yuansui/folio huggingface dataset:
Premises:
Roy Richardson was a cricketer who played for Sint Maarten, a constituent country.
Roy Richardson was a right-handed batsman and medium-pace bowler.
Roy Richardson was old when he debuted in cricket.
Sherville Huggins dismissed Roy Richardson.

Premises in first-order logic:
Cricketeer(royRichardson) ∧ PlaysFor(royRichardson, sintMaarten) ∧ ConstituentCountry(sintMaarten)
RightHanded(royRichardson) ∧ Batsman(royRichardson) ∧ MediumPaceBowler(royRichardson)
OldAtDebut(royRichardson)
Dismisses(shervilleHuggins, royRichardson)

Conclusions:
Sherville Huggins has never dismissed anyone playing cricket for a constituent country.
No right-handed medium-pace bowlers were playing for Sint Maarten.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∀x ∀y ((ConsituentCountry(y) ∧ PlayedFor(x, y)) →  ¬Dismissed(shervillehuggins, x))
∀x ((RightHanded(x) ∧ MediumPaceBowler(x)) → ¬PlayedFor(x, sintMaarten))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
F
F
Premises:
Hugh Vanstone is one of the world's leading lighting designers. 
Hugh Vanstone is from the UK.
Hugh Vanstone has lit more than 160 productions.
Hugh Vanstone attended a school where he is from. 

Premises in first-order logic:
WorldLeadingLightingDesigner(hughVanstone)
From(hughVanstone, unitedKingdom)
∃x(GreaterThan(x, num160) ∧ LitProductions(hughVanstone,x))
∃x(Hometown(hughVanstone,x) ∧ AttendedSchoolIn(hughVanstone,x))

Conclusions:
Hugh Vanstone is one of the world's leading lighting designers and is from the UK.
Hugh Vanstone has lit 170 productions.
Hugh Vanstone attended a school in the United States.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
WorldLeadingLightingDesigner(hughVanstone) ∧ From(hughVanstone, unitedKingdom)
∃x(GreaterThan(x, num170) ∧ LitProductions(hughVanstone,x))
AttendedSchoolIn(hughVanstone, unitedStates)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
U
U
Premises:
China is one of the BRICS, and its economy is emerging.
If someone is from China, then they are from a country of BRICS.
India is one of the BRICS, and its economy is emerging.
If someone is from India, then they are in a country of BRICS.
All people from China are Chinese people.
All people from India are Indian people.
There is a person from India.

Premises in first-order logic:
∃x (BRIC(x) ∧ ¬(x=china) ∧ BRIC(china) ∧ Emerging(chinaEconomy))
∀x (From(x, china) → From(x, bric))
BRIC(india) ∧ Emerging(indiaEconomy)
∀x (From(x, india) → From(x, bric))
∀x (From(x, china) → Chinese(x))
∀x (From(x, india) → Indian(x))
∃x (From(x, india))

Conclusions:
No people from BRICS are Indian people.
India's economy is not emerging.
There is an Indian people from BRICS.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∀x (From(x, countryOfBRICS) → ¬IndianPeople(x))
EmergingEconomy(india)
∃x (IndianPeople(x) ∧ From(x, countryOfBRICS))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
F
F
T
Premises:
The 2008 Summer Olympics were held in Beijing, China.
The 2008 Summer Olympics was the second Summer Olympic Games held in a communist state.
China won the most gold medals (48) in the 2008 Summer Olympics.
The United States placed second in the gold medal tally but won the highest number of medals overall (112) in the 2008 Summer Olympics.
The third place in the gold medal tally was achieved by Russia in the 2008 Summer Olympics.
If a country placed third in gold medals, then it had fewer gold medals than the team that won the most gold medals.

Premises in first-order logic:
HeldIn(2008SummerOlympics, beijingChina)
SecondSummerOlympicsGames(2008SummerOlympics) ∧ BeHeldIn(2008SummerOlympics, communistState)
Won(china, theMostGoldMedals)
PlacedSecondInGoldMedalsIn(unitedStates, 2008SummerOlympics) ∧ Won(unitedStates, highestNumberOfMedals)
PlacedThirdInGoldMedalsIn(russia, 2008SummerOlympics)
∀x ∀y (Placed(x, thirdInGoldMedals) ∧ Won(y, mostGoldMedals) → FewerGoldMedalsThan(x, y))

Conclusions:
Russia did not win fewer gold medals than China.
Russia won fewer gold medals than China.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
¬FewerGoldMedalsThan(russia, china)
FewerGoldMedalsThan(russia, china)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
F
T
Premises:
The Turing Award has been awarded to Donald Knuth, Marvin Minsky, Richard Hamming, and John McCarthy. 
Donald Knuth made contributions to the analysis of algorithms.
Marvin Minsky is recognized for his contributions to the field of artificial intelligence.
Richard Hamming researched numerical methods.
John McCarthy made contributions to the field of artificial intelligence. 

