minimario/FOLIO huggingface dataset:
Premises:
All Republicans are anti-abortion.
Either Republicans or Democrats. 
No Democrats are conservative.
Either conservative or liberal. 
A U.S government official is either conservative or a Republican.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Republicans(x) → Anti-abortion(x))
 ∀x (Republicans(x) ∨ Democrats(x))
 ∀x (Democrats(x) → ¬Conservative(x))
 ∀x (Conservative(x) ∨ Liberal(x))
 Conservative(anU.SGovernmentOfficial) ⊕ Republicans(anU.SGovernmentOfficial)

Conclusion: A U.S government official is a Democrat.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: A U.S government official is anti-abortion and a liberal.
Label: True

Conclusion: A U.S government official is either anti-abortion or a liberal.
Label: False

Conclusion: If a U.S government official is not anti-abortion and a Republican, then a U.S government official is neither anti-abortion nor a liberal.
Label: True

Conclusion: If a U.S government official is anti-abortion and a liberal, then a U.S government official is either a Republican or a liberal.
Label: False

Conclusion: If a U.S government official is either a conservative or anti-abortion, then a U.S government official is either a conservative and a liberal or neither a conservative nor a liberal.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: If a U.S government official is either a conservative or anti-abortion, then a U.S government official is neither a Democrat or a liberal.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: If an U.S government official is anti-abortion or a liberal, then a U.S government official is either anti-abortion or a liberal.
Label: False
Premises:
All advocates of high tariff rates are Republicans.
Some Republicans are not conservatives.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (AdvocateOfHighTariff(x) → Republican(x))
∃x (Republican(x) ∧ ¬Conservative(x))

Conclusion: Some conservatives are advocates of high tariff rates.
Label: Unknown
Premises:
No athletes are slow runners. 
All professional basketball players are athletes. 
All NBA players are professional basketball players. 
All Knicks players are NBA players. 
Jim is either not a professional basketball player or not a slow runner. 

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Athlete(x) → ¬SlowRunner(x))
∀x (ProfessionalBasketballPlayer(x) → Athlete(x))
∀x (NBAPlayer(x) → ProfessionalBasketballPlayer(x))
∀x (KnicksPlayer(x) → NBAPlayer(x))
¬(ProfessionalBasketballPlayer(jim) ⊕ SlowRunner(jim))

Conclusion: Jim is a Knicks player.
Label: False

Conclusion: Jim is not a Knicks player.
Label: True

Conclusion: Jim is an athlete.
Label: Unknown
Premises:
All kids love animals.
All toddlers are kids.
If someone loves animals, then they are not bad.
All pirates are bad.
If Nancy is not a pirate, then Nancy loves animals.
If Nancy is not a toddler, then Nancy is bad.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Kid(x) → LoveAnimals(x))
∀x (Toddler(x) → Kid(x))
∀x (LoveAnimals(x) → ¬Bad(x))
∀x (Pirate(x) → Bad(x))
¬Pirate(nancy) → LoveAnimals(nancy)
¬Toddler(nancy) → Bad(nancy)

Conclusion: Nancy is a pirate.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: Nancy is not a pirate or a toddler.
Label: False

Conclusion: If Nancy is not a pirate or a toddler, then she loves animals and is a kid.
Label: True
Premises:
Lana Wilson directed After Tiller, The Departure, and Miss Americana.
If a film is directedy by a person, the person is a filmmaker.
After Tiller is a documentary.
The documentary is a type of films.
Lana Wilson is from Kirkland.
Kirkland is a US city.
If a person is from a city in a country, the person is from the country.
After Tiller is nominated for the Independent Spirit Award for Best Documentary.

Premises in first-order logic:
DirectedBy(after_Tiller, lana_Wilson) ∧ DirectedBy(the_Departure, lana_Wilson) ∧ DirectedBy(miss_Americana, lana_Wilson)
∀x ∃y (DirectedBy(y, x) → Filmmaker(x))
IsDocumentary(after_Tiller)
∀x (IsDocumentary(x) → IsFilm(x))
FromCity(lana_Wilson, kirkland)
CityCountry(kirkland, us)
∀x ∀y ∀z (FromCity(x, y) ∧ CityCountry(y, z) → FromCountry(x, z))
Nomination(after_Tiller, the_Independent_Spirit_Award_for_Best_Documentary)

Conclusion: Lana Wilson is a US filmmaker.
Label: True

Conclusion: Miss Americana is not directed by a filmmaker from Kirkland.
Label: False

Conclusion: Lana Wilson has won the Independent Spirit Award.
Label: Unknown
Premises:
All bears in zoos are not wild. 
Some bears are in zoos. 

