yuansui/folio huggingface dataset:
Premises:
All sports cars are loud.
No loud cars are electric.
If a car is a Ferrari, then it is a sports car.
All cars made in Maranello are Ferraris.
The Toyota Prius is made in Maranello or is a loud car, or both.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (SportsCar(x) → LoudCar(x))
∀x (LoudCar(x) → ¬ElectricCar(x))
∀x (Ferrari(x) → SportsCar(x))
∀x ((Car(x) ∧ MadeIn(x, maranello)) → Ferrari(x))
(Car(toyotaPrius) ∧ MadeIn(toyotaPrius, maranello)) ∨ LoudCar(toyotaPrius)

Conclusions:
Prius is an electric car.
The Toyota Prius is not an electric car.
The Toyota Prius is a equipped with a Ferrari V12 engine.
If The Toyota Prius is a Ferrari or a loud car, then The Toyota Prius is an electric car.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
ElectricCar(toyotaPrius)
¬ElectricCar(toyotaPrius)
MadeIn(toyotaPrius, maranello)
Ferrari(toyotaPrius) ∨ LoudCar(toyotaPrius) → ElectricCar(toyotaPrius)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
F
T
U
F
Premises:
All students who registered for the conference are invited to attend it.
All students who attend in-person have registered for the conference. 
Students attend the conference either in-person or remotely. 
None of the students in China attend the conference remotely. 
James neither attended the conference remotely, nor presented at the conference. 
Jack is a student; he is either in China or he registered for the conference.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x ((Student(x) ∧ RegisteredFor(x, conference)) → InvitedToAttend(x, conference))
∀x ((Student(x) ∧ AttendInPerson(x, conference)) → RegisteredFor(x, conference))
∀x (Student(x) → (AttendInPerson(x, conference) ⊕ AttendRemotely(x, conference)))
∀x (Student(x) ∧ In(x, china) → (¬AttendRemotely(x, theConference)))
Student(james) ∧ (¬AttendRemotely(james, conference) ∧ ¬PresentedAt(james, conference))
Student(jack) ∧ (In(jack, china) ⊕ RegisteredFor(jack, conference))

Conclusions:
James is a student in China. 
James is not a student in China. 
Jack is invited to attend the conference, or he will present at the conference. 
Either Jack is invited to attend the conference or James will present at the conference. 
It is not true that Jack registered for the conference and James is invited to attend the conference.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Student(james) ∧ In(james, china)
¬(Student(james)) ∧ In(james, china)
InvitedToAttend(jack, conference) ∨ PresentedAt(jack, conference)
InvitedToAttend(jack, conference) ⊕ PresentedAt(jack, conference)
¬(RegisteredFor(jack, conference) ∧ InvitedToAttend(james, conference))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
U
T
T
F
Premises:
There's a person in Benji's family who likes eating cheese or is a francophile.
There is no francophile in Benji's family whose favorite country is Spain.
There is a person in Benji's family who likes eating cheese or whose favorite country is Spain.
Fabien is in Benji's family and  does not both study Spanish and also like eating cheese.
Fabien studies Spanish.

Premises in first-order logic:
∃x (InBenjiSFamily(x) → (LikeEating(x, cheese) ∨ Francophile(x)))
∀x ((InBenjiSFamily(x) ∧ Francophile(x)) → ¬Favor(x, spain))
∃x (InBenjiSFamily(x) ∧ (Favor(x, spain) ∨ LikeEating(x, cheese)))
InBenjiSFamily(fabien) ∧ (¬(LikeEating(fabien, cheese) ∧ Study(fabien, spanish)))
Study(fabien, spanish)

