yuansui/folio huggingface dataset:
Premises:
No touring musicians who perform at the New Haven Symphony Orchestra are permanent members of the orchestra.
Musicians who perform at the New Haven Symphony Orchestra are permanent members of an orchestra, or they have temporary roles at the orchestra.
All touring musicians who perform at the New Haven Symphony Orchestra have temporary roles at the orchestra.
All musicians performing at the New Haven Symphony Orchestra who have temporary roles at the orchestra are interesting soloists.
All musicians performing at New Haven Symphony Orchestra who are interesting soloists are capable of attracting audiences.
Ryan is performing at New Haven Symphony Orchestra.
If Ryan is an interesting soloist and has a temporary role at the orchestra, then he is capable of attracting large audiences if and only if he is a touring soloist musician. 

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x ((PerformAt(x, newHavenSymphonyOrchestra) ∧ TouringMusician(x)) → ¬PermanentMemberOf(x, theOrchestra))
∀x (PerformAt(x, newHavenSymphonyOrchestra) → (PermanentMemberOf(x, theOrchestra) ∨ HaveTemporaryRoleAt(x, theOrchestra)))
∀x ((PerformAt(x, newHavenSymphonyOrchestra) ∧ TouringMusicians(x)) → HaveTemporaryRoleAt(x, theOrchestra))
∀x ((PerformAt(x, newHavenSymphonyOrchestra) ∧ HaveTemporaryRoleAt(x, theOrchestra)) → InterestingSoloist(x))
∀x ((PerformAt(x, newHavenSymphonyOrchestra) ∧ InterestingSoloist(x)) → CapableOfAttractingAudiences(x))
PerformAt(ryan, newHavenSymphonyOrchestra)
(InterestingSoloist(ryan) ∧ HaveTemporaryRoleAt(ryan, theOrchestra)) → ¬(TouringMusician(ryan) ⊕ CapableOfAttractingAudiences(ryan))

Conclusions:
Ryan is an interesting soloist.
Ryan is either a permanent member of an orchestra or a touring soloist musician.
Ryan is either a permanent member of an orchestra or has a temporary role at the orchestra.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
InterestingSoloist(ryan)
(PermanentMemberOf(ryan, orchestra) ⊕ TouringMusician(ryan))
(PermanentMemberOf(ryan, orchestra) ⊕ HaveTemporaryRoleAt(ryan, orchestra))

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

Conclusions:
Amy is a professional athlete.
Amy is neither a full-time scientist nor an Olympic gold medal winner.
If Amy is not an Olympic gold medal winner, then Amy is a Nobel physics laureate.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
ProfessionalAthlete(amy)
¬(FullTimeScientist(amy) ∨ OlympicGoldMedalWinner(amy))
¬OlympicGoldMedalWinner(amy) → NobelPhysicsLaureate(amy)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
T
F
Premises:
All of this brand's products are either produced in China or in the US. 
All of this brand's products produced in China are labeled. 
All of this brand's products produced in the US are sold in the US. 
The products of this brand that are labeled are cheaper.
All of this brand's products sold in the US are sold at Walmart. 
All products of this brand displayed on the homepage are sold at Walmart. 
None of this brand's products that are returned by customers are sold at Walmart. 
G-910 is a product of this brand, and it is either displayed on the homepage and is cheaper, or it is neither displayed on the homepage nor is it cheaper.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (ThisBrand(x) ∧ Product(x) → (ProducedIn(x, china) ⊕ ProducedIn(x, uS)))
∀x ((ThisBrand(x) ∧ Product(x) ∧ ProducedIn(x, china)) → Labeled(x))
∀x ((ThisBrand(x) ∧ Product(x) ∧ ProducedIn(x, us)) → SoldIn(x, us))
∀x ((ThisBrand(x) ∧ Product(x) ∧ Labeled(x)) → Cheaper(x))
∀x ((ThisBrand(x) ∧ Product(x) ∧ SoldIn(x, us)) → SoldIn(x, walmart))
∀x (ThisBrand(x) ∧ Product(x) ∧ DisplayedIn(x, homepage) → SoldIn(x, walmart))
∀x (ThisBrand(x) ∧ Product(x) ∧ ReturnedBy(x, customer) → ¬SoldIn(x, walmart))
Product(g910) ∧ ThisBrand(g910) ∧ (¬(DisplayedIn(g910, homepage) ⊕ Cheaper(g910)))

