yuansui/folio huggingface dataset:
Premises:
If a class has prerequisites, the student must take the prerequisites to take the class.
If a class has no prerequisites, then the student can take the class
CPSC 201 and CPSC 223 are prerequisites for CPSC 323.
Intro Microeconomics is the only prerequisite for Intermediate Microeconomics.
Intro Geology has no prerequisites.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x ∀y ∀z (Class(x) ∧ Student(y) ∧ Prereq(z,x) ∧ ¬Take(y, z) → ¬CanTake(y, x))
∀x ∀y ((Class(x) ∧ Student(y) ∧ ¬(∃z Prereq(z,x))) → CanTake(y, x))
Prereq(cpsc201, cpsc323) ∧ Prereq(cpsc223, cpsc323)
∀x (Prereq(x,intermediateMicro) → x=introMicroeconomics)
¬(∃x (Prereq(x, introGeology)))

Conclusions:
CPSC 201 has no prerequisites.
If a student took CPSC 201 but did not take CPSC 223, they can take CPSC 323.
A student cannot take Intro Geology.
Intermediate Microeconomics has one prerequisite.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∀x (¬Prereq(x, cpsc201))
Taken(cpsc201) ∧ ¬Taken(cpsc223) ∧ CanTake(cpsc323)
¬CanTake(introgeology)
∃x (Taken(x) → CanTake(intermediatemicro))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
F
T
Premises:
The winner of the 1992 du Maurier Classic was Steinhauer.
Steinhauer participated in the 1992 du Maurier Classic.
One six-way tie was on the leaderboard, and one person in the six-way tie was from Belgium.
Descampe is from Belgium and is on the leaderboard of the 1992 du Maurier Classic.
All people on the leaderboard of the 1992 du Maurier Classic participated in the 1992 du Maurier Classic.

Premises in first-order logic:
WinnerOf(steinhauer, duMaurierClassic, year1992)
Participate(duMaurierClassic, steinhauer, year1992)
∃x ∃y (OnLeaderBoardOf(x, duMaurierClassic) ∧ SixWayTie(x)) ∧ In(y, sixWayTie) ∧ Belgium(y))
From(descampe, belgium) ∧ OnLeaderBoardOf(descampe, duMaurierClassic)
∀x (LeaderBoard(maurier, x) → Participate(maurier, x))

Conclusions:
Steinhauer was not the winner of the 1992 du Maurier Classic.
Descampe is in the six-way tie in the leaderboard of the 1992 du Maurier Classic.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
¬WinnerOf(steinhauer, duMaurierClassic, year1992)
SixWayTie(descampe)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
F
U
Premises:
Reading, Listening, Writing, and Speaking are all parts of the IELTS exam.
The IELTS exam can be taken on paper or on a computer.
If you do the Speaking part, you will do a face-to-face interview.
If you take the IELTS exam on a computer, you will do the Reading, Listening, and Writing parts using a computer. 
If you take the IELTS exam, you will complete the Reading, Listening, and Writing parts on paper.
No computer or paper is used during the face-to-face interview.

Premises in first-order logic:
PartOf(reading, iELTSExam) ∧ PartOf(listening, iELTSExam) ∧ PartOf(writing, iELTSExam) ∧ PartOf(speaking, iELTSExam)
TakenOn(iELTSExam, paper) ∨ TakenOn(iELTSExam, computer)
∀x (Take(x, speaking) → Face-To-FaceInterview(x))
∀x (Take(x, iELTSExam) ∧ TakenOn(iELTSExam, computer) → (Take(x, reading) ∧ Take(x, listening) ∧ Take(x, writing) ∧ Use(x, computer))
∀x (Take(x, iELTSExam) ∧ TakenOn(iELTSExam, paper) → (Take(x, reading) ∧ Take(x, listening) ∧ Take(x, writing) ∧ Use(x, paper))
∀x (Face-To-FaceInterview(x) → ¬(Use(x, paper) ∨ Use(x, computer)))