Premises in first-order logic:
AwardedTo(turingAward, donaldKnuth) ∧ AwardedTo(turingAward, marvinMinsky) ∧ AwardedTo(turingAward, richardHamming) ∧ AwardedTo(turingAward, johnMccarthy)
ContributedTo(donaldKnuth, analysisOfAlgorithms)
ContributedTo(marvinMinsky, artificialIntelligence)
ContributedTo(richardHamming, numericalMethods)
ContributedTo(johnMccarthy, artificialIntelligence)

Conclusions:
At least two people who have won the Turing Award worked in artificial intelligence.
At least two people who worked in artificial intelligence have won the Turing Award. 
Only one person who won the Turing Award made significant contributions to the analysis of algorithms.
No Turing Award winners worked in the field of numerical methods.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∃x ∃y (¬(x=y) ∧ AwardedTo(turingAward, x) ∧ AwardedTo(turingAward, y) ∧ ContributedTo(x, artificialIntelligence)  ∧ ContributedTo(y, artificialIntelligence))
∃x ∃y (¬(x=y) ∧ ContributedTo(x, artificialIntelligence) ∧ ContributedTo(x, artificialIntelligence) ∧ AwardedTo(turingAward, x) ∧ AwardedTo(turingAward, y))
∃x ∀y ((AwardedTo(turingAward, x) ∧ AwardedTo(turingAward, y) ∧ ContributedTo(y, algorithms) ∧ ¬(x=y)) → ¬ContributedTo(y, algorithms))
∀x (AwardedTo(turingAward, x) → ¬ContributedTo(x, numericalMethods))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
T
U
F
Premises:
If a Leetcode problem is at the easy level, then its AC rate is lower than 20 percent. 
All Leetcode problems that are recommended to novices are easy. 
A Leetode problem is either easy or hard.
Leetcode problems that are starred by more than one thousand users are hard.
2Sum is recommended to novices. 
4Sum is starred by more than 1,000 users.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Easy(x) → ∃y (LessThan(y, percent20) ∧ ACRate(x,y)))
∀x (Recommended(x) → Easy(x))
∀x (Easy(x) ⊕ Hard(x))
∀x (Starred(x) → Hard(x))
Recommended(twosum) 
Starred(foursum)

Conclusions:
2Sum is a Leetcode problem at the easy level. 
4Sum is a Leetcode problem recommended to the novice. 
2Sum has an AC rate higher than 20 percent.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Easy(twosum)
Recommended(foursum)
∃y(GreaterThan(y, percent20) ∧ ACRate(2Sum,y))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
F
F
Premises:
Boney M. had several German #1 singles.
"Hooray! Hooray! It's a Holi-Holiday!" was a big hit all over Europe.
"Hooray! Hooray! It's a Holi-Holiday!" was not in German #1 singles.
A song that peaks below #1 on the german charts is also a song that is not the #1 single in Germany.

Premises in first-order logic:
∃x (Song(x) ∧ By(x, boneym,) ∧ Number1GermanSingle(x))
Song(hoorayHoorayItsAHoliHoliday) ∧ HitAllOverEurope(hoorayHoorayItsAHoliHoliday)
Song(hoorayHoorayItsAHoliHoliday) ∧ ¬Number1GermanSingle(hoorayHoorayItsAHoliHoliday)
∀x (PeakBelowOn(x, number1, germanChart) → ¬Number1GermanSingle(x))

Conclusions:
"Hooray! Hooray! It's a Holi-Holiday!" was the #1 hit in Germany.
"Hooray! Hooray! It's a Holi-Holiday!" peaked below #1 on the German charts.
"Hooray! Hooray! It's a Holi-Holiday!" peaked at #3 on the UK charts.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Song(hoorayHoorayItsAHoliHoliday) ∧ Number1GermanSingle(hoorayHoorayItsAHoliHoliday)
PeaksBelowOn(hoorayHoorayItsAHoliHoliday, number1, germanChart)
PeaksAtOn(hoorayHoorayItsAHoliHoliday, number3, germanChart)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
F
T
U
Premises:
Indonesia is a country.
In Indonesia, the prosecutor only personally investigates cases of some special crimes.
Corruption is a type of crime.
Once the police complete crime investigations, the evidence is handed to the prosecutor. 
Evidence can be either satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
If the evidence is handed to the prosecutor and the evidence is satisfactory, the prosecutor will prosecute the offender in an appropriate court.

