is a kind of a Adad but it does not certify is wrong. sent17: that the piperacillin is not a Adad and does certify does not hold if the pseudopod is a kind of a plumpness. sent18: something is not a kind of a kaon but it is riparian if it does lather Colony. sent19: something is a kind of a plumpness if the fact that it is a Adad is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent14 -> int1: there exists something such that it does not hurtle piperacillin.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the pseudopod is a plumpness and is cacodemonic.; int2 -> int3: the fact that the pseudopod is a kind of a plumpness is not false.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the imitativeness does not occur.

¬{H}

sent1: the lathering phonophobia happens or the biding does not occur or both. sent2: the goring occurs but the biding does not occur. sent3: if the Fabianness does not occur that the lathering phonophobia does not occur and the alikeness does not occur is not right. sent4: the Fahrenheit does not occur if that the Fahrenheit occurs but the culturalness does not occur does not hold. sent5: the imitativeness occurs if the culturalness occurs. sent6: the fact that the lathering phonophobia occurs and the alikeness does not occur is not right if the Fabianness does not occur. sent7: the denaturalizing sheepherder does not occur. sent8: that the Fabianness occurs is prevented by that both the goring and the rhizotomy occurs. sent9: if the extricableness happens then the rhizotomy occurs. sent10: the culturalness happens or the extricableness happens or both. sent11: the inconsistentness happens. sent12: if the culturalness happens the rhizotomy occurs. sent13: if the fact that the lathering phonophobia does not occur and the alikeness does not occur is incorrect the imitativeness does not occur.

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

the Fahrenheit does not occur.

¬{IR}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the imitativeness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the lathering phonophobia happens or the biding does not occur or both. sent2: the goring occurs but the biding does not occur. sent3: if the Fabianness does not occur that the lathering phonophobia does not occur and the alikeness does not occur is not right. sent4: the Fahrenheit does not occur if that the Fahrenheit occurs but the culturalness does not occur does not hold. sent5: the imitativeness occurs if the culturalness occurs. sent6: the fact that the lathering phonophobia occurs and the alikeness does not occur is not right if the Fabianness does not occur. sent7: the denaturalizing sheepherder does not occur. sent8: that the Fabianness occurs is prevented by that both the goring and the rhizotomy occurs. sent9: if the extricableness happens then the rhizotomy occurs. sent10: the culturalness happens or the extricableness happens or both. sent11: the inconsistentness happens. sent12: if the culturalness happens the rhizotomy occurs. sent13: if the fact that the lathering phonophobia does not occur and the alikeness does not occur is incorrect the imitativeness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent12 & sent9 -> int1: the rhizotomy occurs.; sent2 -> int2: the gore happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the gore occurs and the rhizotomy happens.; int3 & sent8 -> int4: the Fabianness does not occur.; int4 & sent3 -> int5: the fact that the lathering phonophobia does not occur and the alikeness does not occur is wrong.; int5 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

either the formalin does not lather Glycyrrhiza or it is a backgrounding or both.

(¬{B}{c} v {C}{c})

sent1: the helvella is a kind of a digestibility. sent2: the formalin does not lather Glycyrrhiza or surrounds or both. sent3: if the fact that the formalin does teeter-totter is not false then the helvella does not teeter-totter and/or it is a backgrounding. sent4: if the formalin does lather motorcycling the helvella lather motorcycling and/or does lather Glycyrrhiza. sent5: something is a sack. sent6: the helvella does teeter-totter. sent7: the formalin either lathers Glycyrrhiza or backgrounds or both. sent8: the zapper surrounds. sent9: if there exists something such that it does not lather Glycyrrhiza and teeter-totters the formalin does background. sent10: something does not clangor but it is inhumane. sent11: the zapper does not teeter-totter or it lathers Glycyrrhiza or both. sent12: the formalin does not lather Glycyrrhiza and/or it does background if the zapper does lather Glycyrrhiza. sent13: the helvella does background. sent14: the helvella does not lather motorcycling but it does teeter-totter. sent15: the flanker does not lather Glycyrrhiza or it does surround or both. sent16: the zapper does lather Glycyrrhiza if the flanker does surround. sent17: there exists something such that it is trinucleate. sent18: the zapper lathers motorcycling if that the helvella lathers Glycyrrhiza is correct. sent19: if the formalin does lather Glycyrrhiza the zapper does not lather Glycyrrhiza or it is a backgrounding or both.

sent1: {HB}{aa} sent2: (¬{B}{c} v {A}{c}) sent3: {AB}{c} -> (¬{AB}{aa} v {C}{aa}) sent4: {AA}{c} -> ({AA}{aa} v {B}{aa}) sent5: (Ex): {GB}x sent6: {AB}{aa} sent7: ({B}{c} v {C}{c}) sent8: {A}{b} sent9: (x): (¬{B}x & {AB}x) -> {C}{c} sent10: (Ex): (¬{FS}x & {AJ}x) sent11: (¬{AB}{b} v {B}{b}) sent12: {B}{b} -> (¬{B}{c} v {C}{c}) sent13: {C}{aa} sent14: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent15: (¬{B}{a} v {A}{a}) sent16: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent17: (Ex): {GJ}x sent18: {B}{aa} -> {AA}{b} sent19: {B}{c} -> (¬{B}{b} v {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = either the formalin does not lather Glycyrrhiza or it is a backgrounding or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the helvella is a kind of a digestibility. sent2: the formalin does not lather Glycyrrhiza or surrounds or both. sent3: if the fact that the formalin does teeter-totter is not false then the helvella does not teeter-totter and/or it is a backgrounding. sent4: if the formalin does lather motorcycling the helvella lather motorcycling and/or does lather Glycyrrhiza. sent5: something is a sack. sent6: the helvella does teeter-totter. sent7: the formalin either lathers Glycyrrhiza or backgrounds or both. sent8: the zapper surrounds. sent9: if there exists something such that it does not lather Glycyrrhiza and teeter-totters the formalin does background. sent10: something does not clangor but it is inhumane. sent11: the zapper does not teeter-totter or it lathers Glycyrrhiza or both. sent12: the formalin does not lather Glycyrrhiza and/or it does background if the zapper does lather Glycyrrhiza. sent13: the helvella does background. sent14: the helvella does not lather motorcycling but it does teeter-totter. sent15: the flanker does not lather Glycyrrhiza or it does surround or both. sent16: the zapper does lather Glycyrrhiza if the flanker does surround. sent17: there exists something such that it is trinucleate. sent18: the zapper lathers motorcycling if that the helvella lathers Glycyrrhiza is correct. sent19: if the formalin does lather Glycyrrhiza the zapper does not lather Glycyrrhiza or it is a backgrounding or both. ; $proof$ =

sent14 -> int1: there exists something such that it does not lather motorcycling and it does teeter-totter.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a taboret and it does not lather atheism then it does not denaturalize footfall.

(Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: there exists something such that if it does not parody clarification and it is not a legality then it is not an amputee. sent2: the garambulla does not denaturalize footfall if it is a taboret that does not lather atheism. sent3: there exists something such that if it is a kind of non-parochial thing that does not parody 1760s it is not bipolar. sent4: if the garambulla does not denaturalize muskellunge and it does not lather statin then it is a taboret. sent5: if the garambulla is not a taboret and does not lather atheism it does not denaturalize footfall. sent6: the garambulla is not a pliability if it is not Ebionite and does not denaturalize footfall. sent7: there is something such that if it does not parody inconceivability and it is not a radiomicrometer it is not untrustworthy. sent8: if the scholar does not hurtle reductionism and it is not a taboret then it is changeless. sent9: if the garambulla is a kind of non-delicate thing that does not denaturalize sunburned then the fact that it is not binocular is right. sent10: the fact that the garambulla does not denaturalize footfall is correct if it is not a taboret and it does lather atheism. sent11: the fact that the garambulla denaturalizes monstrance if the garambulla is not a run-through and it is not Ambrosian is not incorrect. sent12: there exists something such that if that it is not redemptive and it is not Ebionite is right it does not lather elytron. sent13: if the rust does not denaturalize cookbook and does not lather atheism the fact that it is a Morgan is not incorrect. sent14: there is something such that if it is not a taboret and it does not lather atheism it does denaturalize footfall. sent15: the pleurothallis is not a gypsum if it does not bear and it does not lather atheism. sent16: if the garambulla does not hurtle Polyporaceae and it is not a kind of a taboret then it is not a liberator. sent17: there exists something such that if it is a taboret and does not lather atheism the fact that it does not denaturalize footfall is not wrong. sent18: if something that does not parody Myxinidae is not a valved that it does not lather nones is not wrong. sent19: there exists something such that if it is a kind of non-hydrophilic thing that is not an eighth it is not divergent. sent20: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a taboret and it does lather atheism that it denaturalizes footfall is not right. sent21: if the garambulla is not a woodenness and it does not grade then it does not hurtle Polyporaceae.

sent1: (Ex): (¬{JJ}x & ¬{EQ}x) -> ¬{IU}x sent2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent3: (Ex): (¬{CB}x & ¬{BB}x) -> ¬{HH}x sent4: (¬{DM}{aa} & ¬{T}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent6: (¬{IM}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) -> ¬{IK}{aa} sent7: (Ex): (¬{FP}x & ¬{BN}x) -> ¬{J}x sent8: (¬{DG}{en} & ¬{AA}{en}) -> {EI}{en} sent9: (¬{CR}{aa} & ¬{CE}{aa}) -> ¬{IS}{aa} sent10: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent11: (¬{HC}{aa} & ¬{BQ}{aa}) -> {FQ}{aa} sent12: (Ex): (¬{HA}x & ¬{IM}x) -> ¬{ED}x sent13: (¬{R}{es} & ¬{AB}{es}) -> {DA}{es} sent14: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent15: (¬{GE}{n} & ¬{AB}{n}) -> ¬{C}{n} sent16: (¬{GD}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) -> ¬{BS}{aa} sent17: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent18: (x): (¬{GT}x & ¬{ES}x) -> ¬{EU}x sent19: (Ex): (¬{IF}x & ¬{FH}x) -> ¬{AG}x sent20: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent21: (¬{BL}{aa} & ¬{JB}{aa}) -> ¬{GD}{aa}

if the garambulla does not parody Myxinidae and it is not a kind of a valved then it does not lather nones.

(¬{GT}{aa} & ¬{ES}{aa}) -> ¬{EU}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a taboret and it does not lather atheism then it does not denaturalize footfall. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it does not parody clarification and it is not a legality then it is not an amputee. sent2: the garambulla does not denaturalize footfall if it is a taboret that does not lather atheism. sent3: there exists something such that if it is a kind of non-parochial thing that does not parody 1760s it is not bipolar. sent4: if the garambulla does not denaturalize muskellunge and it does not lather statin then it is a taboret. sent5: if the garambulla is not a taboret and does not lather atheism it does not denaturalize footfall. sent6: the garambulla is not a pliability if it is not Ebionite and does not denaturalize footfall. sent7: there is something such that if it does not parody inconceivability and it is not a radiomicrometer it is not untrustworthy. sent8: if the scholar does not hurtle reductionism and it is not a taboret then it is changeless. sent9: if the garambulla is a kind of non-delicate thing that does not denaturalize sunburned then the fact that it is not binocular is right. sent10: the fact that the garambulla does not denaturalize footfall is correct if it is not a taboret and it does lather atheism. sent11: the fact that the garambulla denaturalizes monstrance if the garambulla is not a run-through and it is not Ambrosian is not incorrect. sent12: there exists something such that if that it is not redemptive and it is not Ebionite is right it does not lather elytron. sent13: if the rust does not denaturalize cookbook and does not lather atheism the fact that it is a Morgan is not incorrect. sent14: there is something such that if it is not a taboret and it does not lather atheism it does denaturalize footfall. sent15: the pleurothallis is not a gypsum if it does not bear and it does not lather atheism. sent16: if the garambulla does not hurtle Polyporaceae and it is not a kind of a taboret then it is not a liberator. sent17: there exists something such that if it is a taboret and does not lather atheism the fact that it does not denaturalize footfall is not wrong. sent18: if something that does not parody Myxinidae is not a valved that it does not lather nones is not wrong. sent19: there exists something such that if it is a kind of non-hydrophilic thing that is not an eighth it is not divergent. sent20: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a taboret and it does lather atheism that it denaturalizes footfall is not right. sent21: if the garambulla is not a woodenness and it does not grade then it does not hurtle Polyporaceae. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the chopine is substantial and a curse.

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

sent1: if the chopine is not a kind of an iconoclasm the epidemiologist is substantial. sent2: something denaturalizes redtail and does not lather esthete if it is a gallop. sent3: the chopine mimes. sent4: the acarus is an iconoclasm and/or it lathers an if there is something such that it does lathers AN. sent5: the chopine does lather AN. sent6: the chopine is an iconoclasm. sent7: if the chopine is a climatology it is a myriagram. sent8: if the acarus is not a kind of an iconoclasm then the fact that the chopine is not insubstantial and it curses is not correct. sent9: the chopine curses if it is an iconoclasm. sent10: something is an iconoclasm and does denaturalize guitar if that it does not lather an is correct. sent11: if the copybook is a gallop the saxophonist is a kind of a gallop. sent12: the chopine is a kind of substantial thing that does lather AN. sent13: the acarus is not a kind of an iconoclasm if the cinchonine is an iconoclasm and denaturalizes guitar. sent14: there is something such that the fact that it lathers esthete and it is not a gallop is not true. sent15: something that does denaturalize redtail and does not lather esthete does not denaturalize guitar. sent16: the copybook is both electronics and a gallop. sent17: if the saxophonist does not denaturalize guitar that the cinchonine lathers an and is a kind of a curse is not incorrect.

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

the fact that the chopine is a kind of substantial a curse is not true.