Conclusions:
If John chooses to take the IELTS exam on a computer, he will not use a computer for the Speaking part.
If John chooses to take the IELTS exam, he will complete it on paper.
The Reading part may be completed on a computer or paper in the IELTS exam.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Take(john, iELTSExam) ∧ TakenOn(iELTSExam, computer) ∧ ¬ (Take(john, speaking) ∧ Use(john, computer))
Take(john, iELTSExam) → Use(john, paper)
∀x (Take(x, iELTSExam) ∧ Take(x, reading) → (Use(x, paper) ∨ Use(x, computer)))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
F
U
T
Premises:
To get a job at Google, you need to have a lot of work experience or a good education.
One needs to submit their resume to Google to get a job there.
John has a lot of work experience.
John submitted his resume to Google and got a job there.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (GetAJobAt(x, google) → Have(x, aLotOfWorkExperience) ∨ Have(x, goodEducation))
∀x (GetAJobAt(x, google) → Submitted(x, resume, google))
Have(john, aLotOfWorkExperience)
Submitted(john, resume, google) ∧ GetAJobAt(john, google)

Conclusions:
John is a Yale graduate.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
YaleGraduate(john)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
Premises:
All buildings in New Haven are not high.
All buildings managed by 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 Yale Housing.
Tower B is with the Bloomberg logo.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (In(x, newHaven) → ¬High(x))
∀x (YaleHousing(x) → In(x, newHaven))
∀x (In(x, manhattan) → High(x))
∀x (Bloomberg(x) → In(x, manhattan))
∀x (BloombergLogo(x) → Bloomberg(x))
YaleHousing(tower-a)
BloombergLogo(tower-b)

Conclusions:
Tower A is low.
Tower B is not located in Manhattans.
Tower B is located in New Haven.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
¬High(tower-a)
¬In(tower-b, manhattan)
¬In(tower-b, newHaven)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
F
F
Premises:
All dogs sleep.
Some four-legged animals are dogs.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Dog(x) → Sleep(x))
∃x ∃y (FourLegged(x) ∧ Animal(x) ∧ Dog(x) ∧ FourLegged(y) ∧ Animal(y) ∧ Dog(y) ∧ ¬(x=y))

Conclusions:
Some four-legged animals sleep.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∃x ∃y (FourLegged(x) ∧ Animal(x) ∧ Sleeps(x) ∧ FourLegged(y) ∧ Animal(y) ∧ Sleeps(y) ∧ ¬(x=y))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
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 in 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))

Conclusions:
If a stonefish stings you and you don’t use an antivenom, it can cause death to you.
Stings of some fish can cause death if not treated.
If you step on a stonefish and apply heat to the affected area, it can cause death to you.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∀x (Sting(stonefish, x) ∧ ¬UseAntivenomOn(x) → CauseDeathTo(stonefish, x))
∃x ∃y (Fish(x) ∧ Sting(x, y) ∧ ¬Treated(y) → CauseDeathTo(x, y))
∀x (SteppedOnBy(stonefish, x) ∧ ApplyHeatTo(x)  → CauseDeathTo(stonefish, x))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
T
U
Premises:
On December 1, 30 days remain until the end of the year in the Gregorian calendar.
December 1, 1970, was a Tuesday.
December 1, 2021, was a Wednesday.
Today is Thursday.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (December1st(x) ∧ GeorgianCalendar(x) → ThirtyDaysRemainUntilTheEndOfTheYear(x))
December1st(day) ∧ Year1970(day) → Tuesday(day)
December1st(day) ∧ Year2021(day) → Wednesday(day)
Thursday(today)

Conclusions:

Today is December 1. 
If it is 30 days before the end of a year, then it is a Wednesday. 

Conclusions in first-order logic:
December1st(today)
∀x (ThirtyDaysRemainUntilTheEndOfTheYear(x) → Wednesday(x))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):

U
U
Premises:
Roads are made of either concrete or asphalt.
Roads made of concrete last longer than roads made with asphalt.
Roads made of asphalt are smoother than roads made of concrete.
Everyone prefers the smoother of two roads. 
The first road is made of concrete, and the second road is made of asphalt.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Road(x) → (MadeOf(x, concrete) ⊕ MadeOf(x, asphalt))
∀x ∀y (Road(x) ∧ MadeOf(x, concrete) ∧ Road(y) ∧ MadeOf(y, asphalt) → LastLonger(x, y))
∀x ∀y (Road(x) ∧ MadeOf(x, asphalt) ∧ Road(y) ∧ MadeOf(y, concrete) → Smoother(x, y))
∀x ∀y ∀z (Road(x) ∧ Road(y) ∧ Smoother(x, y) → Prefer(z, x))
Road(firstRoad) ∧ MadeOf(secondRoad, concrete) ∧ Road(firstRoad) ∧ MadeOf(secondRoad, asphalt)

Conclusions:
The first road will last longer than the second road.
The second road is not smoother than the first one.
John prefers the second road.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
LastLonger(firstRoad, secondRoad)
¬Smoother(firstRoad, secondRoad)
Prefer(john, secondRoad)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
F
T
Premises:
Ordinary is an unincorporated community.
Located within Elliot County, Ordinary is on Kentucky Route 32.
Ordinary is located northwest of Sandy Hook.