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x ((Bear(x) ∧ InZoo(x)) → ¬Wild(x))
∃x (Bear(x) ∧ InZoo(x))

Conclusion: Not all bears are wild.
Label: True
Premises:
If a person is the leader of a country for life, that person is in a monarchy. 
Leaders are either a king or a queen.
Queens are female.
Kings are male. 
Elizabeth is a queen.
Elizabeth is a leader

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Leader(x) → InMonarchy(x))
∀x (Leader(x) → King(x) ⊕ Queen(x))
∀x (Queen(x) → Female(x))
∀x (King(x) → Male(x))
Queen(elizabeth)
Leader(elizabeth)

Conclusion: Elizabeth is a king.
Label: False

Conclusion: Elizabeth is in a monarchy.
Label: True

Conclusion: Elizabeth is a leader of a country.
Label: True
Premises:
If people make their own matcha teas every morning with ceremonial-grade matcha powder, then they do not wake up late and start their schedules past noon regularly.
If people live in California and attend yoga classes regularly, then they make their own matcha teas every morning with ceremonial-grade matcha powder.
If people work in the entertainment industry as high-profile celebrities, then they wake up late and start their schedules past noon regularly.
If people do not have regular 9-5 jobs, then they work in the entertainment industry as high-profile celebrities.
All people who prefer working at home over going to the office every day do not have regular 9-5 jobs.
Clay either both prefers to work at home over going to the office every day and makes his own matcha teas every morning with ceremonial-grade matcha powder, or he neither prefers to work at home over going to the office every day nor makes his own matcha teas every morning with ceremonial-grade matcha powder.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Matcha(x) → ¬Late(x))
∀x (California(x) → Matcha(x))
∀x (Celebrities(x) → Late(x))
∀x (Jobs(x) → Celebrities(x))
∀x (WorkHome(x) → Jobs(x))
(WorkHome(clay) ∧ Matcha(clay)) ⊕ (¬WorkHome(clay) ∧ ¬Matcha(clay))

Conclusion: Clay does not have a regular 9-5 job.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: Clay lives in California and attends yoga classes regularly.
Label: False

Conclusion: Clay neither prefers working at home over going to the office every day nor lives in California and attends yoga classes regularly.
Label: True
Premises:
Thomas Barber was an English professional footballer.
Thomas Barber played in the Football League for Aston Villa.
Thomas Barber played as a half back and inside left.
Thomas Barber scored the winning goal in the 1913 FA Cup Final.

Premises in first-order logic:
English(thomasBarber) ∧ ProfessionalFootballer(thomasBarber)
PlayedInTheFootballLeagueFor(thomasBarber, astonVilla)
PlayedAs(thomasBarber, aHalfBack) ∧ PlayedAs(thomasBarber, anInsideLeft)
ScoredTheWinningGoalIn(thomasBarber, facupfinal1913)

Conclusion: Thomas Barber played in the Football League for Bolton Wanderers
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: Thomas Barber played as an inside left.
Label: True

Conclusion: An English professional footballer scored the winning goal in the 1913 FA Cup Final.
Label: True
Premises:
If people play the instrument in the concert, then he is good at playing this kind of instrument.
Peter plays piano, violin, and saxophone.
Peter was invited to play piano at the concert hall.
Oliver and Peter were both invited to perform in the concert.
Oliver plays a different musical instrument from Peter in the concert.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀y (∀x (PlayInConcert(y, x) → GoodAt(y, x)))
Play(peter, piano) ∧Play(peter, violin)
PlayInConcert(peter, piano)
PlayerInConcert(peter) ∧ PlayerInConcert(oliver)
¬PlayInConcert(oliver, piano)

