prajaktakini/folio huggingface dataset:
Premises:
Miroslav Venhoda was a Czech choral conductor who specialized in the performance of Renaissance and Baroque music.
Any choral conductor is a musician.
Some musicians love music.
Miroslav Venhoda published a book in 1946 called Method of Studying Gregorian Chant.
Premises (first-order logic):
Czech(miroslav) ∧ ChoralConductor(miroslav) ∧ SpecializeInPerformanceOf(miroslav, renaissanceMusic) ∧ SpecializeInPerformanceOf(miroslav, baroqueMusic)
∀x (ChoralConductor(x) → Musician(x))
∃x ∃y ((Musician(x) → Love(x, music)) ∧ (¬(x=y) ∧ Musician(y) → Love(y, music)))
PublishedBook(miroslav, methodOfStudyingGregorianChant, yr1946)

Conclusion: Miroslav Venhoda loved music.
Conclusion (first-order logic): Love(miroslav, music)
Label: Uncertain

Conclusion: No choral conductor specialized in the performance of Renaissance.
Conclusion (first-order logic): ∀x (ChoralConductor(x) → ¬SpecializeInPerformanceOf(x, renaissanceMusic))
Label: False
Premises:
All eels are fish.
No fish are plants.
Everything displayed in the collection is either a plant or an animal.
All multicellular animals are not bacteria.
All animals displayed in the collection are multicellular.
A sea eel is displayed in the collection.
The sea eel is an eel or an animal or not a plant.
Premises (first-order logic):
∀x (Eel(x) → Fish(x))
∀x (Fish(x) → ¬Plant(x))
∀x (DisplayedIn(x, collection) → Plant(x) ⊕ Animal(x))
∀x (Multicellular(x) → ¬Bacteria(x))
∀x (DisplayedIn(x, collection) ∧ Animal(x) → Multicellular(x))
DisplayedIn(seaEel, collection)
Eel(seaEel) ∨ Animal(seaEel) ∨ ¬Plant(seaEel)

Conclusion: The sea eel is an eel.
Conclusion (first-order logic): Eel(seaEel)
Label: Uncertain

Conclusion: The sea eel is bacteria.
Conclusion (first-order logic): Bacteria(seaEel)
Label: False

Conclusion: The sea eel is multicellular or is bacteria.
Conclusion (first-order logic): Multicellular(seaEel) ∨ Bacteria(seaEel)
Label: True
Premises:
William Dickinson was a British politician who sat in the House of Commons
William Dickinson attended Westminster school for high school and then the University of Edinburgh.
The University of Edinburgh is a university located in the United Kingdom.
William Dickinson supported the Portland Whigs.
People who supported the Portland Whigs did not get a seat in the Parliament.
Premises (first-order logic):
British(williamDickinson) ∧ Politician(williamDickinson) ∧ SatIn(williamDickinson, houseOfCommons)
Attended(williamDickinson, westminsterSchool) ∧ Highschool(westminsterSchool) ∧ Attended(williamDickinson, universityOfEdinburgh)
University(universityOfEdinburgh) ∧ LocatedIn(universityOfEdinburgh, unitedKingdom)
Supported(williamDickinson, portlandWhigs)
∀x (Supported(x, portlandWhigs) → ¬SatIn(x, parliament))

Conclusion: William Dickinson went to schools located in the United Kingdom for both high school and university.
Conclusion (first-order logic): ∃x ∃y (Attended(williamDickinson, x) ∧ Highschool(x) ∧ LocatedIn(x, unitedKingdom) ∧ Attended(williamDickinson, y) ∧ University(y) ∧ LocatedIn(y, unitedKingdom))
Label: Uncertain

Conclusion: William Dickinson attended university in the United Kingdom.
Conclusion (first-order logic): ∃x (Attended(williamDickinson, x) ∧ University(x) ∧ LocatedIn(x, unitedKingdom))
Label: True