Premises in first-order logic:
UnincorporatedCommunity(ordinary)
LocatedIn(ordinary, elliotCounty) ∧ On(ordinary, kentuckyRoute32)
LocatedNorthwestOf(ordinary, sandyHook)

Conclusions:
There are no unincorporated communities along Kentucky Route 32.
There is an unincorporated community located in Elliot County.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∀x (On(x, kentuckyRoute32) → ¬UnincorporatedCommunity(x))
∃x (UnincorporatedCommunity(x) ∧ LocatedIn(x, elliotCounty))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
F
T
Premises:
Schmelz is a former parade and exercise ground located in Vienna.
The first football field of SK Rapid Wien was contained within Schmelz.
Active Parade grounds are used by the military.
Balthasar Wigand is an artist that made a painting of the Schmelz.

Premises in first-order logic:
FormerParadeGround(schmelz) ∧ FormerExerciseGround(schmelz) ∧ In(schmelz, vienna)
∀x (FirstFootballFieldOf(x, skrapidwien) → ContainedWithin(x, schmelz))
∀x (ActiveParadeGrounds(x) → UsedBy(x, military))
Artist(balthasarwigand) ∧ MadePaintingOf(balthasarwigand, schmelz)

Conclusions:
Balthasar Wigand made a painting of a former exercise ground.
Schmelz is used by the military.
No artist has made a painting of anything located in Vienna.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∃x (FormerParadeGround(x) ∧ MadePaintingOf(balthasarwigand, x))
UsedBy(schmelz, military)
∀x ∀y (LocatedIn(x, vienna) ∧ Artist(y) → ¬MadePaintingOf(y, x))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
U
F
Premises:
Virginia Lee is an Australian rower.
Virginia Lee competed in both sweep oared and sculling events.
Sydney is Virginia Lee's home city.
New South Wales was represented by Virginia Lee.

Premises in first-order logic:
Australian(virginiaLee) ∧ Rower(virginiaLee)
CompetesIn(virginiaLee, sweepOaredEvents) ∧ CompetesIn(virginiaLee, scullingEvents)
City(sydney) ∧ HomeCity(sydney, virginiaLee)
Represents(virginiaLee, newSouthWales)

Conclusions:
Sydney is not the home city to any rower.
No Australian has represented New South Wales.
An Australian who competed in sweep oared events represented New South Wales.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∀x (Rower(x) → ¬HomeCity(sydney, x))
∀x (Australian(x) → ¬Represented(x, newSouthWales))
∃x (Australian(x) ∧ CompetesIn(x, sweepOaredEvents) ∧ Represents(x, newSouthWales))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
F
F
T
Premises:
Ay Zor sold over a million copies of his CD.
You're a popular musician if you have over a million CD sales.

Premises in first-order logic:
SellOver(ayZor, aMillionCopiesCD)
∀x (SellOver(x, aMillionCopiesCD) → PopularMusician(x))

Conclusions:
Ay Zor is not a popular musician.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
¬PopularMusician(ayZor)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
F
Premises:
All people who repay their loans on time have a high credit score.
Some people with high credit scores and high salaries are approved for mortgages.
John has a high salary.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (RepayOnTime(x) → Has(x, highCreditScore))
∃x ((Has(x, highCreditScore) ∧ Has(x, highSalary)) → ApprovedFor(x, mortgage))
Has(john, highSalary)

Conclusions:
 If John repays his loans on time, he will be approved for a mortgage.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
RepayOnTime(john) → ApprovedFor(john, mortgage)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
Premises:
No homework is fun.
Some reading is homework.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Homework(x) → ¬Fun(x))
∃x (Reading(x) ∧ Homework(x))

Conclusions:
Some reading is fun.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∃x (Reading(x) ∧ Fun(x))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
Premises:
"Your Woman" is a song by the British one-person band White Town.
"Your Woman" song peaked at No. 1 on the UK Singles Chart.
If a song peaked at No.1 at a particular place, it was extremely popular.
"Your Woman" peaked at No. 1 in Iceland, Israel, and Spain.