Conclusion: Oliver plays piano in the concert.
Label: False

Conclusion: Oliver plays violin in the concert.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: Peter is good at playing piano.
Label: True
Premises:
If something can go underwater, then it enjoys water.
All animals that can swim can go underwater.
Either an animal can swim or it can walk.
Animals that can walk travel on land.
Animals that enjoy water splash water around.
Every animal that travels on land enjoys basking in the sun.
George splashes water around and can swim.
Liam is either an animal that can walk and enjoys water, or is neither an animal that can walk nor enjoys water.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (GoesUnderwater(x) → EnjoysWater(x))
∀x (CanSwim(x) → GoesUnderwater(x))
∀x (CanSwim(x) ∨ CanWalk(x))
∀x (CanWalk(x) → TravelsOnLand(x))
∀x (EnjoysWater(x) → Splashes(x))
∀x (TravelsOnLand(x) → EnjoysBasking(x))
Splashes(george) ∧ CanSwim(george)
(CanWalk(liam) ∧ EnjoysWater(liam)) ∨ (¬CanWalk(liam) ∧ ¬EnjoysWater(liam))

Conclusion: George enjoys basking in the sun.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: Liam enjoys basking in the sun and splashing water around.
Label: True

Conclusion: Liam neither enjoys basking in the sun nor splashing water around.
Label: False
Premises:
Cancer biology is finding genetic alterations that confer selective advantage to cancer cells. 
Cancer researchers have frequently ranked the importance of substitutions to cancer growth by P value.
P values are thresholds for belief, not metrics of effect. 

Premises in first-order logic:
FindingGeneticAlterationsConferSelectiveAdvantageCancerCells(cancerBiology)
 PValue(cancerResearchers, theImportanceOfSubstitutionsToCancerGrowth)
 ∀x (PValue(x) → ThresholdsForBelief(x) ∧ ¬MetricsOfEffect(x))

Conclusion: Cancer researchers tend to use the cancer effect size to determine the relative importance of the genetic alterations that confer selective advantage to cancer cells.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: P value represents the selection intensity for somatic variants in cancer cell lineages.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: Cancer effect size is a metric that is preferred by the majority of cancer researchers.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: P value doesn't represent metrics of effect.
Label: True
Premises:
All dispensable things are environment-friendly. 
All woodware is dispensable.
All paper is woodware. 
No good things are bad. 
All environment-friendly things are good.
A worksheet is either paper or is environment-friendly.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Dispensable(x) → EnvironmentFriendly(x))
∀x (Woodware(x) → Dispensable(x))
∀x (Paper(x) → Woodware(x))
∀x (Good(x) → ¬Bad(x))
∀x (EnvironmentFriendly(x) → Good(x))
Paper(worksheet) ⊕ EnvironmentFriendly(worksheet)

Conclusion: A worksheet is dispensable.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: A worksheet is not dispensable.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: A worksheet is bad.
Label: False

Conclusion: A worksheet is not bad.
Label: True
Premises:
No reptile has fur.
All snakes are reptiles.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Reptile(x) → ¬HasFur(x))
∀x (Snake(x) → Reptile(x))

Conclusion: Some snake has fur.
Label: False
Premises:
All buildings in New Haven are low. 
All buildings managed by the Yale Housing are located in New Haven. 
All buildings in Manhattans are high. 
All buildings owned by Bloomberg are located in Manhattans. 
All buildings with the Bloomberg logo are owned by Bloomberg. 
Tower A is managed by the Yale Housing.
Tower B is with the Bloomberg logo.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Located(newhaven, x) → ¬High(x))
∀x (YaleHousing(x) → Located(newhaven, x))
∀x (Located(manhattans, x) → High(x))
∀x (Bloomberg(x) → Located(manhattans, x))
∀x (BloombergLogo(x) → Bloomberg(x))
YaleHousing(tower-a)
BloombergLogo(tower-b)

Conclusion: Tower A is low.
Label: True

Conclusion: Tower B is not located in Manhattans.
Label: False

Conclusion: Tower B is located in New Haven.
Label: False
Premises:
No cold-blooded animals are birds.
All reptiles are cold-blooded.
Either an animal is a bird or it eats other animals.
If an animal eats other animals, then it is a carnivore.
Ron is neither a cold-blooded animal nor a carnivore.
Henry is neither a carnivore nor a lizard.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (ColdBlooded(x) → ¬Bird(x))
∀x (Reptile(x) → ColdBlooded(x))
∀x (Bird(x) ∨ EatOtherAnimals(x))
∀x (EatOtherAnimals(x) → Carnivore(x))
¬ColdBlooded(ron) ∧ ¬Carnivore(ron)
¬Carnivore(henry) ∧ ¬Lizard(henry)

Conclusion: Ron is a lizard.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: Either Henry is a reptile or Ron eats other animals.
Label: False

Conclusion: It is not true that Ron is a reptile or that Henry is cold-blooded.
Label: True
Premises:
Ambiortus is a prehistoric bird genus.
Ambiorus Dementjevi is the only known species of Ambiortus.
The Mongol region was where Ambiorus Dementjevi lived.
Yevgeny Kurochkin was the discoverer of Ambiortus.