Conclusion: William Dickinson sat in the House of Commons.
Conclusion (first-order logic): SatIn(williamDickinson, houseOfCommons)
Label: True
Premises:
A La Liga soccer team ranks higher than another La Liga soccer team if it receives more points.
If there are two La Liga soccer teams and neither has more points than the other, then the team which receives more points from the games between the two teams ranks higher.
Real Madrid and Barcelona are both La Liga soccer teams.
Real Madrid received more points than Barcelona.
Neither Real Madrid nor Barcelona received more points from the games between them.
Premises (first-order logic):
∀x ∀y (LaLigaSoccerTeam(x) ∧ LaLigaSoccerTeam(y) ∧ MorePoints(x, y) → RankHigherThan(x, y))
∀x ∀y (LaLigaSoccerTeam(x) ∧ LaLigaSoccerTeam(y) ∧ ¬MorePoints(x, y) ∧ ¬MorePoints(y, x) ∧ MorePointsInGameBetween(x, y) →  RankHigherThan(x, y))
LaLigaSoccerTeam(realMadrid) ∧ LaLigaSoccerTeam(barcelona)
MorePoints(realMadrid, barcelona)
¬MorePointsInGameBetween(realMadrid, barcelona) ∧ ¬MorePointsInGameBetween(barcelona, realMadrid)

Conclusion: Real Madrid ranks higher than Barcelona.
Conclusion (first-order logic): RankHigherThan(realMadrid, barcelona)
Label: True
Premises:
Lawton Park is a neighborhood in Seattle.
All citizens of Lawton Park use the zip code 98199.
Tom is a citizen of Lawton Park.
Daniel uses the zip code 98199.
Premises (first-order logic):
NeighbourhoodIn(lawtonPark, seattle)
∀x (Residentof(x, lawtonPark) → UseZipCode(x, num98199))
ResidentOf(tom, lawtonPark)
UseZipCode(daniel, num98199)

Conclusion: Tom is a citizen of Washington.
Conclusion (first-order logic): ResidentOf(tom, washington)
Label: Uncertain

Conclusion: Daniel is a citizen of Lawton Park.
Conclusion (first-order logic): ResidentOf(daniel, lawtonPark)
Label: Uncertain
Premises:
If a legislator is found guilty of stealing government funds, they will be suspended from office.
Tiffany T. Alston was a legislator in Maryland's House of Delegates from 2011 to 2013.
Tiffany T. Alston was found guilty of stealing government funds in 2012.
Premises (first-order logic):
∀x ((Legislator(x) ∧ StealsFunds(x)) → Suspended(x))
Legislator(tiffanyTAlston)
StealsFunds(tiffanyTAlston) ∧ StealsFundsInYr(tiffanyTAlston, yr2012)

Conclusion: Tiffany T. Alston was suspended from the Maryland House of Delegates.
Conclusion (first-order logic): Suspended(tiffanyTAlston)
Label: True

Conclusion: Tiffany T. Alston was not suspended from the Maryland House of Delegates.
Conclusion (first-order logic): ¬Suspended(tiffanyTAlston)
Label: False

Conclusion: Tiffany T. Alston went to prison for stealing government funds.
Conclusion (first-order logic): Prison(tiffanyTAlston)
Label: Uncertain
Premises:
Some fish stings people.
Stonefish is a fish.
Stonefish stings when stepped on.
If a stonefish stings someone and they are not treated, it can cause death to them.
To treat stonefish stings, apply heat to the affected area or use an antivenom.
Premises (first-order logic):
∃x ∃y (Fish(x) → Sting(x,y))
Fish(stonefish)
∀x (SteppedOnBy(stonefish, x) → Sting(stonefish, x))
∀x (Sting(stonefish, x) ∧ ¬Treated(x) → CauseDeathTo(stonefish, x))
∀x (Sting(stonefish, x) ∧ (ApplyHeatTo(x) ∨ UseAntivenomOn(x)) → Treated(x))