Conclusions:
G-910 is displayed on the homepage. 
G-910 is not displayed on the homepage. 
G-910 is a product returned by customers. 
G-910 is a product returned by customers or sold in Walmart. 
G-910 is either returned by customers or sold in Walmart.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
DisplayedIn(g910, homepage)
¬DisplayedIn(g910, homepage)
ThisBrand(g910) ∧ ReturnedBy(g910, customer)
ThisBrand(g910) ∧ (ReturnedBy(g910, customer) ∨ SoldIn(g910, walmart))
ReturnedBy(g910, customer) ⊕ SoldIn(g910, walmart)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
U
F
T
T
Premises:
Some of those who apply for a Schengen visa get it.
To apply for a Schengen Visa, you need to provide financial guarantees.
If you need to provide financial guarantees, you must request documents from the bank.
Do not close your bank account if you request documents from the bank.
Philip closed his bank account.

Premises in first-order logic:
∃x (Apply(x, schengenVisa) → Get(x, schengenVisa))
∀x (Apply(x, schengenVisa) → Provide(x, financialGuarantees))
∀x (Provide(x, financialGuarantees) → Request(x, documentsFromBank))
∀x (Request(x, documentsFromBank) → ¬Close(x, bankAccount))
Close(philip, bankAccount)

Conclusions:
Philip got a Schengen visa.
Philip applied for a Schengen visa and got it.
If Philip did not request documents from the bank or get a Schengen visa, he didn’t apply for a Schengen visa.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Get(philip, schengenVisa)
Apply(philip, schengenVisa) ∧ Get(philip, schengenVisa)
(¬Request(philip, documentsFromBank) ∧ ¬Get(x, schengenVisa)) → Apply(x, schengenVisa)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
T
Premises:
All people who eat salads regularly are very conscious about their health and eating habits.
All people who grew up in health-conscious childhood homes eat salads regularly.
All people who fulfill their daily nutritional intakes grew up in health-conscious childhood homes.
All people who disregard their physical well-being are not very conscious about their health and eating habits.
If people visit the gym at least once a day, then they always fulfill their daily nutritional intakes.
Taylor either grew up in a health-conscious childhood home and disregard her physical well-being, or she did neither.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (RegularlyEat(x, salad) → ConsciousAbout(x, health) ∧ ConsciousAbout(x, eatinggHabit))
∀x (GrewUpIn(x, health-consciousChildhoodHome) → RegularlyEat(x, salad))
∀x (Fulfill(x, dailyNutritionalIntake) → GrewUpIn(x, health-consciousChildhoodHome))
∀x (Disregard(x, physicalWellbeing) → ¬(ConsciousAbout(x, health) ∧ ConsciousAbout(x, eatingHabit)))
∀x (VisitDaily(x, gym) → Fulfill(x, dailyNutritionalIntake))
¬(GrowUpIn(taylor, health-consciousChildhoodHome) ⊕ Disregard(taylor, physicalWellbeing))

Conclusions:
Taylor eats salads regularly.
Taylor visits the gym at least once a day.
Taylor neither grew up in a health-conscious childhood home nor does she visit the gym at least once a day.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
RegularlyEat(taylor, salad)
VisitDaily(taylor, gym)
¬GrowUpIn(taylor, health-consciousChildhoodHome) ∧ ¬VisitDaily(taylor, gym))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
T
Premises:
All biodegradable things are environment-friendly. 
All woodware is biodegradable.
All paper is woodware. 
Nothing is a good thing and also a bad thing.
All environment-friendly things are good.
A worksheet is either paper or environment-friendly.

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

Conclusions:
A worksheet is biodegradable.
A worksheet is not biodegradable.
A worksheet is bad.
A worksheet is not bad.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Bioegradable(worksheet)
¬Bioegradable(worksheet)
Bad(worksheet)
¬Bad(worksheet)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
U
F
T
Premises:
If an animal in the lab is cute, then it is not a pig.
All baby animals in the lab are cute. 
An animal in the lab is either a pig or a sheep.
If an animal in the lab has curly hair, then it is a sheep.
No mice are sheep.
Waldo is an animal in the lab; Waldo is either a baby animal, or he has curly hair, or neither is true.
Murphy is an animal in the lab, and is either both a sheep and a mouse, or is neither. 