Conclusions:
Fabien is a person who likes eating cheese.
If Fabien is either a person who likes eating cheese or a francophile, then Fabien is neither a person who studies Spanish nor a person who is a francophile.
If Fabien is a person who likes Spain as their favorite country or is a francophile, then Fabien is either a person who studies Spanish or a person who likes Spain as their favorite country.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
LikeEating(fabien, cheese)
(LikeEating(fabien, cheese) ⊕ Francophile(fabien)) → (¬(Study(fabien, spanish) ∨ Francophile(fabien)))
(Favor(fabien, spain) ∨ Francophile(fabien)) → (Study(fabien, spanish) ⊕ Favor(fabien, spain))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
T
F
Premises:
There are no mansion houses in an urban area.
All skyscrapers are in urban areas.
Every creepy haunted house is a mansion house.
Every terrifying building on Halloween is a creepy haunted house.
The LaLaurie House is a creepy haunted house or a terrifying building on Halloween.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (InUrbanArea(x) → ¬MansionHouse(x))
∀x (Skyscraper(x) → InUrbanArea(x))
∀x (CreepyHauntedHouse(x) → MansionHouse(x))
∀x (TerrifyingBuilding(x) ∧ OnHalloween(x) → CreepyHauntedHouse(x))
CreepyHauntedHouse(laLaurieHouse) ∨ TerrifyingBuilding(laLaurieHouse) ∧ OnHalloween(laLaurieHouse)

Conclusions:
The LaLaurie House is a skyscraper.
The LaLaurie House is not a skyscraper.
The LaLaurie House is a terrifying building on Halloween.
The LaLaurie House is either a skyscraper or a mansion house.
The LaLaurie House is either a skyscraper or in an urban area.
The LaLaurie House is either a skyscraper or a creepy haunted house. 
If the LaLaurie House is not a mansion or not in an urban area, then it is either a skyscraper or in an urban area.
If the LaLaurie House is either a skyscraper or a mansion house, then it is in an urban area.
If the LaLaurie House is either a skyscraper or a mansion house, then it is neither a creepy haunted house nor a terrifying building on Halloween.
If the LaLaurie House is either a skyscraper or a creepy haunted house, then it is not a mansion house.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Skyscraper(laLaurieHouse)
¬Skyscraper(laLaurieHouse)
TerrifyingBuilding(laLaurieHouse) ∧ OnHalloween(laLaurieHouse)
Skyscraper(laLaurieHouse) ⊕ MansionHouse(laLaurieHouse)
Skyscraper(laLaurieHouse) ⊕ UrbanArea(laLaurieHouse)
Skyscraper(laLaurieHouse) ⊕ CreepyHauntedHouse(laLaurieHouse)
¬(MansionHouse(laLaurieHouse) ∧ InUrbanArea(laLaurieHouse)) → (Skyscraper(laLaurieHouse) ⊕ InUrbanArea(laLaurieHouse))
Skyscraper(laLaurieHouse) ⊕ MansionHouse(laLaurieHouse) → InUrbanArea(laLaurieHouse)
Skyscraper(laLaurieHouse) ⊕ MansionHouse(laLaurieHouse) → ¬(CreepyHauntedHouse(laLaurieHouse) ∨ TerrifyingBuilding(laLaurieHouse) ∧ OnHalloween(laLaurieHouse))
Skyscraper(laLaurieHouse) ⊕ CreepyHauntedHouse(laLaurieHouse) → ¬MansionHouse(laLaurieHouse)

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

Conclusions:
Nancy is a pirate.
Nancy is either both a pirate and a toddler, or neither a pirate nor a toddler.
If Nancy is not either a pirate or a toddler, then she is young and is a kid.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Pirate(nancy)
¬(Pirate(nancy) ⊕ Toddler(nancy))
¬(Pirate(nancy) ⊕ Toddler(nancy)) → Young(nancy) ∧ Kid(nancy)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
T
Premises:
Everyone at 'Board Game night' is interested in puzzles, or they are bad at chess, or both.
If a person at 'Board Game night' is bad at chess, then they don't play a lot of chess.
There is a person at 'Board Game night' who is either a planner or a creative person.
Erica is at 'Board Game night,' and she is someone who plays a lot of chess.
If Erica is neither bad at chess nor creative, then Erica is either someone who plans and is creative, or she is neither of these things.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (At(x, boardGameNight) → (InterestedIn(x, puzzle) ∨ BadAt(x, chess)))
∀x ((At(x, boardGameNight) ∧ BadAt(x, chess)) → ¬PlaysOften(x, chess))
∃x (At(x, boardGameNight) ∧ (Planner(x) ∨ Creative(x)))
At(erica, boardGameNight) ∧ PlaysOften(erica, chess)
(At(erica, boardGameNight) ∧ (¬(BadAt(erica, chess) ∨ Creative(erica)))) → ¬(Planner(erica) ⊕  Creative(erica))