Premises in first-order logic:
Produce(whiteTown, yourWoman) ∧ OnePersonBand(whiteTown)
Peak(yourWoman, uKSinglesChart)
∀x ((∃y (Peak(x, y))) → Popular(x))
Peak(yourWoman, iceland) ∧ Peak(yourWoman, israel) ∧ Peak(yourWoman, spain)

Conclusions:
"Your Woman" was extremely popular.
White Town did not produce any popular songs.
White Town was a successful band.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Popular(yourWoman)
∀x (Produce(whiteTown, x) → ¬Popular(x))
Successful(whiteTown)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
F
U
Premises:
The Croton River watershed is the drainage basin of the Croton River.
The Croton River is in southwestern New York.
Water from the Croton River watershed flows to the Bronx.
The Bronx is in New York.

Premises in first-order logic:
DrainageBasinOf(crotonRiverWatershed, crotonRiver)
In(crotonRiver, southwesternNewYork)
∀x ((Water(x) ∧ In(x, crotonRiverWatershed)) → FlowsTo(x, bronx))
In(bronx, newYork)

Conclusions:
Water from the Croton River watershed flows to somewhere in New York.
The Croton River watershed is in the Bronx.
Water from the Croton River flows to the Bronx.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∀x ((Water(x) ∧ From(x, crotonRiverWatershed)) → ∃y (FlowsTo(x, y) ∧ In(y, newYork)))
In(crotonRiverWatershed, bronx)
∀x (Water(x) ∧ From(x, crotonRiver) → FlowsTo(x, bronx))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
U
U
Premises:
UFC Fight Night was a mixed martial arts event held in Sweden.
At UFC Fight Night, Sadollah was scheduled to fight Musoke.
Sadollah fought Akiyama at UFC Fight Night.
Musoke fought Yakovlev at UFC Fight Night.
Jung was injured at UFC Fight Night.
People injured at UFC Fight Night did not fight.

Premises in first-order logic:
Event(uFCFightNight) ∧ MixedMartial(uFCFightNight) ∧ HeldIn(uFCFightNight, sweden)
ScheduledToFight(sadollah, musoke,uFCFightNight)
Fight(sadollah, akiyama, uFCFightNight)
Fight(musoke, yakovlev, uFCFightNight)
InjuredAt(jung, uFCFightNight)
∀x (InjuredAt(x, uFCFightNight) → ¬FightIn(x, uFCFightNight))

Conclusions:
Jung fought Sadollah.
Jung did not fight at UFC Fight Night.
Sadollah fought Musoke at UFC Fight Night.
Nelson fought Story at UFC Fight Night.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Fight(jung, sadollah, uFCFightNight)
Event(uFCFightNight) ∧ ¬FightIn(jung, uFCFightNight)
Fight(sadollah, musoke, uFCFightNight)
Fight(nelson, story, uFCFightNight)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
T
U
U
Premises:
TS Leda was a good passenger and cargo vessel.
TS Leda was a Norwegian vessel that was built with stabilizers.
Stabilizers are mechanical devices found only on ships with powerful steam turbine engines.
To be a good passenger and cargo vessel, ships must be quiet and good at sea.
Some ships that are quiet and good at sea have powerful steam turbine engines.
Vessels are ships.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (TSLeda(x) → ((Passenger(x) ∧ Vessel(x)) ∧ (Cargo(x) ∧ Vessel(x)))
∀x (TSLeda(x) → (Norweigian(x) ∧ Vessel(x) ∧ Stabilizers(x)))
∀x (Stabilizers(x) → MechanicalDevice(x) ∧ OnlyOnShips(x) ∧ PowerfulSteamTurbine(x))
∀x ((Passenger(x) ∧ Vessel(x)) ∧ (Cargo(x) ∧ Vessel(x)) → (Quiet(x) ∧ GoodAt(x, sea)))
∃x (Quiet(x) ∧ GoodAt(x, sea) ∧ PowerfulSteamTurbine(x))
∀x (Ship(x) → Vessel(x))

Conclusions:
TS Leda was quiet and good at sea.
TS Leda had powerful steam turbine engines.
TS Leda was not a Norwegian vessel.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∀x (TSLeda(x) → Quiet(x) ∧ GoodAt(x, sea))
∀x (TSLeda(x) → PowerfulSteamTurbine(x))
∀x (TSLeda(x) → ¬(Norweigian(x) ∧ Vessel(x)))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
T
F
Premises:
EndGame is a movie released in 2006.
EndGame was set in Washington.
EndGame was filmed outside of Washington.
Some movies are filmed in New York.
Andy Chang directed EndGame.
Andy Chang is from Hong Kong.