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Animal(x) ∧ InTheLab(x) ∧ Cute(x) → ¬Pig(x))
∀x (Animal(x) ∧ InTheLab(x) ∧ Baby(x) → Cute(x))
∀x (Animal(x) ∧ InTheLab(x) → Pig(x) ⊕ Sheep(x))
∀x (Animal(x) ∧ InTheLab(x) ∧ Have(x, curlyHair) → Sheep(x))
∀x (Mouse(x) → ¬Sheep(x))
Animal(waldo) ∧ InTheLab(waldo) ∧ ¬(Baby(waldo) ∧ Have(waldo, curlyHair))
Animal(murphy) ∧ InTheLab(murphy) ∧ ¬(Sheep(murphy) ⊕ Boy(murphy))

Conclusions:
Waldo is cute.
Waldo is not cute.
Murphy is a baby animal or has curly hair.
Murphy neither is a baby animal nor has curly hair.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Cute(waldo)
¬Cute(waldo)
Baby(murphy) ∨ Have(murphy, curlyHair) 
¬Baby(murphy) ∧ ¬Have(murphy, curlyHair)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
U
F
T
Premises:
Everyone who took the bar exam can read. 
All lawyers took the bar exam. 
Everyone who took the bar exam is knowledgeable about criminal procedures. 
All people who got a score of 180 on the LSAT can read. 
No elephants can read. 
If Mike can not read or is not an elephant, then Mike either took the bar exam or can read. 

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Take(x, barExam) → CanRead(x))
∀x (Lawyer(x) → Take(x, barExam))
∀x (Take(x, barExam) → KnowledgeableAbout(x, criminalProceeder))
∀x (GetOn(x, scoreOf180, lSAT) → CanRead(x))
∀x (Elephant(x) → ¬CanRead(x))
¬(CanRead(mike) ∧ Elephant(mike)) → Take(mike, barExam) ⊕ CanRead(mike)

Conclusions:
Mike got 180 on the LSAT.
Mike did not take the bar exam and is not both knowledgeable about criminal procedures and someone who got 180 on the LSAT.
Mike took the bar exam.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
GetOn(mike, 180, lSAT)
¬Take(mike, barExam) ∧ ¬(KnowledgeableAbout(mike, criminalProcedures)∧ GetOn(mike, 180, lSAT))
Take(mike, barExam)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
T
F
Premises:
No animals are plants.
All humans are animals.
All pupils are humans.
All flowers are plants.
Bailey is either both a human and a flower or neither a human nor a flower.

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

Conclusions:
Bailey is a pupil.
Bailey is not a pupil.
Bailey is a plant.
If Bailey is a human, then Bailey is not a pupil.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Pupil(bailey)
¬Pupil(bailey)
Plant(bailey)
Human(bailey) → ¬Pupil(bailey)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
F
T
U
T
Premises:
All cancers have mutations.
No mutations can be treated at home.
All colorectal cancers are cancers.
A cold can be treated at home.
Arthritis either is a cold and has mutations or neither is a cold nor has mutations.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Cancer(x) → Have(x, mutation))
∀x (Have(x, mutation) → ¬CanBeTreatedAtHome(x))
∀x (ColorectalCancer(x) → Cancer(x))
∀x (Cold(x) → CanBeTreatedAtHome(x))
¬(Cold(arthritis) ⊕ Have(arthritis, mutation))