Conclusions:
Erica plans.
Erica is interested in puzzles and is creative.
Erica is either interested in puzzles or is creative.
If Erica plans ahead or plays a lot of chess matches, then Erica is not interested in puzzles and creative.
If Erica is creative, then Erica is not interested in puzzles and creative.
If Erica is interested in puzzles and is creative, then Erica is not creative.
If Erica either plays a lot of chess matches or is creative, then Erica is neither interested in puzzles nor a person who plays a lot of chess matches.
If Erica is interested in puzzles and plays a lot of chess matches, then Erica is either a person who plays a lot of chess matches or a person that is creative.
If Erica plans ahead or is interested in puzzles, then Erica is creative.
If Erica is either bad at chess or interested in puzzles, then Erica is not a person who plays a lot of chess matches and creative.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Planner(erica)
InterestedIn(erica, puzzle) ∧ Creative(erica)
InterestedIn(erica, puzzle) ⊕ Creative(erica)
Planner(erica) ∨ PlaysOften(erica, chess))) → (¬(InterestedIn(erica, puzzle) ∧ Creative(erica))
Creative(erica)) → (¬(InterestedIn(erica, puzzle) ∧ Creative(erica))
InterestedIn(erica, puzzle) ∧ Creative(erica)) → ¬Creative(erica)
PlaysOften(erica, chess) ⊕ InterestedIn(erica, puzzle) → ¬(InterestedIn(erica, puzzle) ∨ PlaysOften(erica, chess))
PlaysOften(erica, chess) ⊕ InterestedIn(erica, puzzle)) → ¬(InterestedIn(erica, puzzle) ∨ PlaysOften(erica, chess)
Planner(erica) ∨ InterestedIn(erica, puzzle) → Creative(erica)
BadAt(erica, chess) ⊕ InterestedIn(erica, puzzle) → ¬(PlaysOften(erica, chess) ∧ Creative(erica))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
T
F
F
F
F
T
F
T
F
Premises:
No vegetables are called sweets.
All desserts are called sweets. 
All vegetables are grown. 
All cookies are desserts. 
The cake is either called a cookie or it is called a sweet. 

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Vegetable(x) → Sweet(x))
∀x (Dessert(x) → Sweet(x))
∀x (Vegetable(x) → Grown(x))
∀x (Cookie(x) → Dessert(x))
Cookie(cake) ⊕ Sweet(cake)

Conclusions:
Cake is called a dessert.
Cake is a vegetable. 
Cake is not a vegetable.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Dessert(cake)
Vegetable(cake)
¬Vegetable(cake)

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

Conclusions:
James is good at planning.
James is good at math and chemistry. 
James failed the class and is good at math. 
If James is good at Chemistry or failed the class, then James is either good at planning or good at math.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
GoodAt(james, planning)
GoodAt(james, chemistry) ∧ GoodAt(james, math)
Failed(james, james) ∧ GoodAt(james, math)
(GoodAt(james, chemistry) ∨ Failed(james, theClass)) → (GoodAt(james, planning) ⊕ GoodAt(james, math))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
F
T
Premises:
Everyone at the mixer is a Grand Slam champion or an Oscar-nominated actor.
Every Grand Slam champion at the mixer is a professional tennis player.
All Oscar-nominated actors at the mixer are celebrities.
All professional tennis players at the mixer are athletes.
If a person at the mixer is a celebrity, then they are well paid.
If a person at the mixer is an athlete, then they are famous.
All well-paid people at the mixer live in tax havens.
Djokovic is at the mixer: if Djokovic is a famous athlete, then Djokovic is well-paid.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (At(x, mixer) → (GrandSlam(x) ∧ Champion(x)) ∨ (OscarNominated(x) ∧ Actor(x)))
∀x (At(x, mixer) ∧ (GrandSlam(x) ∧ Champion(x) → Professional(x) ∧ TennisPlayer(x))
∀x (At(x, mixer) ∧ (OscarNominated(x) ∧ Actor(x) → Celebrity(x))
∀x (At(x, mixer) ∧ Professional(x) ∧ TennisPlayer(x) → Athlete(x))
∀x (At(x, mixer) ∧ Celebrity(x) → WellPaid(x))
∀x (At(x, mixer) ∧ Athlete(x) → Famous(x))
∀x (At(x, mixer) ∧ WellPaid(x) → LiveIn(x, taxHaven))
At(djokovic, mixer) ∧ (Famous(djokovic) ∧ Athlete(djokovic) → WellPaid(djokovic))