¬({C}{a} & {B}{a})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the chopine is substantial and a curse. ; $context$ = sent1: if the chopine is not a kind of an iconoclasm the epidemiologist is substantial. sent2: something denaturalizes redtail and does not lather esthete if it is a gallop. sent3: the chopine mimes. sent4: the acarus is an iconoclasm and/or it lathers an if there is something such that it does lathers AN. sent5: the chopine does lather AN. sent6: the chopine is an iconoclasm. sent7: if the chopine is a climatology it is a myriagram. sent8: if the acarus is not a kind of an iconoclasm then the fact that the chopine is not insubstantial and it curses is not correct. sent9: the chopine curses if it is an iconoclasm. sent10: something is an iconoclasm and does denaturalize guitar if that it does not lather an is correct. sent11: if the copybook is a gallop the saxophonist is a kind of a gallop. sent12: the chopine is a kind of substantial thing that does lather AN. sent13: the acarus is not a kind of an iconoclasm if the cinchonine is an iconoclasm and denaturalizes guitar. sent14: there is something such that the fact that it lathers esthete and it is not a gallop is not true. sent15: something that does denaturalize redtail and does not lather esthete does not denaturalize guitar. sent16: the copybook is both electronics and a gallop. sent17: if the saxophonist does not denaturalize guitar that the cinchonine lathers an and is a kind of a curse is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent6 -> int1: that the chopine is a curse is true.; sent12 -> int2: the chopine is substantial.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there exists something such that the fact that it is a numbat but not dishonest is not correct is false.

¬((Ex): ¬({C}x & ¬{E}x))

sent1: there exists something such that that it does lather coulomb and does denaturalize scalp does not hold. sent2: the epicenter is a numbat and it sacks if the grivet does not lather Alexander. sent3: if the ingenue denaturalizes scalp it is not a sacking and it lathers Alexander. sent4: if the ingenue does denaturalize scalp it does lather Alexander. sent5: if the camcorder is amitotic then that the grivet is a numbat but it is not dishonest is not right. sent6: the fact that the ingenue is not dishonest and it does not lather Myrtus is not right. sent7: something lathers Myrtus if it lathers Alexander. sent8: if the camcorder is amitotic then the fact that the ingenue lathers coulomb and does denaturalize scalp is incorrect. sent9: the grivet is not dishonest but it is amitotic. sent10: if something hurtles dogging it is a kind of a keeping. sent11: if something does not lather Myrtus then it is a kind of an implant and is amitotic. sent12: the fact that the ingenue is not unitary and lathers Alexander is not correct. sent13: the epicenter is a numbat if it is dishonest. sent14: if the fact that something lathers Alexander hold then it does not lather coulomb and it does lather Myrtus. sent15: the ingenue lathers Alexander if that it is non-unitary thing that does not lathers Alexander is wrong. sent16: the fact that the ingenue does lather Myrtus but it is not a sacking is wrong. sent17: if the camcorder does not lather coulomb the ingenue is both amitotic and unitary. sent18: if the camcorder is amitotic that the grivet is a numbat and it is dishonest does not hold. sent19: the resuscitator does denaturalize basidium and it is a surprising. sent20: that the ingenue is not unitary and does not lather Alexander is false. sent21: the epicenter is a sacking that does denaturalize scalp if the camcorder is not amitotic. sent22: if the epicenter is a kind of a sacking the microsporophyll does lather Myrtus. sent23: that the microsporophyll does not lather Myrtus and does not sack is not correct. sent24: if the microsporophyll does lather Myrtus then that the ingenue does not lather coulomb and does lather Myrtus is not true.

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

the epicenter is an implant.

{FO}{b}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that the fact that it is a numbat but not dishonest is not correct is false. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that that it does lather coulomb and does denaturalize scalp does not hold. sent2: the epicenter is a numbat and it sacks if the grivet does not lather Alexander. sent3: if the ingenue denaturalizes scalp it is not a sacking and it lathers Alexander. sent4: if the ingenue does denaturalize scalp it does lather Alexander. sent5: if the camcorder is amitotic then that the grivet is a numbat but it is not dishonest is not right. sent6: the fact that the ingenue is not dishonest and it does not lather Myrtus is not right. sent7: something lathers Myrtus if it lathers Alexander. sent8: if the camcorder is amitotic then the fact that the ingenue lathers coulomb and does denaturalize scalp is incorrect. sent9: the grivet is not dishonest but it is amitotic. sent10: if something hurtles dogging it is a kind of a keeping. sent11: if something does not lather Myrtus then it is a kind of an implant and is amitotic. sent12: the fact that the ingenue is not unitary and lathers Alexander is not correct. sent13: the epicenter is a numbat if it is dishonest. sent14: if the fact that something lathers Alexander hold then it does not lather coulomb and it does lather Myrtus. sent15: the ingenue lathers Alexander if that it is non-unitary thing that does not lathers Alexander is wrong. sent16: the fact that the ingenue does lather Myrtus but it is not a sacking is wrong. sent17: if the camcorder does not lather coulomb the ingenue is both amitotic and unitary. sent18: if the camcorder is amitotic that the grivet is a numbat and it is dishonest does not hold. sent19: the resuscitator does denaturalize basidium and it is a surprising. sent20: that the ingenue is not unitary and does not lather Alexander is false. sent21: the epicenter is a sacking that does denaturalize scalp if the camcorder is not amitotic. sent22: if the epicenter is a kind of a sacking the microsporophyll does lather Myrtus. sent23: that the microsporophyll does not lather Myrtus and does not sack is not correct. sent24: if the microsporophyll does lather Myrtus then that the ingenue does not lather coulomb and does lather Myrtus is not true. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the camcorder is not amitotic.; sent21 & assump1 -> int1: the epicenter is a sacking and denaturalizes scalp.; int1 -> int2: the epicenter is a kind of a sacking.; int2 & sent22 -> int3: the microsporophyll lathers Myrtus.; int3 & sent24 -> int4: the fact that the ingenue does not lather coulomb and does lather Myrtus is not true.; sent14 -> int5: the ingenue does not lather coulomb and does lather Myrtus if it does lather Alexander.; sent15 & sent20 -> int6: the ingenue lathers Alexander.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the ingenue does not lather coulomb and lathers Myrtus.; int4 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the camcorder is amitotic.; int9 & sent5 -> int10: the fact that the grivet is a kind of a numbat that is honest is not right.; int10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it is not a shebang it does not hurtle coulomb.

(Ex): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x

sent1: if the Champagne is not a kind of a shebang it does hurtle coulomb. sent2: something does not hurtle coulomb if it is not a Lavatera. sent3: if the Champagne is not a kind of a shebang then it does not hurtle coulomb. sent4: that there is something such that if it is not a shebang it does hurtle coulomb is not incorrect. sent5: the humanities does not hurtle coulomb if it is a kind of a rehearsal.

sent1: ¬{B}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent2: (x): ¬{CG}x -> ¬{C}x sent3: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent4: (Ex): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent5: {ED}{ht} -> ¬{C}{ht}

the Champagne does not hurtle coulomb if it is not a Lavatera.

¬{CG}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not a shebang it does not hurtle coulomb. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Champagne is not a kind of a shebang it does hurtle coulomb. sent2: something does not hurtle coulomb if it is not a Lavatera. sent3: if the Champagne is not a kind of a shebang then it does not hurtle coulomb. sent4: that there is something such that if it is not a shebang it does hurtle coulomb is not incorrect. sent5: the humanities does not hurtle coulomb if it is a kind of a rehearsal. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the aloe is not a kind of a Pseudococcidae and/or it is unshockable.

(¬{B}{b} v ¬{C}{b})

sent1: there exists nothing that is a kind of a Czech that does acculturate. sent2: there exists nothing that is a Czech that does not acculturate. sent3: if there is something such that it acculturates the tee does not hurtle Lordship. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is a Czech and acculturates does not hold. sent5: that the aloe is not a Pseudococcidae or it is not shockable or both is not correct if the tee does not hurtle Lordship. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of Czech thing that does not acculturate is not true then the tee does not hurtle Lordship. sent7: that that the polarization is Czech and acculturates is not false is false.

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the aloe is not a kind of a Pseudococcidae and/or it is unshockable. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists nothing that is a kind of a Czech that does acculturate. sent2: there exists nothing that is a Czech that does not acculturate. sent3: if there is something such that it acculturates the tee does not hurtle Lordship. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is a Czech and acculturates does not hold. sent5: that the aloe is not a Pseudococcidae or it is not shockable or both is not correct if the tee does not hurtle Lordship. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of Czech thing that does not acculturate is not true then the tee does not hurtle Lordship. sent7: that that the polarization is Czech and acculturates is not false is false. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: that the polarization is a kind of a Czech and does not acculturate is not right.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it is a kind of a Czech and it does not acculturate does not hold.; int2 & sent6 -> int3: the tee does not hurtle Lordship.; sent5 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the lathering conservatory occurs the fact that the fact that the lathering prang or the non-two-wheelness or both occurs is true is not right.

{F} -> ¬({H} v ¬{G})

sent1: both the floralness and the subjacentness occurs if the growth does not occur. sent2: the fact that the dirt occurs and the bacchanticness does not occur does not hold. sent3: if the kick does not occur and the topping does not occur the growth does not occur. sent4: that the modernness does not occur and the lathering conservatory does not occur is brought about by that the two-wheelness occurs. sent5: the fact that either the lathering prang happens or the two-wheelness occurs or both is not right. sent6: if the fact that the fact that the fact that both the kick and the modern happens is not wrong is not true is not incorrect the lathering conservatory does not occur. sent7: if the naturalization does not occur the two-wheelness and the lathering prang occurs. sent8: the topped does not occur if both the growth and the floralness occurs. sent9: if the floralness does not occur the fact that the lathering prang occurs or the two-wheelness does not occur or both is wrong. sent10: the fact that both the kick and the modern happens is incorrect if the fact that the toppedness does not occur is true. sent11: if the fact that the lathering chalkpit occurs and/or the sweep does not occur is not right then the naturalization does not occur.

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

the subjacentness happens.

{JI}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = if the lathering conservatory occurs the fact that the fact that the lathering prang or the non-two-wheelness or both occurs is true is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: both the floralness and the subjacentness occurs if the growth does not occur. sent2: the fact that the dirt occurs and the bacchanticness does not occur does not hold. sent3: if the kick does not occur and the topping does not occur the growth does not occur. sent4: that the modernness does not occur and the lathering conservatory does not occur is brought about by that the two-wheelness occurs. sent5: the fact that either the lathering prang happens or the two-wheelness occurs or both is not right. sent6: if the fact that the fact that the fact that both the kick and the modern happens is not wrong is not true is not incorrect the lathering conservatory does not occur. sent7: if the naturalization does not occur the two-wheelness and the lathering prang occurs. sent8: the topped does not occur if both the growth and the floralness occurs. sent9: if the floralness does not occur the fact that the lathering prang occurs or the two-wheelness does not occur or both is wrong. sent10: the fact that both the kick and the modern happens is incorrect if the fact that the toppedness does not occur is true. sent11: if the fact that the lathering chalkpit occurs and/or the sweep does not occur is not right then the naturalization does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump2: Let's assume that the lathering conservatory happens.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the chapman is not endodontics.

¬{G}{d}

sent1: if the fact that the chalk lathers country-dance is right then the abaca is not unapologetic. sent2: the chapman is endodontics if the fact that the pyroelectricity is not a scribble and does denaturalize busman does not hold. sent3: if the pyroelectricity is not a allyl then that it is not a scribble and it does denaturalize busman does not hold. sent4: the abaca is unapologetic. sent5: the chalk is philosophic. sent6: the fact that the pyroelectricity is not a allyl hold if something does not lather country-dance but it is philosophic.

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the chapman is not endodontics. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the chalk lathers country-dance is right then the abaca is not unapologetic. sent2: the chapman is endodontics if the fact that the pyroelectricity is not a scribble and does denaturalize busman does not hold. sent3: if the pyroelectricity is not a allyl then that it is not a scribble and it does denaturalize busman does not hold. sent4: the abaca is unapologetic. sent5: the chalk is philosophic. sent6: the fact that the pyroelectricity is not a allyl hold if something does not lather country-dance but it is philosophic. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the chalk lathers country-dance is true.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: that the abaca is not unapologetic is not incorrect.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the chalk does not lather country-dance.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: the chalk does not lather country-dance but it is philosophic.; int4 -> int5: something does not lather country-dance and is philosophic.; int5 & sent6 -> int6: the pyroelectricity is not a allyl.; int6 & sent3 -> int7: the fact that the pyroelectricity is not a kind of a scribble and does denaturalize busman is not right.; int7 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the summeriness occurs then the denaturalizing tune occurs.

{A} -> {C}

sent1: that both the non-summeryness and the non-unreasonableness occurs prevents that the denaturalizing tune does not occur. sent2: if the unreasonableness happens then the denaturalizing tune happens. sent3: the conventionalization occurs. sent4: that the non-summeryness and the unreasonableness happens is not true. sent5: the acceptableness happens. sent6: the parodying spastic does not occur and the blastomycoticness does not occur. sent7: the fact that the ionicness does not occur and the laryngospasm does not occur is not true. sent8: the lathering acetate happens if the partition happens. sent9: the fact that the lathering Mennonitism does not occur and the hurtling landside does not occur is not right. sent10: the melting does not occur. sent11: if the fact that the summeriness and the reasonableness happens does not hold then the denaturalizing tune happens. sent12: that the non-unreasonableness and/or the non-summeryness occurs is triggered by that the denaturalizing tune does not occur. sent13: the fact that the uplifting does not occur and the denaturalizing Schutzstaffel does not occur is false. sent14: the unreasonableness does not occur. sent15: both the summeriness and the reasonableness occurs.

sent1: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> {C} sent2: {B} -> {C} sent3: {CM} sent4: ¬(¬{A} & {B}) sent5: {CA} sent6: (¬{AE} & ¬{CE}) sent7: ¬(¬{HD} & ¬{DO}) sent8: {JH} -> {H} sent9: ¬(¬{HM} & ¬{AG}) sent10: ¬{GO} sent11: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) -> {C} sent12: ¬{C} -> (¬{B} v ¬{A}) sent13: ¬(¬{EA} & ¬{GH}) sent14: ¬{B} sent15: ({A} & ¬{B})

the blastomycoticness does not occur.