Conclusions:
Arthritis can be treated at home.
Arthritis is colorectal cancer.
Arthritis is not colorectal cancer.
Arthritis is colorectal cancer or has mutations.
Arthritis is colorectal cancer and a cancer.
If arthritis is not colorectal cancer, then arthritis has mutations.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
CanBeTreatedAtHome(arthritis) 
ColorectalCancer(arthritis) 
¬ColorectalCancer(arthritis)
ColorectalCancer(arthritis) ∨ Have(arthritis, mutation)
ColorectalCancer(arthritisr) ∧ Cancer(arthritis) 
¬ColorectalCancer(arthritis) → Have(arthritis, mutation)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
T
F
F
F
Premises:
All Brown Swiss cattle are cows.
Some pets are Brown Swiss Cattle.
All cows are domesticated animals.
Alligators are not domesticated animals.
Ted is an alligator.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (BrownSwissCattle(x) → Cow(x))
∃x (Pet(x) ∧ BrownSwissCattle(x))
∀x (Cow(x) → DomesticatedAnimal(x))
∀x (Aligator(x) → ¬DomesticatedAnimal(x))
Aligator(ted)

Conclusions:
Ted is a pet.
Ted is a pet and Brown Swiss cattle
If Ted is a Brown Swiss cattle, then Ted is not a pet.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Pet(ted)
Pet(ted) ∧ BrownSwissCattle(ted)
BrownSwissCattle(ted) → ¬Pet(ted)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
T
Premises:
No video games released by Nintendo support the PS4 platform.
All video games in the Pokemon series are released by Nintendo. 
All video games in the FIFA series support the PS4 platform. 
All video games that allow users to simulate playing online soccer using licensed players are in the FIFA series.
The video game named “Be Lionel” is in the Pokemon series, or it allows users to simulate playing online soccer games using licensed players.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (VideoGame(x) ∧ ReleasedBy(x, nintendo) → ¬Support(x, pS4))
∀x (VideoGame(x) ∧ In(x, pokemonSeries) → ReleasedBy(x, nintendo))
∀x (VideoGame(x) ∧ In(x, fIFASeries) → Support(x, pS4))
∀x (VideoGame(x) ∧ Simulate(x, onlineSoccer) ∧ Use(x, licensedPlayer) → In(x, fIFASeries))
VideoGame(beLionel) ∧ In(beLionel, pokemonSeries) ∨ (Simulate(beLionel, onlineSoccer) ∧ Use(beLionel, licensedPlayer))

Conclusions:
The video game "Be Lionel" is in the pokemon series.
The video game named “Be Lionel” either is in the FIFA series and supports the PS4 platform, or it neither is in the FIFA series nor supports the PS4 platform.
The video game named “Be Lionel” is either in the FIFA series or supports the PS4 platform.
The video game named “Be Lionel”  is not in the FIFA or Pokemon series. 

Conclusions in first-order logic:
VideoGame(beLionel) ∧ PokemonSeries(beLionel)
VideoGame(beLionel) ∧  ¬(FIFASeries(beLionel) ⊕ Support(beLionel, pS4))
VideoGame(beLionel) ∧ FIFASeries(beLionel) ⊕ Support(beLionel, pS4)
VideoGame(beLionel) ∧ ¬(FIFASeries(beLionel) ∨ Support(beLionel, pS4))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
T
F
F
Premises:
Some soccer defenders are center-backs.
All soccer defenders are soccer players.
No soccer players are professional basketball players.
All NBA players are professional basketball players.
Stephen Curry is an NBA player.

Premises in first-order logic:
∃x (ProfessionalSoccerDefender(x) ∧ ProfessionalCenterback(x))
∀x (ProfessionalSoccerDefender(x) → ProfessionalSoccerPlayer(x))
∀x (ProfessionalSoccerPlayer(x) → ¬ProfessionalBasketballPlayer(x)))
∀x (NBAPlayer(x) → ProfessionalBasketballPlayer(x))
NBAPlayer(stephencurry)