Conclusion: If a stonefish stings you and you don’t use an antivenom, it can cause death to you.
Conclusion (first-order logic): ∀x (Sting(stonefish, x) ∧ ¬UseAntivenomOn(x) → CauseDeathTo(stonefish, x))
Label: Uncertain

Conclusion: Stings of some fish can cause death if not treated.
Conclusion (first-order logic): ∃x ∃y (Fish(x) ∧ Sting(x, y) ∧ ¬Treated(y) → CauseDeathTo(x, y))
Label: True

Conclusion: If you step on a stonefish and apply heat to the affected area, it can cause death to you.
Conclusion (first-order logic): ∀x (SteppedOnBy(stonefish, x) ∧ ApplyHeatTo(x)  → CauseDeathTo(stonefish, x))
Label: Uncertain
Premises:
Some monitors made by LG have a type-c port.
Monitors that have a type-c port were not made before 2010.
All monitors in the library are made before 2010.
The L-2021 monitor is either used in the library or has a type-c port.
The L-2021 monitor is either both produced before 2010 and made by LG, or neither is true.
Premises (first-order logic):
∃x (Monitor(x) ∧ ProducedBy(x, lG) ∧ Have(x, typeCPort) ∧ (¬(x=y)) ∧ Monitor(y) ∧ ProducedBy(y, lG) ∧ Have(y, typeCPort))
∀x (Have(x, typeCPort) → ¬ProducedBefore(x, yr2010))
∀x ((Monitor(x) ∧ In(x, library)) → ProducedBefore(x, yr2010))
Monitor(l-2021) ∧ (In(l-2021, library) ⊕ Have(l-2021, typeCPort))
¬(ProducedBefore(l-2021, yr2010) ⊕ ProducedBy(l-2021, lG))

Conclusion: The L-2021 monitor either has a type-c port or is produced by LG.
Conclusion (first-order logic): Have(l-2021, typeCPort) ⊕ ProducedBy(l-2021, lG)
Label: True
Premises:
Everything is either outside the solar system or in the solar system.
Nothing outside the solar system has the Sun as its star.
Everything in the solar system is gravitationally bound by the Sun.
No planets gravitationally bound by the Sun are rogue planets.
All orphan planets are rogue planets.
If PSO J318.5−22 is not both a rogue planet and a planet gravitationally bound by the Sun, then it is a rogue planet.
Premises (first-order logic):
∀x (Outside(x, solarSystem) ⊕ In(x, solarSystem))
∀x (Outside(x, solarSystem) → ¬SunAs(x, star))
∀x (In(x, solarSystem) → BoundBy(x, sun, gravitationally))
∀x (Planet(x) ∧ BoundBy(x, sun, gravitationally) → ¬(Planet(x) ∧ Rogue(x)))
∀x (Planet(x) ∧ Orphan(x) → Planet(x) ∧ Rogue(x))
¬(Planet(pSOJ318.5-22) ∧ Rogue(pSOJ318.5-22) ∧ BoundBy(pSOJ318.5-22, sun, gravitationally)) → (Planet(pSOJ318.5-22) ∧ Rogue(pSOJ318.5-22))

Conclusion: PSO J318.5−22 is an orphan planet.
Conclusion (first-order logic): Planet(pSOJ318.5-22) ∧ Orphan(pSOJ318.5-22)
Label: Uncertain

Conclusion: PSO J318.5−22 is an orphan planet or it does not have the Sun as its star, or both.
Conclusion (first-order logic): (Planet(pSOJ318.5-22) ∧ Orphan(pSOJ318.5-22)) ∨ ¬SunAs(pSOJ318.5-22, star)
Label: True
Premises:
Sam is doing a project.
A project is written either in C++ or Python.
If Sam does a project written in Python, he will not use a Mac.
Sam is using a Mac.
If Sam uses a Mac, he will play a song.
If a song is not titled "Perfect," Sam will never play it.
Premises (first-order logic):
∃x (Project(x) ∧ Do(sam, x))
∀x (Project(x) → (WrittenIn(x, cplusplus) ⊕ WrittenIn(x, python)))
∀x (Project(x) ∧ WrittenIn(x, python) ∧ Do(sam, x) → ¬Use(sam, mac))
Use(sam, mac)
∃x (Use(sam, mac) ∧ Song(x) → Play(sam, x))
∀x (Song(x) ∧ Play(sam, x) → Titled(x, perfect))