Premises in first-order logic:
Movie(endGame) ∧ Released(endGame, yr2006)
SetIn(endGame, washington)
¬(FilmedIn(endGame, washington))
∃x ∃y (FilmedIn(x, newYork) ∧ (¬(x=y)) ∧ FilmedIn(y, newYork))
Directed(andyChang, endGame)
From(andyChang, hongKong)

Conclusions:
EndGame was filmed in New York.
EndGame was not directed by someone from Hong Kong.
All of Andy Chang's movies are filmed outside of Washington.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
FilmedIn(endGame, newYork)
∀x (¬(Directed(x, endGame) ∧ From(x, hongKong)))
∀x (Directed(andyChang, x) → ¬(FilmedIn(x, washington)))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
U
Premises:
No coffee sold in Walmart is from France. 
All coffee favored by local residents is from Columbia. 
All coffee with high prices is favored by Jack. 
Civet Coffee is coffee that's not from Columbia.
Jamaica Blue is expensive coffee.
Expensive coffee has a high price.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x ((Coffee(x) ∧ SoldIn(x, walmart)) → ¬From(x, france))
∀x ((Coffee(x) ∧ FavoredBy(x, localResidents)) → From(x, colombia))
∀x ((Coffee(x) ∧ HighPrice(x)) → FavoredByLocalResidents(x))
Coffee(civetCoffee) ∧ ¬From(colombia)
Expensive(jamaicaBlue) ∧ Coffee(jamaicaBlue)
∀x ((Expensive(x) ∧ Coffee(x)) → HighPrice(x))

Conclusions:
Civet Coffee is from France.
Jamaica Blue is from Columbia.
Jamaica Blue is favored by local residents.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
From(civetCoffee, france)
From(jamaicaBlue, colombia)
FavoredBy(jamaicablue, localResidents)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
T
T
Premises:
Kangaroos are an animal.
No Kangaroos live in Germany.
Jane will fly to Germany if she saves enough money for the summer.
If Jane flies to Germany, she will go to the Berlin Zoo.
If someone goes to the Berlin Zoo, they will see some of the animals in Germany.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Kangaroo(x) → Animal(x))
∀x (Kangaroo(x) → ¬LiveIn(x, germany))
SavesFor(jane, enoughMoney, theSummer) → FlyTo(jane, germany)
FlyTo(jane, germany) → GoTo(jane, berlinzoo) 
∀x ∃y (GoTo(x, berlinzoo) ∧ LiveIn(x, germany) ∧ Animal(y) → WillSee(y, x, berlinzoo))

Conclusions:
Jane will see a kangaroo if she saves enough money for the summer.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∃x (SavesFor(jane, enoughMoney, theSummer)  ∧ Kangaroo(x) → WillSee(x, jane, berlinzoo))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
F
Premises:
Some fears lead to anxiety.
Some anxiety leads to terror.

Premises in first-order logic:
∃x ∃y (Fear(x) ∧ Anxiety(y) ∧ LeadTo(x, y) ∧ ¬(x=y))
∃x ∃y (Anxiety(x) ∧ Terror(y) ∧ LeadTo(x, y))

Conclusions:
No fears lead to terror.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∀x ∀y (Fear(x) → ¬(Terror(y) ∧ LeadTo(x, y)))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
Premises:
Westworld is an American science fiction-thriller TV series.
In 2016, a television series named Westworld debuted on HBO.
The TV series Westworld is adapted from the original film in 1973, which was written and directed by Michael Crichton.
The 1973 film Westworld is about robots that malfunction and begin killing human visitors.