Premises in first-order logic:
Country(indonesia)
∀x ∃y (In(indonesia) ∧ Prosecutor(x) ∧ SpecialCrime(y) → InvestigatePersonally(x, y))
Crime(corruption)
∀x ∀y ∀z (Crime(y) ∧ PoliceCompleteInvestigation(y) ∧ Prosecutor(x) → Evidence(z) ∧ HandedTo(z, x))
∀x (Evidence(x) ∧ (Satisfactory(x) ⊕ Unsatisfactory(x)))
∀x ∀y (Evidence(y) ∧ Prosecutor(x) ∧ HandedTo(x) ∧ Satisfactory(y) → ProsecuteInAppropriateCourt(x, theOffender))

Conclusions:
When the police complete investigations, the prosecutor will prosecute the offender at an appropriate court.
In Indonesia, the prosecutor personally investigates cases of corruption.
When the police complete investigations, the prosecutor investigates personally.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∀x ∀y (Crime(y) ∧ PoliceCompleteInvestigation(y) ∧ Prosecutor(x) → ProsecuteInAppropriateCourt(x, theOffender))
∀x (Country(indonesia) ∧ Prosecutor(x) ∧ Crime(corruption) → InvestigatePersonally(x, corruption))
∀x ∀y (Crime(y) ∧ PoliceCompleteInvestigation(y) ∧ Prosecutor(x) → InvestigatePersonally(x, y))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
U
U
Premises:
DI Ray is a police procedural television series.
DI Ray was created and written by Maya Sondhi.
DI Ray was produced by Jed Mercurio.
Maya Sondhi and Jed Mercurio are both British.

Premises in first-order logic:
TelevisionSeries(dIRay) ∧ PoliceProcedural(dIRay)
Creates(maya, dIRay) ∧ Writes(maya, dIRay)
Produces(jed, dIRay)
British(maya) ∧ British(jed) 

Conclusions:
DI Ray was created by a Brit.
Some Brit produced a television series.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∃x (British(x) ∧ Creates(x, dIRay))
∃x ∃y (British(x) ∧ TelevisionSeries(y) ∧ Produces(x, y))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
T
Premises:
All bears in zoos are not wild. 
Some bears are in zoos. 

Premises in 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))

Conclusions:
Not all bears are wild.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∃x (Bear(x) ∧ ¬Wild(x))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
Premises:
A teenager student is either in college or in high school.
John is a teenager student in college.
If a teenager student in college has more freedom regarding their lifestyle, they will explore personal interests.
If a teenager student is in college, they have more freedom regarding their lifestyle and have graduated from high school.
Catherine does not have more freedom regarding their lifestyle.
Catherine is a teenager student.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (TeenagerStudent(x) → (InCollege(x) ⊕ InHighSchool(x)))
TeenagerStudent(john) ∧ InCollege(john) 
∀x (TeenagerStudent(x) ∧ InCollege(x) ∧ MoreFreedomRegardingLifestyle(x) → Explore(x, personalInterest)) 
∀x (TeenagerStudent(x) ∧ InCollege(x) → (MoreFreedomRegardingLifestyle(x) ∧ GraduatedFromHighSchool(x))) 
¬MoreFreedomRegardingLifestyle(catherine)
TeenagerStudent(catherine)

Conclusions:
John will explore personal interests.
Catherine is a teenager student in high school.
Catherine has graduated from high school.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Explore(john, personalInterest) 
TeenagerStudent(catherine) ∧ InHighSchool(catherine) 
GraduatedFromHighSchool(catherine)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
T
U
Premises:
Maya would only play the violin if her fingers could never be injured. 
Volleyball players can injure their ankles, fingers, or shoulder.
Maya is a volleyball player.