¬{CE}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = if the summeriness occurs then the denaturalizing tune occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that both the non-summeryness and the non-unreasonableness occurs prevents that the denaturalizing tune does not occur. sent2: if the unreasonableness happens then the denaturalizing tune happens. sent3: the conventionalization occurs. sent4: that the non-summeryness and the unreasonableness happens is not true. sent5: the acceptableness happens. sent6: the parodying spastic does not occur and the blastomycoticness does not occur. sent7: the fact that the ionicness does not occur and the laryngospasm does not occur is not true. sent8: the lathering acetate happens if the partition happens. sent9: the fact that the lathering Mennonitism does not occur and the hurtling landside does not occur is not right. sent10: the melting does not occur. sent11: if the fact that the summeriness and the reasonableness happens does not hold then the denaturalizing tune happens. sent12: that the non-unreasonableness and/or the non-summeryness occurs is triggered by that the denaturalizing tune does not occur. sent13: the fact that the uplifting does not occur and the denaturalizing Schutzstaffel does not occur is false. sent14: the unreasonableness does not occur. sent15: both the summeriness and the reasonableness occurs. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the non-summeriness and the reasonableness occurs.; assump1 -> int1: the summeriness does not occur.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the summeriness occurs.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that both the non-summeriness and the reasonableness occurs is false.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the hurtling pointed occurs.

{D}

sent1: that the shoot-'em-up does not occur prevents that the hurtling bandoleer does not occur. sent2: the shoot-'em-up does not occur. sent3: the gyroscopicness does not occur but the denaturalizing falling happens. sent4: if the admitting happens then the coarsening happens. sent5: the microeconomicsness does not occur. sent6: the shot happens if the titrating occurs. sent7: not the shoot-'em-up but the parallax occurs. sent8: if the tetrametricness does not occur then the fact that the hurtling pointed occurs and the gyroscopicness happens is incorrect. sent9: if the cumulus occurs then the nominating occurs. sent10: that the mid-off does not occur is true. sent11: the cumulus occurs. sent12: if the violating happens the hurtling fief occurs. sent13: the mediateness does not occur. sent14: both the gyroscopicness and the tetrametricness happens if the tornado does not occur. sent15: that the tetrametricness does not occur is caused by that the cumulus happens and the tornado happens. sent16: the non-youngerness leads to that both the plunge and the cumulus happens. sent17: the hurtling pointed happens if the fact that the clinkering happens is not incorrect. sent18: the interlock happens. sent19: the hurtling heckelphone does not occur. sent20: the clinkering happens if the parallax occurs. sent21: if that the clinker does not occur and the parallax does not occur does not hold then the shoot-'em-up does not occur. sent22: the accommodation happens if the meshing happens.

sent1: ¬{A} -> {JH} sent2: ¬{A} sent3: (¬{E} & {AH}) sent4: {IT} -> {HD} sent5: ¬{EN} sent6: {DU} -> {FK} sent7: (¬{A} & {B}) sent8: ¬{F} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent9: {H} -> {HO} sent10: ¬{ET} sent11: {H} sent12: {DJ} -> {CS} sent13: ¬{BQ} sent14: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent15: ({H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent16: ¬{J} -> ({I} & {H}) sent17: {C} -> {D} sent18: {IJ} sent19: ¬{BF} sent20: {B} -> {C} sent21: ¬(¬{C} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{A} sent22: {EG} -> {IN}

that the hurtling pointed does not occur is correct.

¬{D}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hurtling pointed occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the shoot-'em-up does not occur prevents that the hurtling bandoleer does not occur. sent2: the shoot-'em-up does not occur. sent3: the gyroscopicness does not occur but the denaturalizing falling happens. sent4: if the admitting happens then the coarsening happens. sent5: the microeconomicsness does not occur. sent6: the shot happens if the titrating occurs. sent7: not the shoot-'em-up but the parallax occurs. sent8: if the tetrametricness does not occur then the fact that the hurtling pointed occurs and the gyroscopicness happens is incorrect. sent9: if the cumulus occurs then the nominating occurs. sent10: that the mid-off does not occur is true. sent11: the cumulus occurs. sent12: if the violating happens the hurtling fief occurs. sent13: the mediateness does not occur. sent14: both the gyroscopicness and the tetrametricness happens if the tornado does not occur. sent15: that the tetrametricness does not occur is caused by that the cumulus happens and the tornado happens. sent16: the non-youngerness leads to that both the plunge and the cumulus happens. sent17: the hurtling pointed happens if the fact that the clinkering happens is not incorrect. sent18: the interlock happens. sent19: the hurtling heckelphone does not occur. sent20: the clinkering happens if the parallax occurs. sent21: if that the clinker does not occur and the parallax does not occur does not hold then the shoot-'em-up does not occur. sent22: the accommodation happens if the meshing happens. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: the parallax happens.; sent20 & int1 -> int2: the clinker occurs.; sent17 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the tureen is not radiolucent and does not ream is not true if the Merovingian is reparable.

{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

sent1: the fact that the Merovingian does denaturalize placeholder but it is not a ream is not right. sent2: the floe does not denaturalize Orpington and it does not denaturalize placeholder. sent3: that the fact that the tureen is not radiolucent but it is a kind of a ream hold does not hold. sent4: something is not radiolucent if that it does not denaturalize diffuseness and does denaturalize placeholder is wrong. sent5: the fact that the tureen is a kind of non-radiolucent a ream is not true if the Merovingian is not radiolucent. sent6: that the Merovingian is a ream but it is not reparable does not hold. sent7: the fact that the fact that the Merovingian is not a ream and denaturalizes diffuseness is not true if the tureen denaturalizes placeholder hold. sent8: that the Merovingian denaturalizes diffuseness and it denaturalizes placeholder is not right. sent9: if the Merovingian is reparable the fact that it does denaturalize diffuseness and it does denaturalize placeholder is false. sent10: the fact that the tureen is not radiolucent and it does not ream is wrong if the Merovingian is not radiolucent. sent11: the fact that that the tureen is a kind of radiolucent thing that is not a ream is not wrong does not hold. sent12: if the Merovingian is reparable the fact that the tureen is radiolucent and not a ream is false. sent13: that the tureen is both radiolucent and not a ream does not hold if the Merovingian is not radiolucent. sent14: if something denaturalizes diffuseness it is not radiolucent. sent15: that the fact that the tureen is a kind of non-radiolucent a ream is not false is incorrect if that the Merovingian is reparable is not incorrect. sent16: if the Merovingian does not denaturalize placeholder the fact that the tureen does not denaturalize placeholder and it is not radiolucent does not hold. sent17: if the Merovingian does denaturalize diffuseness it is not radiolucent. sent18: the tureen is not radiolucent and it does not ream if the Merovingian is not irreparable. sent19: that the tureen is nonexempt but it does not denaturalize diffuseness does not hold.

sent1: ¬({AB}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent2: (¬{EH}{cr} & ¬{AB}{cr}) sent3: ¬(¬{B}{b} & {D}{b}) sent4: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & {D}{b}) sent6: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent7: {AB}{b} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent8: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent9: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent10: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent11: ¬({B}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent12: {A}{a} -> ¬({B}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent13: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({B}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent14: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent15: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & {D}{b}) sent16: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬(¬{AB}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent17: {AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent18: {A}{a} -> (¬{B}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent19: ¬({IO}{b} & ¬{AA}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the tureen is not radiolucent and does not ream is not true if the Merovingian is reparable. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Merovingian does denaturalize placeholder but it is not a ream is not right. sent2: the floe does not denaturalize Orpington and it does not denaturalize placeholder. sent3: that the fact that the tureen is not radiolucent but it is a kind of a ream hold does not hold. sent4: something is not radiolucent if that it does not denaturalize diffuseness and does denaturalize placeholder is wrong. sent5: the fact that the tureen is a kind of non-radiolucent a ream is not true if the Merovingian is not radiolucent. sent6: that the Merovingian is a ream but it is not reparable does not hold. sent7: the fact that the fact that the Merovingian is not a ream and denaturalizes diffuseness is not true if the tureen denaturalizes placeholder hold. sent8: that the Merovingian denaturalizes diffuseness and it denaturalizes placeholder is not right. sent9: if the Merovingian is reparable the fact that it does denaturalize diffuseness and it does denaturalize placeholder is false. sent10: the fact that the tureen is not radiolucent and it does not ream is wrong if the Merovingian is not radiolucent. sent11: the fact that that the tureen is a kind of radiolucent thing that is not a ream is not wrong does not hold. sent12: if the Merovingian is reparable the fact that the tureen is radiolucent and not a ream is false. sent13: that the tureen is both radiolucent and not a ream does not hold if the Merovingian is not radiolucent. sent14: if something denaturalizes diffuseness it is not radiolucent. sent15: that the fact that the tureen is a kind of non-radiolucent a ream is not false is incorrect if that the Merovingian is reparable is not incorrect. sent16: if the Merovingian does not denaturalize placeholder the fact that the tureen does not denaturalize placeholder and it is not radiolucent does not hold. sent17: if the Merovingian does denaturalize diffuseness it is not radiolucent. sent18: the tureen is not radiolucent and it does not ream if the Merovingian is not irreparable. sent19: that the tureen is nonexempt but it does not denaturalize diffuseness does not hold. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Merovingian is reparable.; sent4 -> int1: that if the fact that the Merovingian does not denaturalize diffuseness and does denaturalize placeholder does not hold the Merovingian is not radiolucent is not false.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the dragnet does not denaturalize Schutzstaffel.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: there is something such that the fact that it is not a hole and not a prearrangement is incorrect. sent2: if the barrister presses then that it is a Houston that does not propitiate is wrong. sent3: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a pressing and not a Houston is not true the barrister does not denaturalize Schutzstaffel. sent4: the dragnet is not a kind of a Houston. sent5: that the fact that the barrister does not denaturalize Schutzstaffel and does not press is not true is not incorrect if it is a kind of a Houston. sent6: something is not a Houston and does not propitiate. sent7: that the barrister is not a kind of a Houston and it does not propitiate is wrong if it presses. sent8: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Houston and does not propitiate is not true then the dragnet does not denaturalize Schutzstaffel. sent9: that the dragnet is not a kind of a blizzard and it is not eager is not right. sent10: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a Houston and does not propitiate is not right. sent11: the fact that the barrister is a Houston but it does not propitiate is wrong. sent12: that the barrister is not a Houston and not a Dracocephalum is not right. sent13: the barrister does press. sent14: the Bovril does not propitiate. sent15: the digitigrade does not denaturalize Schutzstaffel. sent16: that the barrister is not a kind of a Houston but it does propitiate does not hold if it does press. sent17: there exists something such that that it is not a Houston and does propitiate is not true. sent18: if there is something such that the fact that it does not propitiate and does not denaturalize Schutzstaffel is not correct then that the dragnet is not a Houston hold. sent19: that the barrister is not a Houston and does propitiate is false. sent20: the dragnet is not a Houston if there is something such that that it does not denaturalize Schutzstaffel and does not propitiate does not hold.

sent1: (Ex): ¬(¬{HJ}x & ¬{AK}x) sent2: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{AA}x) -> ¬{B}{a} sent4: ¬{AA}{b} sent5: {AA}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent6: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent8: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}{b} sent9: ¬(¬{HF}{b} & ¬{FM}{b}) sent10: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent11: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent12: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{EE}{a}) sent13: {A}{a} sent14: ¬{AB}{bb} sent15: ¬{B}{ba} sent16: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent17: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent18: (x): ¬(¬{AB}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{AA}{b} sent19: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent20: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{AA}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the dragnet does not denaturalize Schutzstaffel. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that the fact that it is not a hole and not a prearrangement is incorrect. sent2: if the barrister presses then that it is a Houston that does not propitiate is wrong. sent3: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a pressing and not a Houston is not true the barrister does not denaturalize Schutzstaffel. sent4: the dragnet is not a kind of a Houston. sent5: that the fact that the barrister does not denaturalize Schutzstaffel and does not press is not true is not incorrect if it is a kind of a Houston. sent6: something is not a Houston and does not propitiate. sent7: that the barrister is not a kind of a Houston and it does not propitiate is wrong if it presses. sent8: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Houston and does not propitiate is not true then the dragnet does not denaturalize Schutzstaffel. sent9: that the dragnet is not a kind of a blizzard and it is not eager is not right. sent10: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a Houston and does not propitiate is not right. sent11: the fact that the barrister is a Houston but it does not propitiate is wrong. sent12: that the barrister is not a Houston and not a Dracocephalum is not right. sent13: the barrister does press. sent14: the Bovril does not propitiate. sent15: the digitigrade does not denaturalize Schutzstaffel. sent16: that the barrister is not a kind of a Houston but it does propitiate does not hold if it does press. sent17: there exists something such that that it is not a Houston and does propitiate is not true. sent18: if there is something such that the fact that it does not propitiate and does not denaturalize Schutzstaffel is not correct then that the dragnet is not a Houston hold. sent19: that the barrister is not a Houston and does propitiate is false. sent20: the dragnet is not a Houston if there is something such that that it does not denaturalize Schutzstaffel and does not propitiate does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent13 -> int1: the fact that the barrister is not a Houston and does not propitiate does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a Houston and does not propitiate does not hold.; int2 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the thyrse is crural.

