yuansui/folio huggingface dataset:
Premises:
Everyone at the business conference is either an investor or an entrepreneur.
None of those at the business conference who enjoy the opportunity of starting a business prefer a planned economy. 
All entrepreneurs at the business conference enjoy the opportunity of starting a business. 
Everyone at the business conference who enjoys state ownership of means of production prefers a planned economy. 
Everyone at the business conference who is an ardent communist prefers state ownership of the means of production.
Ho is at the business conference and prefers state ownership of the means of production. 

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (At(x, businessConference) → (Investor(x) ⊕ Entrepreneur(x)))
∀x ((At(x, businessConference) ∧ Enjoy(x, opportunityOfStartingOwnBusiness)) → ¬Prefer(x, plannedEconomy))
∀x ((At(x, businessConference) ∧ Entrepreneur(x)) → Enjoy(x, opportunityOfStartingOwnBusiness))
∀x ((At(x, businessConference) ∧ Enjoy(x, stateOwnershipOfMeansOfProduction)) → Prefer(x, plannedEconomy))
∀x ((At(x, businessConference) ∧ ArdentCommunist(x)) → Prefer(x, stateOwnershipOfMeansOfProduction))
At(ho, businessConference) ∧ Prefer(ho, stateOwnershipOfMeansOfProduction)

Conclusions:
Ho is not an ardent communist.
Ho is an investor or is not an ardent communist.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
¬ArdentCommunist(ho)
Investor(ho) ∨ (¬ArdentCommunist(ho))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
T
Premises:
Everyone who works in the office is a commuter. 
People either work in the office or work from home.
Everyone who works from home has a relaxed schedule.
George is either a commuter or has a home office setup. 
If George is either a person who works from home or has a home office setup, then George is a commuter and is not a person who works from home.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (WorkIn(x, office) → Commuter(x))
∀x (WorkIn(x, office) ⊕ WorkFrom(x, home))
∀x (WorkFrom(x, home) → Have(x, relaxedSchedule))
Commuter(george) ⊕ Have(george, homeOffice)
(WorkFrom(george, home) ⊕ Have(george, homeOffice)) → ¬WorkFrom(george, home) ∧ Commuter(george)

Conclusions:
George is a person who works from home.
If George is not a person who works from home and a person who works in the office, then George is neither a commuter nor a person who has a relaxed schedule.
If George is either a person who has a home office setup and a person who works in the office, or neither a person who has a home office setup nor a person who works in the office, then George is either a person who works from home or a person who has a relaxed schedule.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
WorkFrom(george, home)
¬(WorkFrom(george, home) ∧ WorkIn(george, office)) → ¬(Commuter(george) ∨ Have(george, relaxedSchedule))
¬(Have(george, homeOffice) ⊕ WorkIn(george, office)) → (WorkFrom(george, home) ⊕ Have(george, relaxedSchedule))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
T
Premises:
All people who regularly drink coffee are dependent on caffeine.
People regularly drink coffee, or they don't want to be addicted to caffeine, or both.
No one who doesn't want to be addicted to caffeine is unaware that caffeine is a drug.
Rina is either a student who is unaware that caffeine is a drug, or she is not a student and is she aware that caffeine is a drug.
Rina  is either a student who is dependent on caffeine, or she is not a student and not dependent on caffeine.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (DrinkRegularly(x, coffee) → IsDependentOn(x, caffeine))
∀x (DrinkRegularly(x, coffee)  ∨ (¬WantToBeAddictedTo(x, caffeine)))
∀x (¬WantToBeAddictedTo(x, caffeine) → ¬AwareThatDrug(x, caffeine))
¬(Student(rina) ⊕  ¬AwareThatDrug(rina, caffeine))
¬(IsDependentOn(rina, caffeine) ⊕ Student(rina))

Conclusions:
Rina doesn't want to be addicted to caffeine or is unaware that caffeine is a drug.
Rina eith doesn't want to be addicted to caffeine or is unaware that caffeine is a drug.
Rina either regularly drinks coffee or is unaware that caffeine is a drug.
If Rina either doesn't want to be addicted to caffeine and is unaware that caffeine is a drug, or neither doesn't want to be addicted to caffeine nor is unaware that caffeine is a drug, then Rina doesn't want to be addicted to caffeine and regularly drinks coffee.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
¬WantToBeAddictedTo(rina, caffeine) ∨ (¬AwareThatDrug(rina, caffeine))
¬WantToBeAddictedTo(rina, caffeine) ⊕ ¬AwareThatDrug(rina, caffeine)
DrinkRegularly(rina, coffee)  ⊕ IsUnawareThatCaffeineIsADrug(rina)
(DoNotWantToBeAddictedToCaffeine(rina) ⊕ ¬AwareThatDrug(rina, caffeine)) → ¬(¬WantToBeAddictedTo(rina, caffeine) ∧ DrinkRegularly(rina, coffee))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
T
F
T
Premises:
No baked sweets are spicy.
All cupcakes are baked sweets.
All mala hotpots are spicy.
All products from Baked by Melissa are cupcakes.
Dried Thai chilies are spicy or mala hotpots or not baked sweets.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (BakedSweet(x) → ¬Spicy(x))
∀x (Cupcake(x) → BakedSweet(x))
∀x (MalaHotpot(x) → Spicy(x))
∀x (Product(x) ∧ From(x, bakedByMelissa) → Cupcake(x))
Spicy(driedThaiChili) ∨ MalaHotpot(driedThaiChili)∨ ¬BakedSweet(driedThaiChili)