Premises in first-order logic:
Play(maya, violin) → ¬CanInjure(maya, fingers)
∀x (VolleyballPlayer(x) → (CanInjure(ankles) ∧ CanInjure(fingers) ∧ CanInjure(shoulder)))
VolleyballPlayer(maya)

Conclusions:
Maya will not play the violin.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
¬Play(maya, violin)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
Premises:
All vehicle registration plates in Istanbul begin with the number 34.
Plates that do not begin with the number 34 are not from Istanbul. 
Joe's vehicle registration plate is from Istanbul. 
Tom's license plate begins with the number 35. 
If a license plate begins with the number 35, then it does not begin with the number 34.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (VehicleRegistrationPlateIn(x, istanbul) → BeginWith(x, num34))
∀x (¬BeginWith(x, num34) → ¬FromIstanbul(x))
∃x (Owns(joe, x) ∧ VehicleRegistrationPlateIn(x, istanbul))
∃x (Owns(tom, x) ∧ BeginWith(x, num35))
∀x (BeginWith(x, num35) → ¬BeginWith(x, num34))

Conclusions:
Joe's license plate begins with the number 34. 
Tom's license plate is from Istanbul. 

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∃x (Owns(joe, x) ∧ BeginWith(x, num34))
∃x (Owns(tom, x) ∧ VehicleRegistrationPlateIn(x, istanbul))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
F
Premises:
The Blake McFall Company Building is a building added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1990.
The Emmet Building is a five-story building in Portland, Oregon.
The Emmet Building was built in 1915.
The Emmet Building is another name for the Blake McFall Company Building.
John works at the Emmet Building.

Premises in first-order logic:
Building(blakeMcFallCompanyBuilding) ∧ AddedToIn(blakeMcFallCompanyBuilding, theNationalRegisterOfHistoricPlaces, year1990)
Building(emmetBuilding) ∧ Five-Story(emmetBuilding) ∧ LocatedIn(emmetBuilding, portland) ∧ LocatedIn(portland, oregon))
BuiltIn(emmetBuilding, year1915)
emmetBuiling=blakeMcFallCompanyBuilding
WorkAt(john, emmetBuilding)

Conclusions:
A five-story building is built in 1915.
The Blake McFall Company Building is located in Portland, Oregon. 
John started his current job in 1990. 

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∃x (Building(x) ∧ Five-Story(x) ∧ ConstructedIn(x, year1915))
LocatedIn(blakeMcFallCompanyBuilding, portland)
StartCurrentJobIn(john, year1990)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
T
U
Premises:
Deborah Wallace is a Scottish-born actress, playwright, and producer.
Psyche is a play based on the life of James Miranda Barry.
Homesick, Psyche and The Void are plays by Deborah Wallace.
Deborah Wallace co-produced Gasland.

Premises in first-order logic:
BornIn(deborahWallace, scotland) ∧ Actress(deborahWallace) ∧ Playwright(deborahWallace) ∧ Producer(deborahWallace)
Play(psyche) ∧ BasedOn(psyche, lifeOfJamesMirandaBarry)
Play(homesick) ∧ WrittenBy(homesick, deborahWallace) ∧ Play(psyche) ∧ WrittenBy(psyche, deborahWallace) ∧ Play(theVoid) ∧ WrittenBy(theVoid, deborahWallace)
CoProduce(deborahWallace, gasland)

Conclusions:
Gasland was coproduced by the same person Homesick was from.
No plays by Deborah Wallace are based on the life of James Miranda Barry.
Gasland is a play.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∃x (CoProduces(x, gasland) ∧ WrittenBy(homesick, x))
∀x (Play(x) ∧ WrittenBy(x, deborahwallace) → ¬BasedOn(x, lifeofjamesmirandabarry))
Play(gasland)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
F
U
Premises:
Michael O'Donnell is a British physician, journalist, author, and broadcaster.
One of the word-setters of My Word! was Michael O'Donnell.
The magazine World Medicine was edited by Michael O'Donnell.
Michael O'Donnell was born in Yorkshire as the son of a general practitioner.

Premises in first-order logic:
British(michael) ∧ Physician(michael) ∧ Journalist(michael) ∧ Author(michael) ∧ Broadcaster(michael)
WordSetter(michael)
Magazine(worldMedicine) ∧ EditedBy(worldMedicine, michael)
BornIn(michael, yorkshire) ∧ ∃x(SonOf(michael, x) ∧ GeneralPractitioner(x))

Conclusions:
The son of a general practitioner was a word-setter of My Word!.
World Medicine is not a magazine.
There are no British authors.
There are no journalists that were born in Yorkshire.
There is a son of a general practitioner that is not an author.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∃x ∃y (SonOf(x, y) ∧ GeneralPractitioner(y) ∧ WordSetter(x))
¬Magazine(worldmedicine)
∀x (British(x) → ¬Author(x))
∀x (Journalist(x) → ¬BornIn(x, yorkshire))
∃x ∃y (Son(x, y) ∧ GeneralPractitioner(y) ∧ ¬Author(x))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
F
F
F
U
Premises:
No flowers are animals.
All flowers are plants.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Flower(x) → ¬Animal(x))
∀x (Flower(x) → Plant(x))

Conclusions:
Some plants are animals.