Conclusions:
Djokovic is a Grand Slam champion.
Djokovic lives in a tax haven.
Djokovic does not live in a tax haven.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
GrandSlam(djokovic) ∧ Champion(djokovic)
LiveIn(djokovic, taxHaven)
¬LiveIn(djokovic, taxHaven)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
T
F
Premises:
All prime numbers are natural numbers.
All integers are real numbers. 
All real numbers are complex numbers. 
One is a prime number or a natural number or both.
If one is not a complex number, then one is a prime number and an integer.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (PrimeNumber(x) → NaturalNumber(x)) 
∀x (Integer(x) → RealNumber(x))
∀x (RealNumber(x) → ComplexNumber(x)) 
PrimeNumber(one) ∨ NaturalNumber(one)
¬ComplexNumber(one) → (PrimeNumber(one) ∧ Integer(one))

Conclusions:
One is a real number.
One is a prime number and a natural number.
One is either a prime number or a natural number.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
RealNumber(one)
PrimeNumber(one) ∧ NaturalNumber(one)
PrimeNumber(one) ⊕  NaturalNumber(one)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
T
F
Premises:
No songs are visuals. 
All folk songs are songs. 
All videos are visuals. 
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)

Conclusions:
Inception is a folk song.
Inception is not a folk song.
Inception is either a video or a folk song.
Mac is a video.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
FolkSong(inception)
¬FolkSong(inception)
Video(inception) ⊕ FolkSong(inception) 
Video(mac)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
F
T
T
U
Premises:
If you have symptoms of COVID-19, you should not participate in social events.
Fever is a symptom of COVID-19.
You should not go to parties if you cannot participate in social events.
If tested negative, you can go to parties.
Tom does not test negative or have a fever.
If Tom does not test negative, he cannot participate in social events.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x ∀y (SymptomOf(x, cOVID-19) ∧ Have(y, x) → ¬ParticipateIn(x, socialEvents))
∀x ∀y (Have(x, fever) → SymptomOf(x, cOVID-19) ∧ Have(y, x))
∀x (¬ParticipateIn(x, socialEvents) → ¬GoTo(x, parties))
∀x (Tested(x, negative) → ¬GoTo(x, parties))
¬Tested(tom, negative) ∧ ¬Have(tom, fever)
¬Tested(tom, negative) → ¬ParticipateIn(tom, socialEvents)

Conclusions:
Tom has symptoms of COVID-19.
Tom neither can participate in social events nor has a fever.
If Tom does not have a fever, he can participate in social events.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
∀x (SymptomOf(x, cOVID-19) ∧ Have(tom, x))
¬GoTo(tom, parties) ∧ ¬Have(tom, fever)
¬Have(tom, fever) → GoTo(tom, parties)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
T
F
Premises:
There is no resident of Book City who has time allocated to read but doesn't have a reading habit.
All residents of Book City who care about learning new knowledge have time allocated to read.
All residents of Book City who are humble about their knowledge care about learning new knowledge.
All residents of Book City are humble about what they know or confident about their knowledge.
If Mary, a resident of Book City, isn't humble about her knowledge and doesn't have a reading habit, then she isn't humble about her knowledge.