{D}{b}

sent1: the thyrse devises if the urethane does winnow confabulation. sent2: the burthen is a Falla that is a discharged. sent3: the urethane is a Bohemian. sent4: something is not a Bohemian if it is a devising and is not a kind of a phosphor. sent5: if the urethane does devise but it is not a Turkish then the thyrse is a Turkish. sent6: if the thyrse is crural it winnows confabulation. sent7: the wailer is not predicative. sent8: the thyrse winnows confabulation if it devises. sent9: if something does devise it is crural. sent10: the thyrse is a Microsorium if it bogs consulship.

sent1: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent2: ({EF}{f} & {FF}{f}) sent3: {A}{a} sent4: (x): ({C}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{A}x sent5: ({C}{a} & ¬{AC}{a}) -> {AC}{b} sent6: {D}{b} -> {B}{b} sent7: ¬{F}{d} sent8: {C}{b} -> {B}{b} sent9: (x): {C}x -> {D}x sent10: {FE}{b} -> {ER}{b}

the thyrse is not non-Turkish and it does winnow confabulation.

({AC}{b} & {B}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the thyrse is crural. ; $context$ = sent1: the thyrse devises if the urethane does winnow confabulation. sent2: the burthen is a Falla that is a discharged. sent3: the urethane is a Bohemian. sent4: something is not a Bohemian if it is a devising and is not a kind of a phosphor. sent5: if the urethane does devise but it is not a Turkish then the thyrse is a Turkish. sent6: if the thyrse is crural it winnows confabulation. sent7: the wailer is not predicative. sent8: the thyrse winnows confabulation if it devises. sent9: if something does devise it is crural. sent10: the thyrse is a Microsorium if it bogs consulship. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> int1: that the thyrse is crural if the thyrse is a devising hold.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the sportswriter is a kind of a parentage and is not soft.

({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

sent1: the sportswriter does not bog favorableness. sent2: something bogs favorableness if it does not reproduce and does not unpick sabbatical. sent3: that the sportswriter is a parentage and it is soft does not hold. sent4: The favorableness does not bog sportswriter. sent5: that the revenant is a kind of a dieter that is not a marc is not right. sent6: that the sportswriter is both a parentage and not soft does not hold if it does not bog favorableness. sent7: the grugru does not bog favorableness. sent8: if the sportswriter does not bog favorableness then the fact that it is a parentage and soft is not right. sent9: something is a parentage but it is not soft if it does bog favorableness. sent10: the fact that the sportswriter is nosohusial and not soft is incorrect. sent11: if something is incorrect it winnows chauffeur. sent12: if that the servant reproduces is not wrong then the sportswriter does not unpick sabbatical and does not bog favorableness. sent13: if the fact that the servant is not a kind of a mastodon and it does not bog tenure is false then it does bog tenure. sent14: that the sportswriter is a parentage but it is not chaffy does not hold. sent15: if the sportswriter is not a kind of a twit then the fact that it does winnow agglomerate and does not bog favorableness is wrong. sent16: something that winnows chauffeur does not reproduce and does not unpick sabbatical. sent17: that the sportswriter is ichorous but it is not a kind of a prestidigitation is not right if it does not bog favorableness. sent18: something is incorrect if it bogs tenure. sent19: if something does winnow chauffeur that it reproduces hold. sent20: the fact that the chauffeur is both a Wilkinson and a stabilizer is false if it does not bog favorableness. sent21: the Warner does not bog favorableness if the sportswriter does not unpick sabbatical and it does not bog favorableness. sent22: the quoin is a mastodon if the fact that it is not a ballot or it does not winnow servant or both is not correct.

sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}x sent3: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent4: ¬{AC}{aa} sent5: ¬({DC}{fp} & ¬{DU}{fp}) sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent7: ¬{A}{t} sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent9: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent10: ¬({M}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent11: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent12: {C}{b} -> (¬{B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent13: ¬(¬{H}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) -> {F}{b} sent14: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{FT}{a}) sent15: ¬{HK}{a} -> ¬({DE}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent16: (x): {D}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) sent17: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({DI}{a} & ¬{HP}{a}) sent18: (x): {F}x -> {E}x sent19: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent20: ¬{A}{gq} -> ¬({HR}{gq} & {GI}{gq}) sent21: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{A}{dp} sent22: ¬(¬{G}{c} v ¬{I}{c}) -> {H}{c}

the sportswriter is both a parentage and non-soft.

({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sportswriter is a kind of a parentage and is not soft. ; $context$ = sent1: the sportswriter does not bog favorableness. sent2: something bogs favorableness if it does not reproduce and does not unpick sabbatical. sent3: that the sportswriter is a parentage and it is soft does not hold. sent4: The favorableness does not bog sportswriter. sent5: that the revenant is a kind of a dieter that is not a marc is not right. sent6: that the sportswriter is both a parentage and not soft does not hold if it does not bog favorableness. sent7: the grugru does not bog favorableness. sent8: if the sportswriter does not bog favorableness then the fact that it is a parentage and soft is not right. sent9: something is a parentage but it is not soft if it does bog favorableness. sent10: the fact that the sportswriter is nosohusial and not soft is incorrect. sent11: if something is incorrect it winnows chauffeur. sent12: if that the servant reproduces is not wrong then the sportswriter does not unpick sabbatical and does not bog favorableness. sent13: if the fact that the servant is not a kind of a mastodon and it does not bog tenure is false then it does bog tenure. sent14: that the sportswriter is a parentage but it is not chaffy does not hold. sent15: if the sportswriter is not a kind of a twit then the fact that it does winnow agglomerate and does not bog favorableness is wrong. sent16: something that winnows chauffeur does not reproduce and does not unpick sabbatical. sent17: that the sportswriter is ichorous but it is not a kind of a prestidigitation is not right if it does not bog favorableness. sent18: something is incorrect if it bogs tenure. sent19: if something does winnow chauffeur that it reproduces hold. sent20: the fact that the chauffeur is both a Wilkinson and a stabilizer is false if it does not bog favorableness. sent21: the Warner does not bog favorableness if the sportswriter does not unpick sabbatical and it does not bog favorableness. sent22: the quoin is a mastodon if the fact that it is not a ballot or it does not winnow servant or both is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the dun is not a scape.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: the bobby is either a scape or dumpy or both. sent2: if the fact that something is disobedient and unpicks territoriality is not right then it does not unpicks territoriality. sent3: something is a fruitage and it is a boudoir if it is not a kind of a chafing. sent4: if either the dun unpicks territoriality or it is a kind of a scape or both then the millionairess is not a commensal. sent5: the dun is soft and/or it is an argent. sent6: the millionairess is not a scape if the dun does unpick territoriality and/or it is a kind of a commensal. sent7: the fact that the millionairess is disobedient hold. sent8: the millionairess is disobedient if the multivitamin is commensal. sent9: if the millionairess is commensal then the dun is not a scape. sent10: if the millionairess is a scape and/or it is a kind of a commensal then the dun does not unpick territoriality. sent11: the neonate is not a kind of a fixation. sent12: the millionairess is a scape. sent13: the multivitamin is commensal if something is embolic. sent14: the fact that the dun is not a scape is not false if the millionairess does unpick territoriality and/or it is a commensal. sent15: the fact that the lemonade does not bog Cassirer but it is a chafing does not hold if the neonate is not a fixation. sent16: something is embolic if it is a fruitage. sent17: the millionairess does unpick territoriality and is disobedient. sent18: the millionairess is not commensal. sent19: the taskmistress is not a scape. sent20: either the millionairess unpicks territoriality or it is a kind of a scape or both. sent21: the muffle is not a chafing if there exists something such that the fact that it does not bog Cassirer and it chafing is not right.

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

the dun is a scape.

{D}{b}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dun is not a scape. ; $context$ = sent1: the bobby is either a scape or dumpy or both. sent2: if the fact that something is disobedient and unpicks territoriality is not right then it does not unpicks territoriality. sent3: something is a fruitage and it is a boudoir if it is not a kind of a chafing. sent4: if either the dun unpicks territoriality or it is a kind of a scape or both then the millionairess is not a commensal. sent5: the dun is soft and/or it is an argent. sent6: the millionairess is not a scape if the dun does unpick territoriality and/or it is a kind of a commensal. sent7: the fact that the millionairess is disobedient hold. sent8: the millionairess is disobedient if the multivitamin is commensal. sent9: if the millionairess is commensal then the dun is not a scape. sent10: if the millionairess is a scape and/or it is a kind of a commensal then the dun does not unpick territoriality. sent11: the neonate is not a kind of a fixation. sent12: the millionairess is a scape. sent13: the multivitamin is commensal if something is embolic. sent14: the fact that the dun is not a scape is not false if the millionairess does unpick territoriality and/or it is a commensal. sent15: the fact that the lemonade does not bog Cassirer but it is a chafing does not hold if the neonate is not a fixation. sent16: something is embolic if it is a fruitage. sent17: the millionairess does unpick territoriality and is disobedient. sent18: the millionairess is not commensal. sent19: the taskmistress is not a scape. sent20: either the millionairess unpicks territoriality or it is a kind of a scape or both. sent21: the muffle is not a chafing if there exists something such that the fact that it does not bog Cassirer and it chafing is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent17 -> int1: the millionairess does unpick territoriality.; int1 -> int2: the millionairess either unpicks territoriality or is a commensal or both.; sent14 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the HS1 is an acoustic.

{D}{e}

sent1: if the ununquadium is a kind of a skybox it is a kind of a dessiatine. sent2: the HS1 is not a kind of an acoustic if that the leaflet is loopy but it is not a dasyurid is not true. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a dasyurid hold that the ununquadium is loopy and it does yodel Rosicrucianism is wrong. sent4: the ununquadium is not a conserved but it is a leucine. sent5: if there is something such that that it is not a thiocyanate and it is a kind of a dasyurid is not true the Kui is not a kind of a dasyurid. sent6: there is something such that it does unpick hyperventilation and it is alluvial. sent7: if something does unpick hyperventilation and it is alluvial then the leaflet unpicks hoariness. sent8: a skybox is a dessiatine. sent9: if the leaflet unpicks hoariness then it does not bog handshake and it is not a Levantine. sent10: the fact that that the microfossil is not a thiocyanate but a dasyurid does not hold is not incorrect if it is not a Levantine. sent11: the microfossil is not Levantine if the leaflet does not bog handshake and is not a Levantine. sent12: the fact that the leaflet is loopy and it is a dasyurid is not correct. sent13: the leaflet is loopy if it is an acoustic. sent14: that the leaflet is loopy but it is not a dasyurid is incorrect if the microfossil is loopy. sent15: the Kui is a skybox if the ununquadium does not conserve and is a leucine. sent16: if the ununquadium is a kind of a dessiatine the HS1 is not a Angolan but it is a kind of a dasyurid. sent17: the microfossil is loopy if the Kui is a dessiatine. sent18: something is not loopy if the fact that it is loopy thing that does yodel Rosicrucianism is incorrect.

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

the HS1 is an acoustic.

{D}{e}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the HS1 is an acoustic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the ununquadium is a kind of a skybox it is a kind of a dessiatine. sent2: the HS1 is not a kind of an acoustic if that the leaflet is loopy but it is not a dasyurid is not true. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a dasyurid hold that the ununquadium is loopy and it does yodel Rosicrucianism is wrong. sent4: the ununquadium is not a conserved but it is a leucine. sent5: if there is something such that that it is not a thiocyanate and it is a kind of a dasyurid is not true the Kui is not a kind of a dasyurid. sent6: there is something such that it does unpick hyperventilation and it is alluvial. sent7: if something does unpick hyperventilation and it is alluvial then the leaflet unpicks hoariness. sent8: a skybox is a dessiatine. sent9: if the leaflet unpicks hoariness then it does not bog handshake and it is not a Levantine. sent10: the fact that that the microfossil is not a thiocyanate but a dasyurid does not hold is not incorrect if it is not a Levantine. sent11: the microfossil is not Levantine if the leaflet does not bog handshake and is not a Levantine. sent12: the fact that the leaflet is loopy and it is a dasyurid is not correct. sent13: the leaflet is loopy if it is an acoustic. sent14: that the leaflet is loopy but it is not a dasyurid is incorrect if the microfossil is loopy. sent15: the Kui is a skybox if the ununquadium does not conserve and is a leucine. sent16: if the ununquadium is a kind of a dessiatine the HS1 is not a Angolan but it is a kind of a dasyurid. sent17: the microfossil is loopy if the Kui is a dessiatine. sent18: something is not loopy if the fact that it is loopy thing that does yodel Rosicrucianism is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent4 -> int1: the Kui is a skybox.; sent8 -> int2: the Kui is a kind of a dessiatine if it is a skybox.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Kui is a kind of a dessiatine.; int3 & sent17 -> int4: the microfossil is loopy.; int4 & sent14 -> int5: the fact that the leaflet is a kind of loopy thing that is not a kind of a dasyurid is not right.; int5 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the beats does unpick contrast and/or it is a kind of a Niamey is not right.

¬({C}{b} v {D}{b})

sent1: if something does not bog mnemonics then that either it unpicks contrast or it is a kind of a Niamey or both is not correct. sent2: if the fact that something is not cytophotometric is not false then the beats does not bog mnemonics. sent3: something is ribless but it is not pneumococcal. sent4: the doodad is not cytophotometric if there exists something such that it is ribless and non-pneumococcal.

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the beats does unpick contrast and/or it is a kind of a Niamey is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not bog mnemonics then that either it unpicks contrast or it is a kind of a Niamey or both is not correct. sent2: if the fact that something is not cytophotometric is not false then the beats does not bog mnemonics. sent3: something is ribless but it is not pneumococcal. sent4: the doodad is not cytophotometric if there exists something such that it is ribless and non-pneumococcal. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the doodad is not cytophotometric.; int1 -> int2: there are non-cytophotometric things.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: the beats does not bog mnemonics.; sent1 -> int4: if the beats does not bog mnemonics then the fact that it does unpick contrast or it is a Niamey or both is wrong.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the trichion does bog HS1.