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

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
Premises:
David Ha'ivri is a political strategist. 
If you are born in Israel to at least one Israeli parent, you receive Israeli citizenship at birth. 
David Ha'ivri emigrated to the United States from Israel, where he was born to Israeli parents. 
Several Zionist leaders have been elected to the Shomron Regional Municipal council. 
David Ha'ivri is a Zionist leader.

Premises in first-order logic:
PoliticalStrategist(davidHaivri)
∀x ∃y (BornInIsrael(x) ∧ ParentOf(y, x) ∧ Israeli(y) → Israeli(x))
∃x (EmigratedTo(davidHaivri, america) ∧ BornInIsrael(davidHaivri) ∧ ParentOf(davidHaivri, x) ∧ Israeli(x))
∃x (ZionistLeader(x) ∧ ElectedTo(x, shomronMunicipalCouncil))
ZionstLeader(davidHaivri)

Conclusions:
David Ha'ivri is an Israeli citizen.
David Ha'ivri is a United States citizen.
David Ha'ivri has been elected to the Shomron Regional Municipal council.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
IsraeliCitizen(davidHaivri)
American(davidHaivri)
ElectedTo(davidHaivri, shomronMunicipalCouncil)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
U
U
Premises:
The Lumina APV is produced by Chevrolet. 
The Astro is a van produced by Chevrolet. 
Vehicles produced by Chevrolet in this batch are either cars or vans.

Premises in first-order logic:
ProducedBy(luminaAPV, chevrolet)
ProducedBy(astro, chevrolet) ∧ Van(astro)
∀x (Vehicle(x) ∧ ProducedBy(x, chevrolet) ∧ InThisBatch(x) → (Car(x) ⊕ Van(x)))

Conclusions:
The Lumina APV is a van.
The Lumina APV is either a car or a van. 
The Astro is a van. 
The Astro is a car. 

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Van(luminaAPV)
Car(luminaAPV) ⊕ Van(luminaAPV)
Van(astro)
Car(astro)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
T
T
F
Premises:
Detroit City is a horse.
Some horses are racehorses.
If a horse falls in a race, it poses risks to its rider.
Detroit City fell in a race.
A horse is a racehorse if it is in a race.

Premises in first-order logic:
Horse(detroitcity)
∃x (Horse(x) ∧ Racehorse(x))
∀x (Horse(x) ∧ InRace(x) ∧ Falls(x) → PoseRiskTo(x, rider))
InRace(detroitcity) ∧ Fall(detroitcity)
∀x (Horse(x) ∧ InRace(x) → Racehorse(x))

Conclusions:
Detroit City has been in multiple races.
Detroit City poses risks to its rider.
Detroit City is a racehorse.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
MultipleRace(detroitcity)
PoseRiskTo(detroitcity, rider)
Racehorse(detroitcity)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
T
T
Premises:
The world's only major large passenger aircraft manufacturers are Boeing and Airbus.
All American Airlines planes are from the world's major large passenger aircraft manufacturers. 
Airbus made more revenue than Boeing last year.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (WorldMajorLargePassengerAircraftManufacturer(x) → x=boeing ⊕ x=airbus)
∀x (AmericanAirlinesAircraft(x) → WorldMajorLargePassengerAircraftManufacturer(x))
MoreInRevenue(airbus, boeing)

Conclusions:
An American Airlines plane is either a Boeing or Airbus plane. 
There exists a SpaceX commercial aircraft. 
There does not exist a United Airlines plane produced by Boeing. 
There is a commercial plane made by both Airbus and Boeing.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∀x (AmericanAirlinesPlane(x) → x=boeing ⊕ x=airbus)
∃x (CommercialAircraft(x) ∧ x=spaceX)
∀x (UnitedAirlinesAircraft(x) → ¬(x=boeing))
∃x (WorldMajorLargePassengerAircraftManufacturer(x) ∧ ProducedBy(x, airbus) ∧ ProducedBy(x, boeing))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
U
U
F
Premises:
Drishti is an open-source software.
Open-source software is free to modify.

Premises in first-order logic:
OpenSourceSoftware(drishti)
∀x (OpenSourceSoftware(x) → FreeToModify(x))

Conclusions:
Drishti is free to modify.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
FreeToModify(drishti)

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