Premises in first-order logic:
¬(∃x (In(x, bookCity) ∧ HaveTimeFor(x, reading) ∧ ¬Have(x, readingHabit)))
∀x ((CareAboutLearning(x, newKnowledge) ∧ In(x, bookCity)) → HaveTimeFor(x, reading)))
∀x ((HumbleAbout(x, theirKnowledge) ∧ In(x, bookCity)) → CareAboutLearning(x, newKnowledge))
∀x (In(x, bookCity) → (HumbleAbout(x, theirKnowledge) ∨ ConfidentAbout(x, theirKnowledge)))
(In(mary, bookCity) ∧ (¬(HumbleAbout(mary, theirKnowledge) ∧ ReadingHabit(mary)))) → ¬HumbleAbout(mary, theirKnowledge)

Conclusions:
Mary has time allocated to read.
Mary is humble about what she knows and confident about what she knows.
Mary is either humble about what she knows or confident about what she knows.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
HaveTimeFor(x, reading)
HumbleAbout(mary, theirKnowledge) ∨ ConfidentAbout(mary, theirKnowledge)
HumbleAbout(mary, theirKnowledge) ⊕ ConfidentAbout(mary, theirKnowledge)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
T
Premises:
All aliens are extraterrestrials.
If someone is from Mars, then they are an alien.
No extraterrestrials are human.
All highly intelligent beings from Earth are humans.
Marvin is a highly intelligent being.
Marvin is either from Earth and from Mars, or he is from neither.
If Marvin is not from Earth, then Marvin is an extraterrestrial.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Alien(x) → Extraterrestrial(x))
∀x (From(x, mars) → Alien(x))
∀x (Extraterrestrial(x) → ¬Human(x))
∀x (HighlyIntelligentBeing(x) ∧ From(x, earth) → Human(x))
HighlyIntelligentBeing(marvin)
¬(From(marvin, earth) ⊕ From(marvin, mars))
¬From(marvin, earth) → Extraterrestrial(marvin)

Conclusions:
Marvin is an alien.
Marvin is neither a human nor from Mars.
If Marvin is not from Mars, then Marvin is a human.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Alien(marvin)
¬Human(marvin) ∧ ¬From(marvin, mars)
¬From(marvin, mars) → Human(marvin)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
T
F
Premises:
All flight destinations from Tweed Airport are in domestic America.
No places that do not require a passport for American citizens to visit have Russian as a widely-spoken language.
If somewhere is in domestic America, then American citizens don't need a passport to travel there. 
All Baltic countries have Russian as a widely-spoken language.
All places that have many Estonian street signs are Baltic countries.
If the place visited by Max is either a flight destination from Tweed Airport or a Baltic country , then the place that Max wants to visit is not a Baltic country.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (FlightDestination(x) ∧ From(x, tweedAirport) → In(x, domesticAmerica))
∀x (¬NeedAPassportToVisit(americanCitizen, x) → ¬RusisanAsWidelySpokenLanguage(x))
∀x (In(x, domesticAmerica) → ¬NeedAPassportToVisit(americanCitizen, x))
∀x (BalticCountry(x) → RussianAsWidelySpokenLanguage(x))
∀x (HasManyEstonianStreetSigns(x) → BalticCountry(x))
(FlightDestination(placeVisitedByMax) ∧ From(placeVisitedByMax, tweedAirport)) ⊕ BalticCountry(placeVisitedByMax) → ¬(FlightDestination(placeVisitedByMax) ∧ From(placeVisitedByMax, tweedAirport))