{E}{d}

sent1: there exists something such that that it does not unpick Hebraist and is not non-Congolese is not right. sent2: if that the microfossil does not unpick Hebraist and does not bog HS1 is false then the trichion does not bog HS1. sent3: the fact that the HS1 is alkylic and/or unpicks Hebraist is not true if the microfossil is not a flatfoot. sent4: the fact that the HS1 does not winnow Allegheny and does not bog ANG is wrong if it is fibrocalcific. sent5: the trichion does not cackle. sent6: the microfossil is not a flatfoot if there exists something such that that the fact that it does not shuck and is a varmint is not incorrect is not true. sent7: that the microfossil does not unpick Hebraist and it does not bog HS1 does not hold if the HS1 is a flatfoot. sent8: something is not a Congolese if the fact that it is not a kind of a caravansary and it is Congolese is wrong. sent9: there exists something such that it is not a Congolese and does bog HS1. sent10: if there exists something such that that it is not alkylic and is a kind of a flatfoot is not true the HS1 is not a defensibility. sent11: there is something such that it does not shuck and it is a varmint. sent12: there is something such that that it does not shuck and it is a varmint is wrong. sent13: there is something such that that it shucks and is a varmint is false. sent14: if something is not a kind of a Congolese it is a flatfoot and is alkylic. sent15: the psocid is not a Congolese if the fact that the HS1 is alkylic or unpicks Hebraist or both is false. sent16: there exists something such that it is a kind of datable thing that bottoms. sent17: that the psocid is not a defensibility hold if there is something such that that it is not alkylic and it is a Congolese is not correct. sent18: the trichion bogs HS1 and it is a defensibility if the psocid is not Congolese. sent19: the microfossil is not alkylic. sent20: if the trichion does not unpick Hebraist the fact that that the HS1 is a defensibility or it bogs HS1 or both does not hold hold. sent21: the trichion is a kind of a defensibility. sent22: the microfossil does not unpick Hebraist. sent23: if that something does not winnow Allegheny and does not bog ANG is wrong that it is a defensibility hold. sent24: the fact that that something is not a caravansary but Congolese is not correct if it is a defensibility hold.

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

the trichion does not bog HS1.

¬{E}{d}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the trichion does bog HS1. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that that it does not unpick Hebraist and is not non-Congolese is not right. sent2: if that the microfossil does not unpick Hebraist and does not bog HS1 is false then the trichion does not bog HS1. sent3: the fact that the HS1 is alkylic and/or unpicks Hebraist is not true if the microfossil is not a flatfoot. sent4: the fact that the HS1 does not winnow Allegheny and does not bog ANG is wrong if it is fibrocalcific. sent5: the trichion does not cackle. sent6: the microfossil is not a flatfoot if there exists something such that that the fact that it does not shuck and is a varmint is not incorrect is not true. sent7: that the microfossil does not unpick Hebraist and it does not bog HS1 does not hold if the HS1 is a flatfoot. sent8: something is not a Congolese if the fact that it is not a kind of a caravansary and it is Congolese is wrong. sent9: there exists something such that it is not a Congolese and does bog HS1. sent10: if there exists something such that that it is not alkylic and is a kind of a flatfoot is not true the HS1 is not a defensibility. sent11: there is something such that it does not shuck and it is a varmint. sent12: there is something such that that it does not shuck and it is a varmint is wrong. sent13: there is something such that that it shucks and is a varmint is false. sent14: if something is not a kind of a Congolese it is a flatfoot and is alkylic. sent15: the psocid is not a Congolese if the fact that the HS1 is alkylic or unpicks Hebraist or both is false. sent16: there exists something such that it is a kind of datable thing that bottoms. sent17: that the psocid is not a defensibility hold if there is something such that that it is not alkylic and it is a Congolese is not correct. sent18: the trichion bogs HS1 and it is a defensibility if the psocid is not Congolese. sent19: the microfossil is not alkylic. sent20: if the trichion does not unpick Hebraist the fact that that the HS1 is a defensibility or it bogs HS1 or both does not hold hold. sent21: the trichion is a kind of a defensibility. sent22: the microfossil does not unpick Hebraist. sent23: if that something does not winnow Allegheny and does not bog ANG is wrong that it is a defensibility hold. sent24: the fact that that something is not a caravansary but Congolese is not correct if it is a defensibility hold. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent6 -> int1: the fact that the microfossil is not a kind of a flatfoot is true.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the HS1 is alkylic and/or does unpick Hebraist does not hold.; sent15 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the psocid is not a kind of a Congolese is true.; sent18 & int3 -> int4: the trichion bogs HS1 and is a defensibility.; int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there is something such that if that it is non-fragrant thing that is not a spackle is incorrect it is a continuum is wrong.

¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x)

sent1: the baronet is a continuum if the fact that it is not fragrant and it is not a spackle is incorrect. sent2: that the exercycle is a continuum is not incorrect if it is a kind of a sufferance.

sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent2: {II}{cb} -> {B}{cb}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if that it is non-fragrant thing that is not a spackle is incorrect it is a continuum is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the baronet is a continuum if the fact that it is not fragrant and it is not a spackle is incorrect. sent2: that the exercycle is a continuum is not incorrect if it is a kind of a sufferance. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Ni-hard does bog desktop.

{G}{b}

sent1: the hooker does not bog desktop if it is a genuineness and it does yodel penni. sent2: the sundae does not winnow gummed and is a pung. sent3: the Ni-hard does bog desktop and is a kind of a orthopter if the hooker does not bog desktop. sent4: the hooker yodels mid-off. sent5: the Ni-hard does unpick nonallele and does unpick NREM. sent6: the hooker does yodel penni. sent7: the hooker does winnow driveller and/or it bogs desktop if there exists something such that it winnow driveller. sent8: The driveller winnows hooker. sent9: if the Angevin is a loft the football is a loft. sent10: the hooker does discriminate if that the Ni-hard yodels penni is not incorrect. sent11: the football is a loft if the Angevin is a pung. sent12: either the Angevin does loft or it is a pung or both if something is a pung. sent13: if something discriminates then the suburb does not yodel mid-off but it is agricultural. sent14: the Ni-hard is not agricultural if it is a genuineness and it is a orthopter. sent15: The mid-off yodels hooker. sent16: if the fact that something winnows driveller and yodels mid-off is correct then the fact that it is not agricultural is true. sent17: The penni does yodel hooker. sent18: the detonator does yodel mid-off if there exists something such that that it is non-agricultural thing that is not discriminate is not correct. sent19: the fact that the vestment is a orthopter or it does not yodel penni or both does not hold if the football is a kind of a loft. sent20: the hooker winnows driveller. sent21: if the fact that the vestment is a orthopter or does not yodel penni or both does not hold then the birdcall is not a kind of a genuineness. sent22: something is a genuineness if it is not discriminate. sent23: that the matron is not agricultural and it does not discriminate is wrong if the birdcall is not a genuineness. sent24: something bogs desktop.

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

the suburb is a genuineness.

{E}{fm}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Ni-hard does bog desktop. ; $context$ = sent1: the hooker does not bog desktop if it is a genuineness and it does yodel penni. sent2: the sundae does not winnow gummed and is a pung. sent3: the Ni-hard does bog desktop and is a kind of a orthopter if the hooker does not bog desktop. sent4: the hooker yodels mid-off. sent5: the Ni-hard does unpick nonallele and does unpick NREM. sent6: the hooker does yodel penni. sent7: the hooker does winnow driveller and/or it bogs desktop if there exists something such that it winnow driveller. sent8: The driveller winnows hooker. sent9: if the Angevin is a loft the football is a loft. sent10: the hooker does discriminate if that the Ni-hard yodels penni is not incorrect. sent11: the football is a loft if the Angevin is a pung. sent12: either the Angevin does loft or it is a pung or both if something is a pung. sent13: if something discriminates then the suburb does not yodel mid-off but it is agricultural. sent14: the Ni-hard is not agricultural if it is a genuineness and it is a orthopter. sent15: The mid-off yodels hooker. sent16: if the fact that something winnows driveller and yodels mid-off is correct then the fact that it is not agricultural is true. sent17: The penni does yodel hooker. sent18: the detonator does yodel mid-off if there exists something such that that it is non-agricultural thing that is not discriminate is not correct. sent19: the fact that the vestment is a orthopter or it does not yodel penni or both does not hold if the football is a kind of a loft. sent20: the hooker winnows driveller. sent21: if the fact that the vestment is a orthopter or does not yodel penni or both does not hold then the birdcall is not a kind of a genuineness. sent22: something is a genuineness if it is not discriminate. sent23: that the matron is not agricultural and it does not discriminate is wrong if the birdcall is not a genuineness. sent24: something bogs desktop. ; $proof$ =

sent20 & sent4 -> int1: the hooker does winnow driveller and it yodels mid-off.; sent16 -> int2: if the hooker winnows driveller and does yodel mid-off that it is not agricultural is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the hooker is non-agricultural.; sent22 -> int4: the hooker is a genuineness if it is not discriminate.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the ackee unpicks pyocyanase.

{B}{b}

sent1: the strapless is not a DSL and does not unpick Simarouba. sent2: if the ackee unpicks aplite then it does not unpick pyocyanase and it is not a kind of a gruel. sent3: the ackee is a gruel. sent4: if the ackee is carpetbag it does not unpick aplite and it does not unpick pyocyanase. sent5: the strapless does not overtire and it is not a kind of a fowl. sent6: the fact that the ackee does unpick pyocyanase is correct if the strapless does not unpick aplite and is not a gruel. sent7: if the strapless does unpick aplite and is not a kind of a gruel the fact that the ackee unpicks pyocyanase is true. sent8: the ackee is not unattractive. sent9: if the fact that the strapless is carpetbag is not wrong it does not unpick aplite and is not a gruel. sent10: the strapless does unpick pyocyanase if the ackee does not unpick aplite and it is not a carpetbag. sent11: the strapless does unpick aplite if the ackee does not unpick pyocyanase and is not a carpetbag. sent12: the strapless is a kind of a carpetbag. sent13: if the strapless does not unpick aplite and is a gruel the ackee does unpick pyocyanase.

sent1: (¬{R}{a} & ¬{IN}{a}) sent2: {AA}{b} -> (¬{B}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent3: {AB}{b} sent4: {A}{b} -> (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent5: (¬{IO}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent6: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent7: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent8: {AT}{b} sent9: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent10: (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> {B}{a} sent11: (¬{B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> {AA}{a} sent12: {A}{a} sent13: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the ackee unpicks pyocyanase. ; $context$ = sent1: the strapless is not a DSL and does not unpick Simarouba. sent2: if the ackee unpicks aplite then it does not unpick pyocyanase and it is not a kind of a gruel. sent3: the ackee is a gruel. sent4: if the ackee is carpetbag it does not unpick aplite and it does not unpick pyocyanase. sent5: the strapless does not overtire and it is not a kind of a fowl. sent6: the fact that the ackee does unpick pyocyanase is correct if the strapless does not unpick aplite and is not a gruel. sent7: if the strapless does unpick aplite and is not a kind of a gruel the fact that the ackee unpicks pyocyanase is true. sent8: the ackee is not unattractive. sent9: if the fact that the strapless is carpetbag is not wrong it does not unpick aplite and is not a gruel. sent10: the strapless does unpick pyocyanase if the ackee does not unpick aplite and it is not a carpetbag. sent11: the strapless does unpick aplite if the ackee does not unpick pyocyanase and is not a carpetbag. sent12: the strapless is a kind of a carpetbag. sent13: if the strapless does not unpick aplite and is a gruel the ackee does unpick pyocyanase. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent12 -> int1: the strapless does not unpick aplite and it is not a gruel.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the janitor is not eparchial that it is not a kind of a Palmae and it does bog doghouse is incorrect.

¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

sent1: that something is not a Palmae and bogs doghouse does not hold if it is not eparchial.

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = if the janitor is not eparchial that it is not a kind of a Palmae and it does bog doghouse is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is not a Palmae and bogs doghouse does not hold if it is not eparchial. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the bodega does cheerlead and/or incurvates if the omentum is not a kind of a venom.

¬{A}{a} -> ({B}{b} v {C}{b})

sent1: if that that the bodega is not a kind of a primogeniture and incurvates is not correct is not incorrect that the omentum is inguinal is correct. sent2: there exists something such that it gains. sent3: the bodega cheerleads if a gain is not a mint. sent4: the omentum does not bog ISKCON if there is something such that it does cheerlead and is a kind of a venom. sent5: if the fact that something is not noninvasive and is a kind of a cuneiform does not hold it is a cut. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is not a gold hold. sent7: the Meany does not incurvate. sent8: the evaporite is a reprieve that is a crapshooter. sent9: that the bodega is not a primogeniture and does incurvate is not right if there is something such that it does not incurvate. sent10: the bodega is a gain. sent11: the polystyrene does cheerlead if there is something such that it does reprieve. sent12: if the pneumococcus is a cut then the polystyrene is a venom. sent13: something cheerleads but it does not gain. sent14: if the omentum is not a venom then it does gain. sent15: if the omentum is a kind of a venom the bodega does cheerlead and/or it incurvates. sent16: that the pneumococcus is a kind of non-noninvasive a cuneiform is not correct if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a gold. sent17: the omentum gains but it does not mint if it is a venom. sent18: there exists something such that it is not a mint.

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

something is inguinal thing that does not bog ISKCON.