Premises in first-order logic:
Prehistoric(ambiortus) ∧ BirdGenus(ambiortus)
∀x (Species(x, ambiortus) → AmbiortusDementjevi(x))
∀x (AmbiortusDementjevi(x) → Lived(x, mongolregion))
Discovered(yevgenykurochkin, ambiortus)

Conclusion: Yevgeny Kurochkin discovered a new bird genus.
Label: True

Conclusion: There is a species of Ambiortus that doesn't live in the Mongol region.
Label: False

Conclusion: Yevgeny Kurochkin lived in the Mongol region.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: All species of Ambiortus live in the Mongol region.
Label: True
Premises:
Everyone that uses a football can throw a football.
If someone plays football, then they use a football.
Either someone is a football player or a basketball player.
Every basketball player is tall.
Everyone that can throw a football can throw a football with a spiral.
If someone is tall, then they are in shape.
If Jack is neither tall nor a basketball player,  then Jack is neither tall nor can throw a football.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (UseFootball(x) → ThrowFootball(x))
∀x (PlayFootball(x) → UseFootball(x))
∀x (BasketballPlayer(x) ∨ PlayFootball(x))
∀x (BasketballPlayer(x) → Tall(x))
∀x (ThrowFootball(x) → ThrowFootballSpiral(x))
∀x (Tall(x) → InShape(x))
¬Tall(jack) ∧ ¬BasketballPlayer(jack) → ¬Tall(jack) ∧ ¬ThrowFootball(jack)

Conclusion: Jack plays football.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: Jack is in shape.
Label: True

Conclusion: Jack is not in shape.
Label: False
Premises:
Fort Ticonderoga is the current name for Fort Carillon.
Pierre de Rigaud de Vaudreuil built Fort Carillon.
Fort Carillon was located in New France.
New France is not in Europe.

Premises in first-order logic:
CurrentName(fortticonderoga, fortcarillon)
Built(pierrederigauddevaudreuil, fortcarillon)
LocatedIn(fortcarillon, newfrance)
¬LocatedIn(newfrance, europe)

Conclusion: Pierre de Rigaud de Vaudreuil built a fort in New France.
Label: True

Conclusion: Pierre de Rigaud de Vaudreuil built a fort in New England.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: Fort Carillon was located in Europe.
Label: Unknown
Premises:
No soccer players are professional basketball players.
All NBA players are professional basketball players.
All defenders are soccer players.
All centerback players are defenders.
If Stephen Curry is an NBA player or a soccer player, then he is a professional basketball player.

Premises in first-order logic:
¬(∃x (SoccerPlayer(x) ∧ ProfessionalBasketballPlayer(x)))
∀x (NBAPlayer(x) → ProfessionalBasketballPlayer(x))
∀x (Defender(x) → SoccerPlayer(x))
∀x (Centerback(x) → Defender(x))
(NBAPlayer(stephencurry) ⊕ SoccerPlayer(stephencurry)) → ProfessionalBasketballPlayer(stephencurry)

Conclusion: Stephen Curry is an NBA player.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: Stephen Curry is a centerback player.
Label: False

Conclusion: Stephen Curry is not a centerback player.
Label: True
Premises:
No songs are visual. 
All folk songs are songs. 
All videos are visual. 
All movies are videos.
All sci-fi movies are movies.
Inception is a sci-fi movie.
Mac is neither a folk song nor a sci-fi movie.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Song(x) → ¬Visual(x))
∀x (FolkSong(x) → Song(x))
∀x (Video(x) → Visual(x))
∀x (Movie(x) → Video(x))
∀x (ScifiMovie(x) → Movie(x))
ScifiMovie(inception)
¬FolkSong(mac) ∧ ¬ScifiMovie(mac)