Conclusion: The song Sam is playing is titled "Perfect".
Conclusion (first-order logic): ∀x (Song(x) ∧ Play(sam, x) ∧ Titled(x, perfect))
Label: Uncertain

Conclusion: If a song is titled "Perfect", Sam will play it.
Conclusion (first-order logic): ∀x (Titled(x, perfect) → Play(sam, x))
Label: Uncertain
Premises:
All rabbits have fur
Some pets are rabbits.
Premises (first-order logic):
∀x (Rabbit(x) → Have(x, fur))
∃x (Pet(x) ∧ Rabbit(x))

Conclusion: Some pets do not have fur.
Conclusion (first-order logic): ∃x ∃y (Pet(x) ∧ Pet(y) ∧ ¬Have(x, fur) ∧ ¬Have(y, fur))
Label: Uncertain
Premises:
Ordinary is an unincorporated community.
Located within Elliot County, Ordinary is on Kentucky Route 32.
Ordinary is located northwest of Sandy Hook.
Premises (first-order logic):
UnincorporatedCommunity(ordinary)
LocatedIn(ordinary, elliotCounty) ∧ On(ordinary, kentuckyRoute32)
LocatedNorthwestOf(ordinary, sandyHook)

Conclusion: There are no unincorporated communities along Kentucky Route 32.
Conclusion (first-order logic): ∀x (On(x, kentuckyRoute32) → ¬UnincorporatedCommunity(x))
Label: False

Conclusion: There is an unincorporated community located in Elliot County.
Conclusion (first-order logic): ∃x (UnincorporatedCommunity(x) ∧ LocatedIn(x, elliotCounty))
Label: True
Premises:
All young adults at the event like independence.
All college students at the event are young adults.
All Yale students at the event are college students.
Everyone at the event is a Yale student or a Harvard student.
All Harvard students at the event are diligent.
Susan is at the event, and if Susan is a Harvard student, then she is a young adult.
If Susan is a Yale student, then she does not like independence.
Premises (first-order logic):
∀x (At(x, event) ∧ YoungAdult(x) → Like(x, independence))
∀x (At(x, event) ∧ CollegeStudent(x) → YoungAdult(x))
∀x (At(x, event) ∧ YaleStudent(x) → CollegeStudent(x))
∀x (At(x, event) → (YaleStudent(x) ⊕ HarvardStudent(x)))
∀x (At(x, event) ∧ HarvardStudent(x) → Diligent(x))
At(susan, event) ∧ (HarvardStudent(susan) → YoungAdult(susan))
YaleStudent(susan) → ¬Like(susan, independence)

Conclusion: Susan is a college student.
Conclusion (first-order logic): CollegeStudent(susan)
Label: Uncertain

Conclusion: Susan likes independence and is diligent.
Conclusion (first-order logic): Like(susan, independence) ∧ Diligent(susan)
Label: True

Conclusion: Susan is not both diligent and likes independence.
Conclusion (first-order logic): ¬(Like(susan, independence) ∧ Diligent(susan))
Label: False
Premises:
All professional athletes spend most of their time on sports.
All Olympic gold medal winners are professional athletes.
No full-time scientists spend the majority of their time on sports.
All Nobel physics laureates are full-time scientists.
Amy spends the most time on sports, or Amy is an Olympic gold medal winner.
If Amy is not a Nobel physics laureate, then Amy is not an Olympic gold medal winner.
Premises (first-order logic):
∀x (ProfessionalAthlete(x) → SpendOn(x, mostOfTheirTime, sports))
∀x (OlympicGoldMedalWinner(x) → ProfessionalAthlete(x))
∀x (FullTimeScientist(x) → ¬SpendOn(x, mostOfTheirTime, sports))
∀x (NobelPhysicsLaureate(x) → FullTimeScientist(x))
SpendOn(amy, mostOfTheirTime, sports) ∨ OlympicGoldMedalWinner(amy)
¬NobelPhysicsLaureate(amy) → ¬OlympicGoldMedalWinner(amy)