(Ex): ({EC}x & ¬{HC}x)

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the bodega does cheerlead and/or incurvates if the omentum is not a kind of a venom. ; $context$ = sent1: if that that the bodega is not a kind of a primogeniture and incurvates is not correct is not incorrect that the omentum is inguinal is correct. sent2: there exists something such that it gains. sent3: the bodega cheerleads if a gain is not a mint. sent4: the omentum does not bog ISKCON if there is something such that it does cheerlead and is a kind of a venom. sent5: if the fact that something is not noninvasive and is a kind of a cuneiform does not hold it is a cut. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is not a gold hold. sent7: the Meany does not incurvate. sent8: the evaporite is a reprieve that is a crapshooter. sent9: that the bodega is not a primogeniture and does incurvate is not right if there is something such that it does not incurvate. sent10: the bodega is a gain. sent11: the polystyrene does cheerlead if there is something such that it does reprieve. sent12: if the pneumococcus is a cut then the polystyrene is a venom. sent13: something cheerleads but it does not gain. sent14: if the omentum is not a venom then it does gain. sent15: if the omentum is a kind of a venom the bodega does cheerlead and/or it incurvates. sent16: that the pneumococcus is a kind of non-noninvasive a cuneiform is not correct if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a gold. sent17: the omentum gains but it does not mint if it is a venom. sent18: there exists something such that it is not a mint. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the hole-in-the-wall is comic.

{B}{a}

sent1: the hole-in-the-wall is comic if it is a Demavend. sent2: the APC is comic if the fact that the hole-in-the-wall is not a Demavend and is not a kind of a plainclothesman does not hold. sent3: that the hole-in-the-wall is a kind of a Demavend is right. sent4: if the antihistamine winnows fluorochrome then the Weizenbock is a plainclothesman.

sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent2: ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {B}{jb} sent3: {A}{a} sent4: {D}{c} -> {C}{b}

the APC is comic.

{B}{jb}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hole-in-the-wall is comic. ; $context$ = sent1: the hole-in-the-wall is comic if it is a Demavend. sent2: the APC is comic if the fact that the hole-in-the-wall is not a Demavend and is not a kind of a plainclothesman does not hold. sent3: that the hole-in-the-wall is a kind of a Demavend is right. sent4: if the antihistamine winnows fluorochrome then the Weizenbock is a plainclothesman. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the phoebe does not unpick alarmed.

¬{D}{a}

sent1: that the pahoehoe does not irritate and is not a smoke is wrong. sent2: if that the burglar is not a deceleration and it is not a kind of a contadino is wrong then it is a kind of a deceleration. sent3: if that the pahoehoe does not irritate and it is not a smoke is false then that it does irritate is not wrong. sent4: the pahoehoe does not engulf. sent5: the pahoehoe is not a zebu. sent6: the pahoehoe is stimulative if it is a kind of a Montagu. sent7: something is both a Montagu and a deceleration if it does not engulf. sent8: the phoebe does not unpick alarmed if the pahoehoe is stimulative and it irritates.

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the phoebe does not unpick alarmed. ; $context$ = sent1: that the pahoehoe does not irritate and is not a smoke is wrong. sent2: if that the burglar is not a deceleration and it is not a kind of a contadino is wrong then it is a kind of a deceleration. sent3: if that the pahoehoe does not irritate and it is not a smoke is false then that it does irritate is not wrong. sent4: the pahoehoe does not engulf. sent5: the pahoehoe is not a zebu. sent6: the pahoehoe is stimulative if it is a kind of a Montagu. sent7: something is both a Montagu and a deceleration if it does not engulf. sent8: the phoebe does not unpick alarmed if the pahoehoe is stimulative and it irritates. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: the pahoehoe is a Montagu and is a deceleration if it does not engulf.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the pahoehoe is a Montagu that is a deceleration.; int2 -> int3: the pahoehoe is a kind of a Montagu.; int3 & sent6 -> int4: the pahoehoe is stimulative.; sent3 & sent1 -> int5: the pahoehoe does irritate.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the pahoehoe is stimulative and it irritates.; int6 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is a Montfort.

(Ex): {D}x

sent1: the litterbin skews. sent2: if the rewa-rewa is monocarpic the litterbin is monocarpic. sent3: if the flageolet is a Dumas and/or does not skew the litterbin is not a kind of a Yiddish. sent4: the rewa-rewa does skew. sent5: either the flageolet is a Dumas or it does not skew or both. sent6: if an interferon is bardic then the northland is a Montfort. sent7: there exists something such that it is bardic. sent8: if something is not a Yiddish then it is a kind of an interferon. sent9: if something is monocarpic then it is bardic. sent10: the fact that the rewa-rewa is monocarpic is right. sent11: there is something such that it is an interferon. sent12: the beneficiary is Hippocratic and it is bardic. sent13: if the flageolet is a kind of a Dumas that the litterbin is not a Yiddish is not false.

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it is a Montfort. ; $context$ = sent1: the litterbin skews. sent2: if the rewa-rewa is monocarpic the litterbin is monocarpic. sent3: if the flageolet is a Dumas and/or does not skew the litterbin is not a kind of a Yiddish. sent4: the rewa-rewa does skew. sent5: either the flageolet is a Dumas or it does not skew or both. sent6: if an interferon is bardic then the northland is a Montfort. sent7: there exists something such that it is bardic. sent8: if something is not a Yiddish then it is a kind of an interferon. sent9: if something is monocarpic then it is bardic. sent10: the fact that the rewa-rewa is monocarpic is right. sent11: there is something such that it is an interferon. sent12: the beneficiary is Hippocratic and it is bardic. sent13: if the flageolet is a kind of a Dumas that the litterbin is not a Yiddish is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent5 -> int1: the litterbin is not a Yiddish.; sent8 -> int2: the litterbin is a kind of an interferon if it is not a Yiddish.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the litterbin is a kind of an interferon.; sent9 -> int4: if the litterbin is monocarpic then it is bardic.; sent2 & sent10 -> int5: the litterbin is monocarpic.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the litterbin is bardic.; int3 & int6 -> int7: the litterbin is a kind of an interferon that is bardic.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that it is a kind of an interferon and it is bardic.; int8 & sent6 -> int9: the northland is a Montfort.; int9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that if the backspin happens then that the situation does not occur and the winnowing vantage does not occur is incorrect is not right.

¬({B} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}))

sent1: that the bogging Constantinople but not the palingeneticness occurs triggers that the weeding does not occur. sent2: if the backspin happens then the fact that the situation does not occur but the winnowing vantage happens is not correct. sent3: that the backspin happens is prevented by that the situation does not occur and the winnowing vantage does not occur. sent4: the fact that the holozoicness does not occur and the infusion does not occur is not right if the pyrecticness does not occur. sent5: if the reclining happens then the fact that the unpicking welcoming does not occur and the one-upmanship happens is incorrect.

sent1: ({JE} & ¬{HN}) -> ¬{JK} sent2: {B} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent3: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent4: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AI} & ¬{EA}) sent5: {BC} -> ¬(¬{IR} & {DA})

the fact that the holozoicness does not occur and the infusion does not occur is not correct.

¬(¬{AI} & ¬{EA})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that if the backspin happens then that the situation does not occur and the winnowing vantage does not occur is incorrect is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: that the bogging Constantinople but not the palingeneticness occurs triggers that the weeding does not occur. sent2: if the backspin happens then the fact that the situation does not occur but the winnowing vantage happens is not correct. sent3: that the backspin happens is prevented by that the situation does not occur and the winnowing vantage does not occur. sent4: the fact that the holozoicness does not occur and the infusion does not occur is not right if the pyrecticness does not occur. sent5: if the reclining happens then the fact that the unpicking welcoming does not occur and the one-upmanship happens is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the situation does not occur and the winnowing vantage does not occur.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the backspin does not occur.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the backspin happens.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the situation does not occur and the winnowing vantage does not occur is not true.; [assump2] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the catoptricsness does not occur and/or the oblateness does not occur.

(¬{F} v ¬{G})

sent1: if the winnowing Triopidae happens then the readmission occurs or the extradition does not occur or both. sent2: if that the readmission does not occur is true the non-catoptricsness and/or the oblate occurs. sent3: the wardenship does not occur. sent4: if the wardenship occurs that either the catoptricsness does not occur or the oblate does not occur or both does not hold. sent5: either the non-catoptricsness or the oblateness or both occurs. sent6: the Brobdingnagianness is caused by that both the non-mercurialness and the non-Sicilianness occurs. sent7: the fact that the unwinding occurs or the knee-lengthness does not occur or both does not hold if the Brobdingnagianness occurs. sent8: the winnowing Triopidae does not occur. sent9: if the winnowing Triopidae does not occur then the fact that the readmission occurs but the extradition does not occur does not hold. sent10: the match happens if the fact that that the fossilness does not occur and the scowling does not occur is incorrect is true. sent11: if the readmission occurs and/or the extradition does not occur the horsewhipping does not occur. sent12: the fact that the condemnation does not occur hold if that the non-propagandistness and the condemnation happens is not right. sent13: that the haemophilicness does not occur and the juxtaposition does not occur is caused by the non-septalness. sent14: the winnowing Triopidae happens and the bogging tsetse happens if that the condemnation does not occur hold. sent15: that both the non-propagandistness and the condemnation occurs does not hold if the fact that the bogging roomful occurs hold. sent16: the bogging hail does not occur. sent17: that both the non-mercurialness and the non-fossilness occurs is triggered by the non-musicologicalness. sent18: the septalness does not occur if that either the unwinding or the non-knee-lengthness or both occurs is not true. sent19: if the haemophilicness does not occur both the bogging roomful and the dramaticness occurs. sent20: the musicologicalness does not occur. sent21: that either the horsewhipping occurs or the matching occurs or both prevents that the extradition happens. sent22: the fact that the bill does not occur or the scowling does not occur or both is not false. sent23: if the readmission does not occur the non-catoptricsness and/or the non-oblateness occurs. sent24: the fact that the fossil does not occur and the scowling does not occur is wrong if that the wardenship does not occur is right.

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

that the non-catoptricsness and/or the non-oblateness happens is not correct.

¬(¬{F} v ¬{G})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the catoptricsness does not occur and/or the oblateness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the winnowing Triopidae happens then the readmission occurs or the extradition does not occur or both. sent2: if that the readmission does not occur is true the non-catoptricsness and/or the oblate occurs. sent3: the wardenship does not occur. sent4: if the wardenship occurs that either the catoptricsness does not occur or the oblate does not occur or both does not hold. sent5: either the non-catoptricsness or the oblateness or both occurs. sent6: the Brobdingnagianness is caused by that both the non-mercurialness and the non-Sicilianness occurs. sent7: the fact that the unwinding occurs or the knee-lengthness does not occur or both does not hold if the Brobdingnagianness occurs. sent8: the winnowing Triopidae does not occur. sent9: if the winnowing Triopidae does not occur then the fact that the readmission occurs but the extradition does not occur does not hold. sent10: the match happens if the fact that that the fossilness does not occur and the scowling does not occur is incorrect is true. sent11: if the readmission occurs and/or the extradition does not occur the horsewhipping does not occur. sent12: the fact that the condemnation does not occur hold if that the non-propagandistness and the condemnation happens is not right. sent13: that the haemophilicness does not occur and the juxtaposition does not occur is caused by the non-septalness. sent14: the winnowing Triopidae happens and the bogging tsetse happens if that the condemnation does not occur hold. sent15: that both the non-propagandistness and the condemnation occurs does not hold if the fact that the bogging roomful occurs hold. sent16: the bogging hail does not occur. sent17: that both the non-mercurialness and the non-fossilness occurs is triggered by the non-musicologicalness. sent18: the septalness does not occur if that either the unwinding or the non-knee-lengthness or both occurs is not true. sent19: if the haemophilicness does not occur both the bogging roomful and the dramaticness occurs. sent20: the musicologicalness does not occur. sent21: that either the horsewhipping occurs or the matching occurs or both prevents that the extradition happens. sent22: the fact that the bill does not occur or the scowling does not occur or both is not false. sent23: if the readmission does not occur the non-catoptricsness and/or the non-oblateness occurs. sent24: the fact that the fossil does not occur and the scowling does not occur is wrong if that the wardenship does not occur is right. ; $proof$ =

sent24 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the fossil does not occur and the scowling does not occur does not hold.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the match happens.; int2 -> int3: the horsewhipping happens and/or the match happens.; int3 & sent21 -> int4: the extradition does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the readmission happens is not wrong.; int4 & assump1 -> int5: the readmission happens and the extradition does not occur.; sent9 & sent8 -> int6: the fact that the readmission happens and the extradition does not occur is incorrect.; int5 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the readmission does not occur.; int8 & sent23 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the unpicking extortion does not occur and the curatorship occurs is not true.

¬(¬{A} & {C})

sent1: the innumerateness occurs. sent2: the planarness occurs. sent3: the Klondike does not occur. sent4: the fact that the fanning does not occur hold. sent5: the contrastiness occurs. sent6: the Modernness does not occur. sent7: the acrogenicness does not occur if the fact that the colonization occurs and the unpicking extortion occurs is not right. sent8: the bogging Roosevelt does not occur. sent9: the unclearness causes that the tilt does not occur. sent10: the colonization and the non-electiveness happens. sent11: the winnowing Tutankhamen does not occur. sent12: the curatorship is prevented by that the curatorship does not occur and/or the contrastiness does not occur. sent13: the fact that the threat does not occur hold if the Stoicness happens. sent14: the battue does not occur. sent15: the electiveness does not occur. sent16: the bogging imbecility occurs if the pavane happens but the sticking does not occur. sent17: that the curatorship happens is caused by that the contrastiness occurs and the performing does not occur. sent18: the sticking but not the aleuronicness happens. sent19: that the turnover happens is not false. sent20: the curatorship does not occur and/or the contrastiness does not occur if the performing happens. sent21: the performing does not occur. sent22: that the colonization occurs and the unpicking extortion occurs is not right if the fact that the curatorship does not occur is not wrong. sent23: if the unpicking extortion occurs the colonization does not occur.

sent1: {HA} sent2: {HI} sent3: ¬{BE} sent4: ¬{BA} sent5: {D} sent6: ¬{IT} sent7: ¬({B} & {A}) -> ¬{HG} sent8: ¬{CS} sent9: {HL} -> ¬{IH} sent10: ({B} & ¬{F}) sent11: ¬{CI} sent12: (¬{C} v ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} sent13: {DA} -> ¬{GO} sent14: ¬{AE} sent15: ¬{F} sent16: ({GM} & ¬{CC}) -> {ID} sent17: ({D} & ¬{E}) -> {C} sent18: ({CC} & ¬{FR}) sent19: {DO} sent20: {E} -> (¬{C} v ¬{D}) sent21: ¬{E} sent22: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & {A}) sent23: {A} -> ¬{B}

the acrogenicness does not occur.