Conclusions:
The place visited by Max is a domestic flight from Tweed Airport.
The place visited by Max is a place that has many Estonian street signs.
The place visited by Max is not a place that both has many Estonian street signs and is a Baltic country.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
FlightDestination(placeVisitedByMax) ∧ From(placeVisitedByMax, tweedAirport)
HasManyEstonianStreetSigns(placeVisitedByMax)
 ¬(HasManyEstonianStreetSigns(placeVisitedByMax) ∧ BalticCountry(placeVisitedByMax))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
T
Premises:
All people in this midwest town who own horse ranches regularly ride horses for pleasure and sport.
All people in this midwest town with a lot of disposable income have a horse ranch.
If people in this midwest town compete in horse dressage shows, then they have a lot of disposable income.
If people in this midwest town compete in horse dressage shows, then they have invested in high-quality equestrian gear and equipment.
If people in this midwest town regularly ride horses for pleasure and sport, then they do not live in cramped residential buildings.
Manny is in this midwest town, and she either has a horse ranch and lives in a cramped residential building, or she does neither.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (InThisMidwestTown(x) ∧ Have(x, horseRanch) → RegularlyRideHorseForPleasure(x))
∀x (InThisMidwestTown(x) ∧ Have(x, disposableIncome) → Have(x, horseRank))
∀x (InThisMidwestTown(x) ∧ CompeteIn(x, horseDressageShow) → Have(x, disposableIncome))
∀x (InThisMidwestTown(x) ∧ CompeteIn(x, horseDressageShow) → InvestedIn(x, equestrianGearAndEquipment))
∀x (InThisMidwestTown(x) ∧ RegularlyRideHorseForPleasure(x) → ¬LiveIn(x, crampedBuilding))
InThisMidwestTown(manny) ∧ ¬(Have(manny, horseRanch) ⊕ LiveIn(manny, crampedBuilding))

Conclusions:
Manny regularly rides horses for pleasure and sport.
Manny competes in horse dressage shows and has invested in high-quality equestrian equipment and gear.
If Manny either has a horse ranch or competes in horse dressage shows, then Manny has not invested in high-quality equestrian equipment and gear. 

Conclusions in first-order logic:
RegularlyRideHorsesForPleasure(manny)
CompeteIn(manny, horseDressageShow) ∧ InvestedIn(manny, equestrianGearAndEquipment)
¬(HaveAHorseRanch(manny) ⊕ CompeteIn(manny, horseDressageShow)) → ¬InvestedIn(manny, equestrianGearAndEquipment)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
T
Premises:
All mammals are living beings.
All elephants are mammals.
All baby elephants are elephants.
Some baby elephants are sleepy.
If Jumbo is a living being, then Jumbo is not both an elephant and a mammal.
If Jumbo is sleepy, then Jumbo is either a baby elephant or a mammal.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Mammal(x) → LivingBeing(x)) 
∀x (Elephant(x) → Mammal(x))
∀x (BabyElephant(x) → Elephant(x))
∃x (BabyElephant(x) ∧ Sleepy(x))
LivingBeing(jumbo) → ¬(Elephant(jumbo) ∧ Mammal(jumbo))
Sleepy(jumbo) → BabyElephant(jumbo) ⊕ Mammal(jumbo)

Conclusions:
Jumbo is sleepy.
Jumbo is not sleepy.
Jumbo is a living being.
Jumbo is neither sleepy nor a baby elephant.
Jumbo is not sleepy or an elephant.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Sleepy(jumbo)
¬Sleepy(jumbo)
LivingBeing(jumbo)
¬Sleepy(jumbo) ∧ ¬BabyElephant(jumbo))
¬(Sleepy(jumbo) ⊕ Elephant(jumbo))

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

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x ((Professional(x) ∧ Defender(x)) → (Professional(x) ∧ SoccerPlayer(x)))
∀x ((Professional(x) ∧ SoccerPlayer(x)) → ¬(Professional(x) ∧ BasketballPlayer(x)))
∀x ((Professional(x) ∧ CenterBack(x)) → (Professional(x) ∧ Defender(x))
∀x (NBAPlayer(x) → (Professional(x) ∧ BasketballPlayer(x)))
NBAPlayer(stephenCurry)

Conclusions:
Stephen Curry is a professional basketball player.
Stephen Curry is a professional centerback.
Stephen Curry is not a centerback.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Professional(stephenCurry) ∧ BasketballPlayer(stephenCurry)
Professional(stephenCurry) ∧ CenterBack(stephenCurry)
¬(Professional(stephenCurry) ∧ CenterBack(stephenCurry))

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