Conclusion: Amy is a professional athlete.
Conclusion (first-order logic): ProfessionalAthlete(amy)
Label: Uncertain

Conclusion: Amy is neither a full-time scientist nor an Olympic gold medal winner.
Conclusion (first-order logic): ¬(FullTimeScientist(amy) ∨ OlympicGoldMedalWinner(amy))
Label: True

Conclusion: If Amy is not an Olympic gold medal winner, then Amy is a Nobel physics laureate.
Conclusion (first-order logic): ¬OlympicGoldMedalWinner(amy) → NobelPhysicsLaureate(amy)
Label: False
Premises:
All red fruits that grow in Ben's yard contain some Vitamin C.
All apples that grow in Ben's yard are red fruits.
All fruits that grow in Ben's yard and contain some Vitamin C are healthy.
No fruits that grow in Ben's yard and are healthy are on a warning list.
The cherries grow in Ben's yard.
If cherries are not apples and are not healthy, then they are red fruits.
Premises (first-order logic):
∀x ((GrownIn(x, benSYard) ∧ RedFruit(x)) → Contain(x, vitaminC))
∀x (GrownIn(x, benSYard) ∧ Is(x, apple) → RedFruit(x))
∀x ((GrownIn(x, benSYard) ∧ Contain(x, vitaminC)) → healthy(x))
∀x ((GrownIn(x, benSYard) ∧ Healthy(x)) → ¬On(x, warningList))
GrownIn(cherry, benSYard)
¬(Healthy(cherry) ∧ Is(cherry, apple)) → RedFruit(cherry)

Conclusion: The cherries either contain some amount of vitamin C or are on a warning list.
Conclusion (first-order logic): Contain(cherry, vitaminC) ⊕ On(cherry, warningList)
Label: True

Conclusion: The cherries are either on a warning list or are red.
Conclusion (first-order logic): On(cherry, warningList) ⊕ RedFruit(cherry)
Label: True
Premises:
Everyone working at Meta has a high income.
A person with a high income will not take a bus to their destination.
People will either take a bus or drive to their destination.
Everyone who has a car will choose to drive to their destination.
No students drive to their destination.
James has a car or works at Meta.
Premises (first-order logic):
∀x (WorkAt(x, meta) → HighIncome(x))
∀x (HighIncome(x) → ¬MeansToDestination(x, bus))
∀x (MeansToDestination(x, bus) ⊕ MeansToDestination(x, drive))
∀x (HaveCar(x) → MeansToDestination(x, drive))
∀x (Student(x) → ¬ MeansToDestination(x, drive))
HaveCar(james) ∨ WorkAt(james, meta)

Conclusion: James has a high income.
Conclusion (first-order logic): HighIncome(james)
Label: Uncertain

Conclusion: James does not have a high income.
Conclusion (first-order logic): ¬HighIncome(james)
Label: Uncertain