Conclusion: Inception is a folk song.
Label: False

Conclusion: Inception is not a folk song.
Label: True

Conclusion: Inception is either a video or a folk song.
Label: True

Conclusion: Mac is a video.
Label: Unknown
Premises:
All extroverts are overtly expressive.
People are either extroverts or introverts.
If someone is an introvert, then they are shy and reticent. 
No shy and reticent person likes to talk to strangers.
Jeff is not an extrovert and someone who likes to talk to strangers.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Extroverts(x) → OvertlyExpressive(x))
 ∀x (Extroverts(x) ∨ Introverts(x)) 
 ∀x (Introverts(x) → ShyAndReticentPerson(x))
 ∀x (ShyAndReticentPerson(x) → ¬LikeToTalkToStrangers(x))
 ¬Extroverts(jeff) ∧ ¬LikeToTalkToStrangers(jeff)

Conclusion: Jeff is a shy and reticent person.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: Jeff is overtly expressive and likes to talk to strangers.
Label: False

Conclusion: If Jeff is either overtly expressive and likes to talk to strangers or neither overtly expressive nor likes to talk to strangers, then Jeff is neither an extrovert nor likes to talk to strangers.
Label: True
Premises:
No low-scoring players are top players in the league.
Basketball players are either top players in the league or successfully shoot a high percentage of 3-pointers.
All players who successfully shoot a high percentage of 3-pointers are solid at shooting 2-pointers.
No players who are solid at shooting 2-pointers are bad at mid-range shots.
Candace is either a low-scoring player or successfully shoots a high percentage of 3-pointers.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (LowScore(x) → ¬TopPlayer(x))
∀x (TopPlayer(x) ∨ ThreePointer(x))
∀x (ThreePointer(x) → TwoPointer(x))
∀x (TwoPointer(x) → ¬BadMid(x))
LowScore(candace) ⊕ ThreePointer(candace)

Conclusion: Candace is a top player in the league.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: Candace is bad at mid-range shots.
Label: False

Conclusion: Candace is solid at shooting 2-pointers or bad at mid-range shots.
Label: True

Conclusion: Candace is either solid at shooting 2-pointers or bad at mid-range shots.
Label: True

Conclusion: Candace is a low-scoring player or bad at mid-range shots.
Label: False

Conclusion: Candace is either a low-scoring player or bad at mid-range shots.
Label: False

Conclusion: Candace is either a player who successfully shoots a high percentage of 3-pointers or is bad at mid-range shots.
Label: True

Conclusion: If Candace is not solid at shooting 2-pointers and bad at mid-range shots, then Candace is not solid at shooting 2-pointers and is a player who successfully shoots a high percentage of 3-pointers.
Label: False

Conclusion: If Candace is solid at shooting 2-pointers or successfully shoots a high percentage of 3-pointers, then Candace is a top player in the league and bad at mid-range shots.
Label: False
Premises:
No plants are fungi.
Mushrooms are fungi.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Plant(x) → ¬Fungi(x))
∀x (Mushroom(x) → Fungi(x))

Conclusion: No plants are mushrooms.
Label: True
Premises:
No road is clean.
And some streets are roads.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Road(x) → ¬Clean(x))
∃x (Street(x) ∧ Road(x))

Conclusion: Some streets are clean
Label: Unknown
Premises:
New York City is on the East Coast. 
Seattle is on the West Coast. 
If a person from a city on the East coast is traveling to a city on the west coast, they will be on a long flight.
Most passengers on flights to Seattle from New York City are not in first class.
People on long flights are uncomfortable unless they're in first class

Premises in first-order logic:
On(newyorkcity, eastcoast)
On(seattle, westcoast)
∀x ∀y ∀z ((TravelingFrom(x, y) ∧ On(y, eastcoast) ∧ TravelingTo(x, z) ∧ On(z, westcoast)) → OnLongFlight(x))
∃x (¬InFirstClass(x) ∧ TravelingFrom(x, newyorkcity) ∧ TravelingTo(x, seattle))
∀x (OnLongFlight(x) ∧ ¬InFirstClass(x) → Uncomfortable(x))

Conclusion: Some people flying from New York City to Seattle will be uncomfortable.
Label: False
Premises:
Musicians have very busy lives.
Singh Kaur is a musician and famous.
If a musician is not famous, that musician will not make a lot of money.
A musician can be a singer or a writer.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Musician(x) → Busy(x))
Musician(singhKaur) ∧ Famous(singhKaur)
∀x (Musician(x) ∧ ¬Famous(x) → ¬MakeMoney(x))
∃x (Musician(x) ∧ Singer(x) ∨ Writer(x))