Premises in first-order logic:
American(westworld) ∧ ScienceFictionThriller(westworld)
Debut(westworld, year2016) ∧ TvSeries(westworld)
Adapted(westworld, westworldTheFilm) ∧ Produce(westworldTheFilm, year1973) ∧ Wrote(michael, westworldTheFilm) ∧ Directed(michael, westworldTheFilm)
Film(westworldTheFilm) ∧ About(westworldTheFilm, malfunctioningRobots)

Conclusions:
Michael Crichton has directed a film about malfunctioning robots.
An American TV series debuted in 2016.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∃x (Film(x) ∧ Directed(michael, x) ∧ About(x, malfunctioningRobots))
∃x (TVSeries(x) ∧ American(x) ∧ Debut(x, year2016))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
T
Premises:
In superhero movies, the good guys always win.
The Surprising Adventures of Sir Digby Chicken Caesar is a superhero movie.
Good guys fight bad guys and vice versa.
Sir Digby fights his nemesis.
If a superhero movie is named after a character, that character is a good guy.
The Surprising Adventures of Sir Digby Chicken Caesar is named after Sir Digby.
If somebody wins a fight, the person they are fighting does not win.
If a superhero movie is named after a character, that character is in the movie.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x ∀y (SuperheroMovie(x) ∧ In(y, x) ∧ GoodGuy(y) → Wins(y))
SuperheroMovie(theSurprisingAdventuresofSirDigbyChickenCaesar)
∀x ∀y (GoodGuy(x) ∧ Fight(x, y) ⟷ BadGuy(y) ∧ Fight(y, x))
Fight(sirDigby, sirDigbysNemesis)
∀x ∀y (SuperheroMovie(x) ∧ NamedAfter(x, y) → GoodGuy(y))
NamedAfter(theSurprisingAdventuresofSirDigbyChickenCaesar, sirDigby)
∀x ∀y (Fights(x, y) ∧ Win(x) → ¬Wins(y))
∀x ∀y (SuperheroMovie(x) ∧ NamedAfter(x, y) → In(y, x))

Conclusions:
Sir Digby’s nemesis does not win.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
¬Win(sirDigbysNemesis)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
Premises:
European soccer clubs can attend UCL, UEL, and UECL.
A soccer club eligible to attend UCL has a higher ranking than a soccer club eligible to attend UEL.
A soccer club eligible to attend UEL has a higher ranking than a soccer club eligible to attend UECL.
Manchester United and Machester City are both European soccer clubs.
Manchester United is eligible to attend UEL next season.
Manchester City is eligible to attend UCL next season.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (EuropeanSoccerClub(x) → Attend(x, ucl) ∨ Attend(x, uel) ∨ Attend(x, uecl))
∀x ∀y (EuropeanSoccerClub(x) ∧ EuropeanSoccerClub(y) ∧ Attend(x, ucl) ∧ Attend(y, uel) → HigherRank(x, y))
∀x ∀y (EuropeanSoccerClub(x) ∧ EuropeanSoccerClub(y) ∧ Attend(x, uel) ∧ Attend(y, uecl) → HigherRank(x, y))
EuropeanSoccerClub(manchesterUnited) ∧ EuropeanSoccerClub(manchesterCity)
Attend(manchesterunited, uel)
Attend(manchestercity, ucl)

Conclusions:
Manchester City has a higher ranking than Manchester United.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
HigherRank(manchesterCity, manchesterUnited)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
Premises:
Greyhound racing is a competitive sport where spectators bet on greyhounds.
Greyhound racing involves coursing.
Some competitive sports where spectators bet on things are banned.
Coursing involves spectators betting on a hare being pursued by greyhounds.
Spectators betting on a hare is a small game.
If a competitive sport involves spectators betting on small games, then it is banned.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (GreyhoundRacing(x) → ∃y (CompetitiveSport(x) ∧ Greyhound(y) ∧ BetOn(spectators, y, x)))
∀x (GreyhoundRacing(x) → Coursing(x))
∃x ∃y (CompetitiveSport(x) ∧ BetOn(spectators, y, x) ∧ Banned(x))
∀x ∃y ∃z (Coursing(x) → Hare(y) ∧ BetOn(spectators, y, x) ∧ GreyHound(z) ∧ PursuedBy(y, z))
∃x ∀y (Hare(x) ∧ BetOn(spectators, x, y) → SmallGame(y))
∀x ∃y (CompetitiveSport(x) ∧ SmallGame(y) ∧ BetOn(spectators, y, x) → Banned(x))

Conclusions:
No coursing is banned.
Greyhound racing is a competitive sport.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∀x (Coursing(x) ∧ ¬Banned(x))
∀x (GreyhoundRacing(x) → CompetitiveSport(x))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
F
T