Conclusions:
Stephen Curry is a center-back. 
Stephen Curry is not both a centerback and a soccer defender.
If Stephen Curry is not both a centerback and a soccer defender, then Stephen Curry is neither a soccer player nor a professional basketball player.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
ProfessionalCenterback(stephenCurry)
¬(ProfessionalCenterback(stephenCurry) ∧ ProfessionalSoccerDefender(stephenCurry))
¬(Centerback(stephenCurry) ∧ SoccerDefender(stephenCurry)) → ¬(SoccerPlayer(stephenCurry) ∨ ProfessionalBasketballPlayer(stephenCurry))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
T
Premises:
All of Zaha Hadid's design styles that Max adores have interesting geometries.
No brutalist buildings that Max adores have interesting geometries.
Every style that Max adores is either Zaha Hadid's design style or Kelly Wearstler's design style. 
All of Kelly Wearstler's design styles that Max adores are evocative.
All of Kelly Wearstler's design styles that Max adores are dreamy.
If a design by Max that he adores has interesting geometries, then the design is a brutalist building and evocative.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Adore(max, x) ∧ ZahaHadid(x) ∧ DesignStyle(x) → InterestingGeometry(x))
∀x (Adore(max, x) ∧ BrutalistBuilding(x) → ¬InterestingGeometry(x))
∀x (Adore(max, x) → ((ZahaHadid(x) ∧ DesignStyle(x)) ⊕ (KellyWearstler(x) ∧ DesignStyle(x)))
∀x (Adore(max, x) ∧ KellyWearstler(x) ∧ DesignStyle(x) → Evocative(x))
∀x (Adore(max, x) ∧ KellyWearstler(x) ∧ DesignStyle(x) → Dreamy(x))
∃x (Adore(max, x) ∧ Design(x) ∧ ByMax(x) ∧ InterestingGeometry(x) → BrutalistBuilding(x) ∧ Evocative(x))

Conclusions:
A design by Max is a brutalist building. 
A design by Max is evocative and dreamy. 
A design by Max is either evocative or dreamy.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∃x (Design(x) ∧ ByMax(x) ∧ BrutalistBuilding(x))
∃x (Design(x) ∧ ByMax(x) ∧ Evocative(x) ∧ Dreamy(x))
∃x (Design(x) ∧ ByMax(x) ∧ (Evocative(x) ⊕ Dreamy(x)))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
T
F
Premises:
All products designed by Apple are sold at Apple Stores.
All products with Apple logos are designed by Apple.
All Macbooks have Apple logos.
All products with Apple M2 chips are Mackbooks.
A Thinkpad X1 is not both sold in Apple Stores and is a Macbook.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x ((Product(x) ∧ DesignedBy(x, apple)) → SoldIn(x, appleStore))
∀x ((Product(x) ∧ With(x, appleLogo)) → DesignedBy(x, apple))
∀x (Macbook(x) → With(x, appleLogo))
∀x ((Product(x) ∧ With(x, appleM2Chip)) → Macbook(x))
¬(SoldIn(thinkpadX1, appleStore) ∧ Macbook(thinkpadX1))

Conclusions:
The Thinkpad X1 has an Apple M2 chip.
The Thinkpad X1 is sold in Apple Stores.
The Thinkpad X1 has an Apple M2 chip and is a Macbook.
The Thinkpad X1 either has an Apple M2 chip or is a Macbook.
If the Thinkpad X1 has an Apple M2 chip and is a Macbook, then it neither has an Apple M2 chip nor is sold in Apple Stores.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
With(thinkpadX1, appleM2Chip)
SoldIn(thinkpadX1, appleStore)
With(thinkpadX1, appleM2Chip) ∧ Macbook(thinkpadX1)
With(thinkpadX1, appleM2Chip)) ⊕ Macbook(thinkpadX1)
(With(thinkpadX1, appleM2Chip) ∧ Macbook(thinkpadX1)) → ¬(With(thinkpadX1, appleM2Chip) ∨ SoldIn(thinkpadX1, appleStore))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
F
U
F
F
T
Premises:
All rabbits that can be spotted near the campus are cute. 
Some turtles can be spotted near the campus. 
The only animals that can be spotted near the campus are rabbits and squirrels.
If something is skittish, then it is not calm.
All the squirrels that can be spotted near the campus are skittish.
Rockie can be spotted near the campus, and it is calm.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Rabbit(x) ∧ CanBeSpottedNear(x, campus) → Cute(x))
∃x (Turtle(x) ∧ CanBeSpottedNear(x, campus))
∀x (CanBeSpottedNear(x, campus) → (Rabbit(x) ⊕ Squirrel(x)))
∀x (Skittish(x) → ¬Calm(x))
∀x (Squirrel(x) ∧ CanBeSpottedNear(x, campus) → Skittish(x))
CanBeSpottedNear(rockie, campus) ∧ Calm(rockie) 

Conclusions:
Rockie is a turtle.
Rockie is not a turtle.
Rockie is a turtle or cute.
If Rockie is not both a turtle and a squirrel, then Rockie is either cute or skittish.
If Rockie is cute and calm, then Rockie is a skittish turtle. 