Conclusion: Singh Kaur makes a lot of money.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: Singh Kaur is a writer.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: Singh Kaur has a very busy life.
Label: True
Premises:
Each building is tall. 
Everything tall has  height.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Building(x) → ¬Tall(x))
∀x (Tall(x) → HasHeight(x))

Conclusion: All buildings are magnificent.
Label: Unknown
Premises:
A cat named Garfield, which is the main character of the film Garfield, is orange and fat and likes having lasagna. 
Garfield and Odie, who is another pet of Jon, share the same home. 
Garfield hates Odie.
A pet who hates the pet with whom he shares the same owner is childish and possessive.
Cats are pets. 

Premises in first-order logic:
Cat(garfield) ∧ MainCharacterGarfield(garfield) ∧ BeOrange(garfield) ∧ BeFat(garfield) ∧ LikeLasagna(garfield)
Pet(garfield, jon) ∧ Pet(odie, jon) ∧ ShareHome(garfield, odie)
Hate(garfield, odie)
∀x ∀y ∃z (Pet(x, z) ∧ Pet(y, z) ∧ Hate(x, y) → BeChildish(x) ∧ BePossessive(x))
∀x ∃y (Cat(x) → Pet(x, y))

Conclusion: The main character of the film Garfield is childish and possessive.
Label: True
Premises:
All humans eat.
If something eats, then it is not a plant.
A thing is either plant or animal.
All goats are animals.
No dirt is an animal.
Hulu is a goat or a human.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Human(x) → Eat(x))
∀x (Eat(x) → ¬Plant(x))
∀x (Plant(x) ∨ Animal(x))
∀x (Goat(x) → Animal(x))
∀x (Dirt(x) → ¬Animal(x))
Goat(hulu) ∨ Human(hulu)

Conclusion: Hulu eats.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: Hulu does not eat.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: Hulu is dirt.
Label: False

Conclusion: Hulu is an animal or dirt.
Label: True

Conclusion: Hulu is either an animal or dirt.
Label: True

Conclusion: If Hulu is either an animal or dirt, then Hulu eats and is dirt.
Label: False
Premises:
A controlled substance is a drug.
There exist both harmful and beneficial controlled substances.
If a child is exposed to a controlled substance, he or she is in chemical endangerment.
Chemical Endangerment is harmful. 
The Controlled Substances Act was an act passed in 1971.
Some Acts prevent harmful things.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (ControlledSubstances(x) → Drugs(x))
∃x ∃x (ControlledSubstances(x) ∧ ControlledSubstances(y) ∧ Beneficial(x) ∧ Harmful(y))
∀x ∀y (ExposedToControlledSubstance(x, y) → ChemicalEndangerment(x))
∀x (ChemicalEndangerment(x) → Harmful(x))
PassedIn(controlledSubstancesAct, year1971) ∧ Act(controlledSubstancesAct)
∃x (Act(x) ∧ PreventsHarm(x))

Conclusion: The Controlled Substances Act prevents harmful things.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: Some drugs are beneficial.
Label: True

Conclusion: A child in chemical endangerment is in harm.
Label: True
Premises:
No people who work at corporate jobs are starting a new company.
All entrepreneurs are starting a new company.
All risk-averse people are people who work at corporate jobs.
All people who hate working for others are entrepreneurs.
If Mark Zuckerberg is neither an entrepreneur nor a person who hates working for others, then Mark Zuckerberg is not a risk-averse person.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (WorkAtCorporateJobs(x) → ¬StartingANewCompany(x))
 ∀x (Entrepreneurs(x) → StartingANewCompany(x))
 ∀x (Risk-averse(x) → WorkAtCorporateJobs(x))
 ∀x (HateWorkingForOthers(x) → Entrepreneurs(x))
 ¬Entrepreneurs(markZuckerberg) ∨ ¬HateWorkingForOthers(markZuckerberg) → ¬Risk-averse(markZuckerberg)

Conclusion: Mark Zuckerberg is an entrepreneur.
Label: Unknown

Conclusion: Mark Zuckerberg is a risk-averse person.
Label: False

Conclusion: Mark Zuckerberg is not a risk-averse person.
Label: True