Conclusion: James is a student.
Conclusion (first-order logic): Student(james)
Label: False
Premises:
Everyone at the business conference is either an investor or an entrepreneur.
None of those at the business conference who enjoy the opportunity of starting a business prefer a planned economy.
All entrepreneurs at the business conference enjoy the opportunity of starting a business.
Everyone at the business conference who enjoys state ownership of means of production prefers a planned economy.
Everyone at the business conference who is an ardent communist prefers state ownership of the means of production.
Ho is at the business conference and prefers state ownership of the means of production.
Premises (first-order logic):
∀x (At(x, businessConference) → (Investor(x) ⊕ Entrepreneur(x)))
∀x ((At(x, businessConference) ∧ Enjoy(x, opportunityOfStartingOwnBusiness)) → ¬Prefer(x, plannedEconomy))
∀x ((At(x, businessConference) ∧ Entrepreneur(x)) → Enjoy(x, opportunityOfStartingOwnBusiness))
∀x ((At(x, businessConference) ∧ Enjoy(x, stateOwnershipOfMeansOfProduction)) → Prefer(x, plannedEconomy))
∀x ((At(x, businessConference) ∧ ArdentCommunist(x)) → Prefer(x, stateOwnershipOfMeansOfProduction))
At(ho, businessConference) ∧ Prefer(ho, stateOwnershipOfMeansOfProduction)

Conclusion: Ho is not an ardent communist.
Conclusion (first-order logic): ¬ArdentCommunist(ho)
Label: Uncertain
Premises:
No television stars are certified public accountants.
All certified public accountants have good business sense.
Premises (first-order logic):
∀x (TelevisionStar(x) → ¬CertifiedPublicAccoutant(x))
∀x (CertifiedPublicAccoutant(x) → Have(x, goodBusinessSense))

Conclusion: All television stars have good business sense.
Conclusion (first-order logic): ∀x (TelevisionStar(x) → Have(x, goodBusinessSense))
Label: Uncertain
Premises:
Some students in the class who are good at math are also good at chemistry.
All students in the class who are good at chemistry enjoy conducting experiments.
All students in the class that enjoy conducting experiments are good at planning.
None of the students who are good at planning failed the class.
James is a student in the class; he is either good at chemistry and failed the class, or bad at chemistry and passed the class.
Premises (first-order logic):
∃x ∃y (StudentInTheClass(x) ∧ GoodAt(x, math) ∧ GoodAt(x, chemistry) ∧ (¬(x=y)) ∧ StudentInTheClass(y) ∧ GoodAt(y, math) ∧ GoodAt(y, chemistry))
∀x ((StudentInTheClass(x) ∧ GoodAt(x, chemistry)) → Enjoy(x, conductingExperiment))
∀x ((StudentInTheClass(x) ∧ Enjoy(x, conductingExperiment)) → GoodAt(x, planning))
∀x ((StudentInTheClass(x) ∧ GoodAt(x, planning)) → ¬Failed(x, theClass))
StudentInTheClass(james) ∧ (¬(GoodAt(james, chemistry) ⊕ Failed(james, theClass)))

Conclusion: James is good at planning.
Conclusion (first-order logic): GoodAt(james, planning)
Label: Uncertain

Conclusion: James is good at math and chemistry.
Conclusion (first-order logic): GoodAt(james, chemistry) ∧ GoodAt(james, math)
Label: False

Conclusion: If James is good at Chemistry or failed the class, then James is either good at planning or good at math.
Conclusion (first-order logic): (GoodAt(james, chemistry) ∨ Failed(james, theClass)) → (GoodAt(james, planning) ⊕ GoodAt(james, math))
Label: True
Premises:
Everyone who rents a car spends money.
Whenever Sarah goes to Vermont, Sarah drives there.
Someone who does not own a car to drive somewhere must either borrow a car or rent a car.
Sarah doesn’t own a car.
Sarah never borrows a car to go camping.
Sarah is going to go camping in Vermont.
To go camping somewhere, you must go to that place.
Premises (first-order logic):
∀x (Rent(x, car) → Spend(x, money))
GoTo(sarah, vermont) → DriveTo(sarah, vermont)
∀x ∀y (¬Own(x, car) ∧ DriveTo(x, y) → Borrow(x, car) ⊕ Rent(x, car))
¬Own(sarah, car)
∀x (Camping(sarah, x) → ¬(Borrow(sarah, car)))
Camping(sarah, vermont)
∀x ∀y (Camping(x, y) → GoTo(x, y))