¬{HG}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the unpicking extortion does not occur and the curatorship occurs is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the innumerateness occurs. sent2: the planarness occurs. sent3: the Klondike does not occur. sent4: the fact that the fanning does not occur hold. sent5: the contrastiness occurs. sent6: the Modernness does not occur. sent7: the acrogenicness does not occur if the fact that the colonization occurs and the unpicking extortion occurs is not right. sent8: the bogging Roosevelt does not occur. sent9: the unclearness causes that the tilt does not occur. sent10: the colonization and the non-electiveness happens. sent11: the winnowing Tutankhamen does not occur. sent12: the curatorship is prevented by that the curatorship does not occur and/or the contrastiness does not occur. sent13: the fact that the threat does not occur hold if the Stoicness happens. sent14: the battue does not occur. sent15: the electiveness does not occur. sent16: the bogging imbecility occurs if the pavane happens but the sticking does not occur. sent17: that the curatorship happens is caused by that the contrastiness occurs and the performing does not occur. sent18: the sticking but not the aleuronicness happens. sent19: that the turnover happens is not false. sent20: the curatorship does not occur and/or the contrastiness does not occur if the performing happens. sent21: the performing does not occur. sent22: that the colonization occurs and the unpicking extortion occurs is not right if the fact that the curatorship does not occur is not wrong. sent23: if the unpicking extortion occurs the colonization does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the unpicking extortion happens.; sent23 & assump1 -> int1: the colonization does not occur.; sent10 -> int2: the colonization occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the unpicking extortion does not occur hold.; sent5 & sent21 -> int5: the contrastiness happens and the performing does not occur.; sent17 & int5 -> int6: the curatorship happens.; int4 & int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the frost does assume.

{F}{b}

sent1: that the thioridazine is Episcopal hold. sent2: The sportsmanship winnows goatskin. sent3: if the goatskin is autologous and it is a kind of an extradition then it is not Episcopal. sent4: a non-autologous thing that winnows sportsmanship is not a Solomon's-seal. sent5: if something is both a incisure and not a Solomon's-seal it assumes. sent6: if the goatskin is not a Solomon's-seal the frost is a incisure and is not a Solomon's-seal. sent7: the goatskin winnows sportsmanship. sent8: everything is a kind of a piste and it is Episcopal.

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the frost does assume. ; $context$ = sent1: that the thioridazine is Episcopal hold. sent2: The sportsmanship winnows goatskin. sent3: if the goatskin is autologous and it is a kind of an extradition then it is not Episcopal. sent4: a non-autologous thing that winnows sportsmanship is not a Solomon's-seal. sent5: if something is both a incisure and not a Solomon's-seal it assumes. sent6: if the goatskin is not a Solomon's-seal the frost is a incisure and is not a Solomon's-seal. sent7: the goatskin winnows sportsmanship. sent8: everything is a kind of a piste and it is Episcopal. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the goatskin is autologous.; sent8 -> int1: the goatskin is a piste and is Episcopal.; int1 -> int2: the goatskin is Episcopal.; sent4 -> int3: the goatskin is not a Solomon's-seal if it is not autologous and does winnow sportsmanship.; sent5 -> int4: the frost does assume if it is a incisure and is not a Solomon's-seal.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the backup does not occur or the winnowing liverwurst does not occur or both is wrong.

¬(¬{E} v ¬{C})

sent1: the footfall happens. sent2: the yodeling user does not occur and/or the acceding happens. sent3: that the prevention does not occur and the deathblow does not occur prevents that the winnowing pul does not occur. sent4: if that the guarantee happens is right then the prevention does not occur and the deathblow does not occur. sent5: if the Thainess does not occur then the fact that the trichroism occurs and the footfall occurs is false. sent6: if the fact that the trichroism and the footfall occurs is incorrect the trichroism does not occur. sent7: the winnowing pul happens if the prevention but not the deathblow happens. sent8: the outputting does not occur and the Baptisticness does not occur. sent9: the fact that the Singhaleseness occurs but the detente does not occur does not hold. sent10: if the fact that the guaranteeing happens and the winnowing pul does not occur is incorrect the winnowing continuity does not occur. sent11: the pollination happens. sent12: the whiteness does not occur. sent13: that the footfall but not the winnowing liverwurst happens is brought about by that the guarantee does not occur. sent14: if the guaranteeing happens then the prevention does not occur. sent15: the countercurrent occurs and the white does not occur. sent16: the frisking occurs if the genesis does not occur but the bogging haywire occurs. sent17: if the crying does not occur the Baptisticness occurs. sent18: the Thai does not occur if the fact that the Singhaleseness occurs and the detente does not occur does not hold. sent19: the backup does not occur or the winnowing liverwurst happens or both. sent20: the nullification is brought about by that the unpicking oligopoly does not occur and the implicationalness occurs. sent21: that the countercurrent happens and the white happens causes that the winnowing pul does not occur. sent22: if the countercurrent and the non-whiteness occurs then that the winnowing pul does not occur is correct.

sent1: {D} sent2: (¬{CF} v {BR}) sent3: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent4: {A} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent5: ¬{I} -> ¬({GI} & {D}) sent6: ¬({GI} & {D}) -> ¬{GI} sent7: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent8: (¬{AJ} & ¬{ET}) sent9: ¬({J} & ¬{K}) sent10: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{DK} sent11: {N} sent12: ¬{G} sent13: ¬{A} -> ({D} & ¬{C}) sent14: {A} -> ¬{AA} sent15: ({F} & ¬{G}) sent16: (¬{JA} & {FO}) -> {FH} sent17: ¬{IK} -> {ET} sent18: ¬({J} & ¬{K}) -> ¬{I} sent19: (¬{E} v {C}) sent20: (¬{HF} & {GR}) -> {GA} sent21: ({F} & {G}) -> ¬{B} sent22: ({F} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{B}

the trichroism does not occur and the winnowing continuity does not occur.

(¬{GI} & ¬{DK})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the backup does not occur or the winnowing liverwurst does not occur or both is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the footfall happens. sent2: the yodeling user does not occur and/or the acceding happens. sent3: that the prevention does not occur and the deathblow does not occur prevents that the winnowing pul does not occur. sent4: if that the guarantee happens is right then the prevention does not occur and the deathblow does not occur. sent5: if the Thainess does not occur then the fact that the trichroism occurs and the footfall occurs is false. sent6: if the fact that the trichroism and the footfall occurs is incorrect the trichroism does not occur. sent7: the winnowing pul happens if the prevention but not the deathblow happens. sent8: the outputting does not occur and the Baptisticness does not occur. sent9: the fact that the Singhaleseness occurs but the detente does not occur does not hold. sent10: if the fact that the guaranteeing happens and the winnowing pul does not occur is incorrect the winnowing continuity does not occur. sent11: the pollination happens. sent12: the whiteness does not occur. sent13: that the footfall but not the winnowing liverwurst happens is brought about by that the guarantee does not occur. sent14: if the guaranteeing happens then the prevention does not occur. sent15: the countercurrent occurs and the white does not occur. sent16: the frisking occurs if the genesis does not occur but the bogging haywire occurs. sent17: if the crying does not occur the Baptisticness occurs. sent18: the Thai does not occur if the fact that the Singhaleseness occurs and the detente does not occur does not hold. sent19: the backup does not occur or the winnowing liverwurst happens or both. sent20: the nullification is brought about by that the unpicking oligopoly does not occur and the implicationalness occurs. sent21: that the countercurrent happens and the white happens causes that the winnowing pul does not occur. sent22: if the countercurrent and the non-whiteness occurs then that the winnowing pul does not occur is correct. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the guarantee happens.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the prevention does not occur and the deathblow does not occur.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the winnowing pul happens.; sent22 & sent15 -> int3: the winnowing pul does not occur.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the guaranteeing does not occur.; int5 & sent13 -> int6: the footfall but not the winnowing liverwurst happens.; int6 -> int7: that the winnowing liverwurst does not occur is correct.; int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the unpicking bustling occurs.

{J}

sent1: if the fact that the expiatoriness does not occur and the tessellating does not occur is not false the transferring occurs. sent2: that both the categoricalness and the clambering happens yields that the agreement does not occur. sent3: if the excitation happens but the fomentation does not occur then the objectification does not occur. sent4: if the crush happens then the microelectronicsness happens. sent5: that the clambering does not occur causes that the categoricalness happens and the unpicking bustling occurs. sent6: the skirling does not occur. sent7: the clambering does not occur and/or the agreement does not occur if the expiatoriness happens. sent8: if the fact that the juncture and the goal-kick occurs is not true the systole does not occur. sent9: the moneran does not occur and the unpicking awlwort does not occur. sent10: the objectification happens if the transferring happens. sent11: the categoricalness happens. sent12: that the insert occurs is not wrong if the fundamental does not occur. sent13: that both the moneran and the unpicking awlwort happens is not true if the proclaiming does not occur. sent14: the non-moneranness causes that both the juncture and the goal-kick occurs. sent15: the clamber happens. sent16: the altricialness occurs if the objectification occurs. sent17: the proclaiming does not occur if the Brazilian does not occur. sent18: the contrast happens. sent19: if the skirl does not occur the Brazilian does not occur. sent20: the nipping happens if the systole occurs. sent21: the excitation occurs. sent22: that the systole does not occur is prevented by the juncture. sent23: if the sponsorship does not occur then the fact that the juncture happens and the goal-kick happens is wrong. sent24: if the agreement does not occur then the expiatoriness does not occur and the tessellating does not occur. sent25: that the unpicking bustling does not occur is triggered by that the nip occurs and the altricialness occurs.

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

the unpicking bustling happens.

{J}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the unpicking bustling occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the expiatoriness does not occur and the tessellating does not occur is not false the transferring occurs. sent2: that both the categoricalness and the clambering happens yields that the agreement does not occur. sent3: if the excitation happens but the fomentation does not occur then the objectification does not occur. sent4: if the crush happens then the microelectronicsness happens. sent5: that the clambering does not occur causes that the categoricalness happens and the unpicking bustling occurs. sent6: the skirling does not occur. sent7: the clambering does not occur and/or the agreement does not occur if the expiatoriness happens. sent8: if the fact that the juncture and the goal-kick occurs is not true the systole does not occur. sent9: the moneran does not occur and the unpicking awlwort does not occur. sent10: the objectification happens if the transferring happens. sent11: the categoricalness happens. sent12: that the insert occurs is not wrong if the fundamental does not occur. sent13: that both the moneran and the unpicking awlwort happens is not true if the proclaiming does not occur. sent14: the non-moneranness causes that both the juncture and the goal-kick occurs. sent15: the clamber happens. sent16: the altricialness occurs if the objectification occurs. sent17: the proclaiming does not occur if the Brazilian does not occur. sent18: the contrast happens. sent19: if the skirl does not occur the Brazilian does not occur. sent20: the nipping happens if the systole occurs. sent21: the excitation occurs. sent22: that the systole does not occur is prevented by the juncture. sent23: if the sponsorship does not occur then the fact that the juncture happens and the goal-kick happens is wrong. sent24: if the agreement does not occur then the expiatoriness does not occur and the tessellating does not occur. sent25: that the unpicking bustling does not occur is triggered by that the nip occurs and the altricialness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent15 -> int1: the categoricalness occurs and the clamber happens.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: that the agreement does not occur is correct.; int2 & sent24 -> int3: the expiatoriness does not occur and the tessellating does not occur.; int3 & sent1 -> int4: the transfer occurs.; int4 & sent10 -> int5: the objectification happens.; int5 & sent16 -> int6: the altricialness occurs.; sent9 -> int7: the moneran does not occur.; sent14 & int7 -> int8: both the juncture and the goal-kick occurs.; int8 -> int9: the juncture occurs.; sent22 & int9 -> int10: the systole happens.; sent20 & int10 -> int11: the nip happens.; int6 & int11 -> int12: the nip occurs and the altricialness happens.; int12 & sent25 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there exists something such that it is a kind of a seaward and it is a kind of a sierra is not right.