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Turtle(rockie)
¬Turtle(rockie)
Turtle(rockie) ∨ Cute(rockie)
¬(Turtle(rockie) ∧ Squirrel(rockie)) → Cute(rockie) ⊕ Skittish(rockie) 
Cute(rockie) ∧ Calm(rockie) → Turtle(rockie) ∧ Skittish(rockie)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
U
T
T
F
Premises:
No payment cards issued by Russian banks can be used with ApplePay.
All MIR payment cards are issued by Russian banks.
Some international payment cards can be used with ApplePay.
Social payments in Russia can only be transferred to MIR payment cards.
Bank of America payment cards can be used with ApplePay.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x ∀y (PaymentCard(x) ∧ RussianBank(y) ∧ IssuedBy(x, y) → ¬UsedWith(x, applePay))
∀x ∀y (PaymentCard(x) ∧ MIR(x) → RussianBank(y) ∧ IssuedBy(x, y))
∃x (PaymentCard(x) ∧ International(x) → UsedWith(x, applePay))
∀x ∀y (SocialPayment(x) ∧TransferredTo(x, y) → PaymentCard(y) ∧ MIR(y))
PaymentCard(bankOfAmerica) ∧ UsedWith(bankOfAmerica, applePay)

Conclusions:
Bank of America payment cards are international.
Bank of America payment cards are international and can be used to transfer social payments in Russia.
If Bank of America payment cards are international and can be used to transfer social payments in Russia, then they are international.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
PaymentCard(bankOfAmerica) ∧ International(bankOfAmerica)
∀x (PaymentCard(bankOfAmerica) ∧ International(bankOfAmerica) ∧ SocialPayment(x) ∧TransferredTo(x, bankOfAmerica))
∀x ((PaymentCard(bandOfAmerica) ∧ International(bandOfAmerica) ∧ SocialPayment(x) ∧ TransferredTo(x, bandOfAmerica)) → International(bandOfAmerica))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
T
Premises:
All social media applications containing chat features are software. 
All social media applications that allow users to send messages to each other have chat features. 
All social media applications have chat features or video features. 
All social media applications that have video features allow users to upload videos. 
All software that is social media applications are computer programs. 
All social media applications that have high engagement metrics are addictive. 
If a social media application is addictive, then it is not ideal for preteens. 
TikTok is a social media application, and it is not ideal for preteens. 

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (SocialMedia(x) ∧ Application(x) ∧ Contain(x, chatFeature) → Software(x))
∀x (SocialMedia(x) ∧ Application(x) ∧ AllowToSendTo(x, user, message) → Contain(x, chatFeature))
∀x (SocialMedia(x) ∧ Application(x) → Contain(x, chatFeature) ∨ Contain(x, videoFeature))
∀x (SocialMedia(x) ∧ Application(x) ∧ Contain(x, videoFeature) → Allow(x, user, uploadVideo))
∀x (SocialMedia(x) ∧ Application(x) ∧ Software(x) → ComputerProgram(x))
∀x (SocialMedia(x) ∧ Application(x) ∧Have(x, highEngagementMetric) → Addictive(x))
∀x (SocialMedia(x) ∧ Application(x) ∧ Addictive(x) → ¬IdealFor(x, preteen))
SocialMedia(tikTok) ∧ Application(tikTok) ∧ ¬IdealFor(tikTok, preteen)

Conclusions:
TikTok is a computer program.
TikTok is either ideal for preteens or a computer program.
TikTok is does not have chat features or it is not a computer program. 
TikTok either has chat features or is a computer program.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
ComputerProgram(tikTok)
IdealFor(tikTok, preteen) ⊕ ComputerProgram(tikTok)
¬Contain(tikTok, chatFeature) ∨ ¬ComputerProgram(tikTok))
Contain(tikTok, chatFeature) ⊕ ComputerProgram(tikTok))

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