Conclusion: Sarah will spend money this weekend.
Conclusion (first-order logic): Spend(sarah, money)
Label: True
Premises:
All Senate Republicans are elected officials.
Some elected officials are not conservatives.
Premises (first-order logic):
∀x (SenateRepublican(x) → ElectedOfficial(x))
∃x ∃y (ElectedOfficial(x) ∧ ElectedOfficial(y) ∧ ¬Conservative(x) ∧ ¬Conservative(y) ∧ ¬(x=y))

Conclusion: Some conservatives are not Senate Republicans.
Conclusion (first-order logic): ∃x ∃y (Conservative(x) ∧ Conservative(y) ∧ ¬SenateRepublican(x) ∧ ¬SenateRepublican(y) ∧ ¬(x=y))
Label: Uncertain
Premises:
All kids are young.
All toddlers are kids.
If someone is young, then they are not elderly.
All pirates are seafarers.
If Nancy is not a pirate, then Nancy is young.
If Nancy is not a toddler, then Nancy is a seafarer.
Premises (first-order logic):
∀x (Kid(x) → Young(x))
∀x (Toddler(x) → Kid(x))
∀x (Young(x) → ¬Elderly(x))
∀x (Pirate(x) → Seafarer(x))
¬Pirate(nancy) → Young(nancy)
¬Toddler(nancy) → Seafarer(nancy)

Conclusion: Nancy is a pirate.
Conclusion (first-order logic): Pirate(nancy)
Label: Uncertain
Premises:
Lana Wilson directed After Tiller, The Departure, and Miss Americana.
If a film is directed by a person, the person is a filmmaker.
After Tiller is a documentary.
The documentary is a type of film.
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 (first-order logic):
DirectedBy(afterTiller, lanaWilson) ∧ DirectedBy(theDeparture, lanaWilson) ∧ DirectedBy(missAmericana, lanaWilson)
∀x ∀y (DirectedBy(x, y) → Filmmaker(y))
Documentary(afterTiller)
∀x (Documentary(x) → Film(x))
From(lanaWilson, kirkland)
In(kirkland, unitedStates)
∀x ∀y ∀z ((From(x, y) ∧ In(y, z)) → From(x, z))
Nomination(afterTiller, theIndependentSpiritAwardForBestDocumentary)

Conclusion: Lana Wilson is a US filmmaker.
Conclusion (first-order logic): From(lanaWilson, unitedStates) ∧ Filmmaker(lanaWilson)
Label: True

Conclusion: Miss Americana is not directed by a filmmaker from Kirkland.
Conclusion (first-order logic): ¬∃x(Filmmaker(x) ∧ From(x, kirkland) ∧ DirectedBy(missAmericana, x))
Label: False

Conclusion: Lana Wilson has won the Independent Spirit Award.
Conclusion (first-order logic): FilmmakerAward(lanaWilson, theIndependentSpiritAwardForBestDocumentary)
Label: Uncertain
Premises:
All bears in zoos are not wild.
Some bears are in zoos.
Premises (first-order logic):
∀x ((Bear(x) ∧ In(x, zoo)) → ¬Wild(x))
∃x ∃y (Bear(x) ∧ Bear(y) ∧ In(x, zoo) ∧ In(y, zoo) ∧ ¬(x=y))

Conclusion: Not all bears are wild.
Conclusion (first-order logic): ∃x (Bear(x) ∧ ¬Wild(x))
Label: True
Premises:
If a person is the leader of a country for life, that person has power.
Leaders of a country for life are either a king or a queen.
Queens are female.
Kings are male.
Elizabeth is a queen.
Elizabeth is a leader of a country for life.
Premises (first-order logic):
∀x (Leader(x) → HavePower(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.
Conclusion (first-order logic): King(elizabeth)
Label: False

Conclusion: Elizabeth has power.
Conclusion (first-order logic): HavePower(elizabeth)
Label: True

Conclusion: Elizabeth is a leader of a country for life.
Conclusion (first-order logic): Leader(elizabeth)
Label: True