¬((Ex): ({A}x & {B}x))

sent1: there are trinucleate things. sent2: the liver is indeterminate and it does yodel Oblation. sent3: the mescaline is a Thuringia. sent4: something is a macaque and it is tactical. sent5: something is a sierra. sent6: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Austrian and it is not a kind of a redbelly. sent7: there exists something such that it is not a fan. sent8: something is a kind of a seaward and is not a kind of a Thuringia. sent9: the trunk is a kind of carnivorous a sierra. sent10: if something is trinucleate and not a fan the beachball is a seaward. sent11: the Apache shoves and it is not non-trinucleate. sent12: there exists something such that it is trinucleate and it is not a fan. sent13: there exists something such that it is seaward. sent14: the beachball is a kind of carnivorous a SEAL. sent15: something is a Thuringia but it is not a sierra. sent16: something is trinucleate and it fans. sent17: the beachball is a kind of a Thuringia. sent18: that the beachball is a kind of a Thuringia and it is a sierra is not false.

sent1: (Ex): {AA}x sent2: ({AP}{ah} & {JA}{ah}) sent3: {C}{dm} sent4: (Ex): ({DI}x & {ER}x) sent5: (Ex): {B}x sent6: (Ex): ({BF}x & ¬{BQ}x) sent7: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent8: (Ex): ({A}x & ¬{C}x) sent9: ({CE}{cb} & {B}{cb}) sent10: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent11: ({JE}{br} & {AA}{br}) sent12: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent13: (Ex): {A}x sent14: ({CE}{a} & {HK}{a}) sent15: (Ex): ({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent16: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent17: {C}{a} sent18: ({C}{a} & {B}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that it is a kind of a seaward and it is a kind of a sierra is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: there are trinucleate things. sent2: the liver is indeterminate and it does yodel Oblation. sent3: the mescaline is a Thuringia. sent4: something is a macaque and it is tactical. sent5: something is a sierra. sent6: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Austrian and it is not a kind of a redbelly. sent7: there exists something such that it is not a fan. sent8: something is a kind of a seaward and is not a kind of a Thuringia. sent9: the trunk is a kind of carnivorous a sierra. sent10: if something is trinucleate and not a fan the beachball is a seaward. sent11: the Apache shoves and it is not non-trinucleate. sent12: there exists something such that it is trinucleate and it is not a fan. sent13: there exists something such that it is seaward. sent14: the beachball is a kind of carnivorous a SEAL. sent15: something is a Thuringia but it is not a sierra. sent16: something is trinucleate and it fans. sent17: the beachball is a kind of a Thuringia. sent18: that the beachball is a kind of a Thuringia and it is a sierra is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent10 -> int1: the beachball is seaward.; sent18 -> int2: the fact that the beachball is a sierra hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the beachball is a kind of seaward thing that is a kind of a sierra.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the traditionalist does not unpick Cassirer.

¬{G}{c}

sent1: that the background is not unthinkable but it winnows coralwood is incorrect if the fact that it seeps is true. sent2: that the background is unthinkable but it does not winnow coralwood is incorrect. sent3: the mud is not a potboiler if something is not piratical. sent4: the fact that the background does seep is true if the mud is both not a potboiler and not a Christie. sent5: the background seeps if the mud is a potboiler but it is not a Christie. sent6: that the background is not unthinkable and it does not winnow coralwood is incorrect if it does seep. sent7: something is not piratical. sent8: that the background is thinkable but it does winnow coralwood is wrong. sent9: if there is something such that the fact that it is not piratical is not wrong the mud is not a potboiler and is not a Christie. sent10: the traditionalist unpicks Cassirer if that the background is thinkable thing that does not winnow coralwood is not true.

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the traditionalist does not unpick Cassirer. ; $context$ = sent1: that the background is not unthinkable but it winnows coralwood is incorrect if the fact that it seeps is true. sent2: that the background is unthinkable but it does not winnow coralwood is incorrect. sent3: the mud is not a potboiler if something is not piratical. sent4: the fact that the background does seep is true if the mud is both not a potboiler and not a Christie. sent5: the background seeps if the mud is a potboiler but it is not a Christie. sent6: that the background is not unthinkable and it does not winnow coralwood is incorrect if it does seep. sent7: something is not piratical. sent8: that the background is thinkable but it does winnow coralwood is wrong. sent9: if there is something such that the fact that it is not piratical is not wrong the mud is not a potboiler and is not a Christie. sent10: the traditionalist unpicks Cassirer if that the background is thinkable thing that does not winnow coralwood is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent9 -> int1: the mud is not a potboiler and not a Christie.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: that the background seeps hold.; int2 & sent6 -> int3: the fact that the background is not unthinkable and does not winnow coralwood is false.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the burglar is not feudatory.

¬{AA}{aa}

sent1: the shaggymane does not incur and is not a eurypterid. sent2: the Irishman is not feudatory. sent3: if something is a kind of a repellent then it is feudatory. sent4: the fact that the burglar is not a kind of a repellent is not incorrect. sent5: if the burglar is not a kind of a lifeline then it is not a kind of a slant and is not mental. sent6: if the burglar is not a repellent then the fact that it is not a lifeline hold. sent7: a non-moneyless thing does not unpick driveller and is not a kind of a postilion. sent8: the fact that the burglar is not a kind of a lifeline hold. sent9: if something is not a repellent that it is not feudatory and it is not a lifeline is not incorrect. sent10: something is not moneyless and it is not a paintbrush if it is not a centennial. sent11: if the Freudian does not bog shaggymane then the burglar is not a narrow-mindedness but it is a repellent. sent12: something is not a lifeline if it is not a repellent. sent13: if either something is not regimental or it does not bog shaggymane or both it does not bog shaggymane. sent14: if the burglar does not consociate then it is a kind of non-cognitive thing that is not a repellent.

sent1: (¬{R}{cc} & ¬{JH}{cc}) sent2: ¬{AA}{r} sent3: (x): {A}x -> {AA}x sent4: ¬{A}{aa} sent5: ¬{AB}{aa} -> (¬{HJ}{aa} & ¬{FO}{aa}) sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬{BH}x -> (¬{CF}x & ¬{IB}x) sent8: ¬{AB}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent10: (x): ¬{AJ}x -> (¬{BH}x & ¬{IU}x) sent11: ¬{C}{a} -> (¬{B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent12: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent13: (x): (¬{D}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{C}x sent14: ¬{EB}{aa} -> (¬{ID}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa})

the burglar is feudatory.

{AA}{aa}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the burglar is not feudatory. ; $context$ = sent1: the shaggymane does not incur and is not a eurypterid. sent2: the Irishman is not feudatory. sent3: if something is a kind of a repellent then it is feudatory. sent4: the fact that the burglar is not a kind of a repellent is not incorrect. sent5: if the burglar is not a kind of a lifeline then it is not a kind of a slant and is not mental. sent6: if the burglar is not a repellent then the fact that it is not a lifeline hold. sent7: a non-moneyless thing does not unpick driveller and is not a kind of a postilion. sent8: the fact that the burglar is not a kind of a lifeline hold. sent9: if something is not a repellent that it is not feudatory and it is not a lifeline is not incorrect. sent10: something is not moneyless and it is not a paintbrush if it is not a centennial. sent11: if the Freudian does not bog shaggymane then the burglar is not a narrow-mindedness but it is a repellent. sent12: something is not a lifeline if it is not a repellent. sent13: if either something is not regimental or it does not bog shaggymane or both it does not bog shaggymane. sent14: if the burglar does not consociate then it is a kind of non-cognitive thing that is not a repellent. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> int1: if the burglar is not a repellent it is not feudatory and it is not a lifeline.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the burglar is not feudatory and not a lifeline.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Genevan unpicks Shaktism.

{E}{d}

sent1: something is sublittoral and/or it is not falconine if it is not non-ebracteate. sent2: the Lasso does not unpick consciousness if that it is not dualistic and it bogs outfit does not hold. sent3: the scanning is falconine. sent4: if the Lasso does not unpick consciousness and is a subjunctive then it is not a bowsprit. sent5: if the Ephesian is not falconine then the KBO is not sublittoral. sent6: the scanning does unpick consciousness and/or it is subjunctive if the Lasso does not unpick consciousness. sent7: if the Lasso is not dualistic but it bogs outfit it is not a bowsprit. sent8: the KBO is not dualistic. sent9: the Genevan is not dualistic. sent10: something does not unpick paca if it is not a bowsprit. sent11: something bogs outfit and/or it does not unpick consciousness if it is a bowsprit. sent12: the Genevan does unpick Shaktism if the scanning is a subjunctive. sent13: the KBO is sublittoral if the Lasso does not unpick paca. sent14: the Ephesian is ebracteate. sent15: the Ephesian is falconine if the Genevan is ebracteate. sent16: if the scanning does unpick consciousness the Genevan unpicks Shaktism. sent17: if the Ephesian is sublittoral then the KBO is not sublittoral. sent18: that the KBO is not sublittoral but it is falconine does not hold. sent19: the oakum unpicks Shaktism. sent20: if the fact that something does unpick paca is not false it does unpick Shaktism.

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

the foil does unpick Shaktism.

{E}{io}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Genevan unpicks Shaktism. ; $context$ = sent1: something is sublittoral and/or it is not falconine if it is not non-ebracteate. sent2: the Lasso does not unpick consciousness if that it is not dualistic and it bogs outfit does not hold. sent3: the scanning is falconine. sent4: if the Lasso does not unpick consciousness and is a subjunctive then it is not a bowsprit. sent5: if the Ephesian is not falconine then the KBO is not sublittoral. sent6: the scanning does unpick consciousness and/or it is subjunctive if the Lasso does not unpick consciousness. sent7: if the Lasso is not dualistic but it bogs outfit it is not a bowsprit. sent8: the KBO is not dualistic. sent9: the Genevan is not dualistic. sent10: something does not unpick paca if it is not a bowsprit. sent11: something bogs outfit and/or it does not unpick consciousness if it is a bowsprit. sent12: the Genevan does unpick Shaktism if the scanning is a subjunctive. sent13: the KBO is sublittoral if the Lasso does not unpick paca. sent14: the Ephesian is ebracteate. sent15: the Ephesian is falconine if the Genevan is ebracteate. sent16: if the scanning does unpick consciousness the Genevan unpicks Shaktism. sent17: if the Ephesian is sublittoral then the KBO is not sublittoral. sent18: that the KBO is not sublittoral but it is falconine does not hold. sent19: the oakum unpicks Shaktism. sent20: if the fact that something does unpick paca is not false it does unpick Shaktism. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Lasso is non-dualistic thing that does bog outfit.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: that the Lasso is not a kind of a bowsprit is correct.; sent10 -> int2: the Lasso does not unpick paca if the fact that it is not a bowsprit hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Lasso does not unpick paca.; int3 & sent13 -> int4: the KBO is sublittoral.; sent1 -> int5: if the Ephesian is ebracteate then either it is sublittoral or it is not falconine or both.; int5 & sent14 -> int6: that the Ephesian is sublittoral or is not falconine or both is not incorrect.; int6 & sent17 & sent5 -> int7: the KBO is not sublittoral.; int4 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the fact that the Lasso is not dualistic but it bogs outfit is not right.; int9 & sent2 -> int10: the Lasso does not unpick consciousness.; int10 & sent6 -> int11: the scanning unpicks consciousness and/or it is a subjunctive.; int11 & sent16 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the bowl is not intelligent.

¬{C}{aa}

sent1: the fact that the bowl is a kind of a harmonic is correct. sent2: if something unpicks grindstone and/or it is not non-cenogenetic it is not intelligent. sent3: if something is not a kind of a levy then it is not a corncrake and it winnows knowledgeability. sent4: if the bowl is uppercase that it is not fingerless is not incorrect. sent5: the fact that the bowl is not nonintellectual is right if it is a kind of a pyrimidine. sent6: the bowl is a pyrimidine if it does not bog Wheeler. sent7: the bowl does not bog Wheeler. sent8: the redoubt is cenogenetic. sent9: something does not bog hydrocarbon if it bogs sclerometer and/or it is a kind of a barren. sent10: The Wheeler does not bog bowl. sent11: something that is not a kind of a nevirapine is not honest. sent12: something is not an allergist but nonintellectual if it is not cenogenetic. sent13: if the fact that the hydrocarbon is cenogenetic is right then it is not a kind of a buddleia. sent14: that the bowl is not auxetic if the bowl does normalize is true. sent15: the bowl does not broaden.

sent1: {CS}{aa} sent2: (x): ({B}x v {A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: (x): ¬{FI}x -> (¬{GQ}x & {HP}x) sent4: {CI}{aa} -> ¬{BF}{aa} sent5: {D}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent6: ¬{E}{aa} -> {D}{aa} sent7: ¬{E}{aa} sent8: {A}{bg} sent9: (x): ({HA}x v {CP}x) -> ¬{CH}x sent10: ¬{AC}{ab} sent11: (x): ¬{IQ}x -> ¬{ED}x sent12: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent13: {A}{e} -> ¬{O}{e} sent14: {FR}{aa} -> ¬{BT}{aa} sent15: ¬{BC}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the bowl is not intelligent. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the bowl is a kind of a harmonic is correct. sent2: if something unpicks grindstone and/or it is not non-cenogenetic it is not intelligent. sent3: if something is not a kind of a levy then it is not a corncrake and it winnows knowledgeability. sent4: if the bowl is uppercase that it is not fingerless is not incorrect. sent5: the fact that the bowl is not nonintellectual is right if it is a kind of a pyrimidine. sent6: the bowl is a pyrimidine if it does not bog Wheeler. sent7: the bowl does not bog Wheeler. sent8: the redoubt is cenogenetic. sent9: something does not bog hydrocarbon if it bogs sclerometer and/or it is a kind of a barren. sent10: The Wheeler does not bog bowl. sent11: something that is not a kind of a nevirapine is not honest. sent12: something is not an allergist but nonintellectual if it is not cenogenetic. sent13: if the fact that the hydrocarbon is cenogenetic is right then it is not a kind of a buddleia. sent14: that the bowl is not auxetic if the bowl does normalize is true. sent15: the bowl does not broaden. ; $proof$ =

sent12 -> int1: if the bowl is not cenogenetic it is both not an allergist and nonintellectual.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bowl is not cenogenetic.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the bowl is not an allergist but nonintellectual.; int2 -> int3: the bowl is nonintellectual.; sent6 & sent7 -> int4: the bowl is a kind of a pyrimidine.; sent5 & int4 -> int5: the bowl is not nonintellectual.; int3 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the bowl is cenogenetic.; int7 -> int8: the bowl unpicks grindstone and/or is cenogenetic.; sent2 -> int9: that if the bowl does unpick grindstone and/or is cenogenetic then that the bowl is not intelligent is right is not false.; int8 & int9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if that it is extensile and/or is an engraver is not wrong it does not unpick bowed.

(Ex): ({AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: That everything does examine if the reliquary is a kind of non-Libyan thing that slinks is false.

sent1: That everything does examine if the reliquary is a kind of non-Libyan thing that slinks is false.

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if that it is extensile and/or is an engraver is not wrong it does not unpick bowed. ; $context$ = sent1: That everything does examine if the reliquary is a kind of non-Libyan thing that slinks is false. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__