Conclusions:
Dried Thai chilies are products of Baked by Melissa.
Dried Thai chilies are not products of Baked by Melissa.
Dried Thai chilies are a mala hotpot.
Dried Thai chilies are neither products of Baked by Melissa nor baked sweets.
Dried Thai chilies are cupcakes and products of Baked by Melissa.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Product(driedThaiChili) ∧ From(driedThaiChili, bakedByMelissa)
¬(Product(driedThaiChili) ∧ From(driedThaiChili, bakedByMelissa))
MalaHotpot(driedThaiChili)
¬(Product(driedThaiChili) ∧ From(driedThaiChili, bakedByMelissa)) ∧ ¬BakedSweet(driedThaiChili)
Cupcake(driedThaiChili) ∧ Product(driedThaiChili) ∧ From(driedThaiChili, bakedByMelissa)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
F
T
U
T
F
Premises:
People either believe in Santa Claus, or think he is made up.
People who believe in Santa Claus expect to get presents on Christmas morning.
People who think Santa Claus is made up, then they would be surprised to see him in their house.
People who expect presents on Christmas morning are excited for it to be Christmas.
If people would be surprised to see Santa Claus in their house, then they don't leave out cookies on Chrismtas Eve.
Mercy is not someone who expects presents Christmas morning, is excited for Chrismtas, and believes in Santa Claus.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (BelieveIn(x, santaClaus) ⊕ ThinkMadeUp(x, santaClaus))
∀x (BelieveIn(x, santaClaus) → Expect(x, present, christmasMorning))
∀x (ThinkMadeUp(x, santaClaus) → WouldBeSurprisedToSeeIn(x, santaClaus, house))
∀x (Expect(x, present, christmasMorning) → ExcitedFor(x, christmas))
∀x (WouldBeSurprisedToSeeIn(x, santaClaus, house) → ¬LeaveOut(x, cookies))
¬(Expect(marcy, present, christmasMorning) ∧ ExcitedFor(marcy, christmas) ∧ BelieveIn(marcy, santaClaus))

Conclusions:
Marcy either believes in Santa Claus or doesn't leave cookies out on Christmas Eve.
Marcy is not someone who both leaves out cookies on Chrismtas eve and thinks Santa Claus is made up, or Marcy believes in Santa Claus.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
BelieveIn(marcy, santaClaus) ⊕ LeaveOut(marcy, cookies)
 ¬(LeaveOut(marcy, cookies) ∧ ThinkMadeUp(marcy, santaClaus)) ∨ BelieveIn(marcy, santaClaus)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
T
F
Premises:
No digital media are analog.
Every printed text is analog media.
All streaming services are digital media.
If an object is a hardcover book, then it is printed text.
If 1984 is a streaming service, then 1984 is a hardcover book.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (DigitalMedia(x) → ¬AnalogMedia(x))
∀x (PrintedText(x) → AnalogMedia(x))
∀x (StreamingService(x) → DigitalMedia(x))
∀x (HardcoverBook(x) → PrintedText(x))
StreamingService(1984) → HardcoverBook(1984)

Conclusions:
1984 is printed text.
1984 is a streaming service.
1984 is not a streaming service.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
PrintedText(y1984)
StreamingService(y1984)
¬StreamingService(y1984)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
T
Premises:
No professional tennis umpires are professional tennis players.
If you are a World Tour player, then you are a professional tennis player.
All Grand Slam champions are World Tour players.
All Grand Slam umpires are professional tennis umpires.
Nadal is a World Tour player or a Grand Slam champion

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (ProfessionalTennisUmpire(x) → ¬ProfessionalTennisPlayer(x))
∀x (WorldTourPlayer(x) → ProfessionalTennisPlayer(x))
∀x (GrandSlamChampion(x) → WorldTourPlayer(x))
∀x (GrandSlamUmpire(x) → ProfessionalTennisUmpire(x))
WorldTourPlayer(nadal) ∨ GrandSlamChampion(nadal)

Conclusions:
Nadal is a Grand Slam umpire.
Nadal is not a Grand Slam umpire.
Nadal is a Grand Slam champion.
Nadal is neither a Grand Slam umpire nor a professional tennis umpire.
If Nadal is a professional tennis umpire, then Nadal is a Grand Slam Umpire.
If Nadal is a Grand Slam umpire or a professional tennis player, then Nadal is a Grand Slam umpire.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
GrandSlamUmpire(nadal)
¬GrandSlamUmpire(nadal)
GrandSlamChampion(nadal)
¬(GrandSlamUmpire(nadal) ∨ ProfessionalTennisUmpire(nadal))
ProfessionalTennisUmpire(nadal) → GrandSlamUmpire(nadal)
GrandSlamUmpire(nadal) ∨ ProfessionalTennisPlayer(nadal) → GrandSlamUmpire(nadal)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
F
T
U
T
T
F
Premises:
No shooting gaurds are taller than 7 feet
All the top 75 basketball centers are taller than 7 feet.
All basketball players playing two positions are shooting guards. 
All guards not playing the point position are basketball players playing two positions.
If John is either a Top 75 basketball center or John is a shooting guard, then John is not both a basketball player playing two positions and a guard not playing the point position.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (ShootingGuard(x) → ¬TallerThan(x, 7Feet))
∀x (Top75BasketballCenter(x) → TallerThan(x, 7Feet))
∀x (Play(x, twoPosition) → ShootingGuard(x))
∀x (Guard(x) ∧ ¬Play(x, pointPosition) → Play(x, twoPosition))
Top75BasketballCenter(john) ⊕ ShootingGuard(john) → ¬(Guard(john) ∧ ¬Play(john, pointPosition) ∧ Play(john, twoPosition))

Conclusions:
John is a Top 75 basketball center.
John is a guard not playing the point position.
John is not a guard not playing the point position.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Top75BasketballCenter(john)
Guard(john) ∧ ¬Play(john, pointPosition)
¬(Guard(john) ∧ ¬Play(john, pointPosition))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
T
Premises:
Everyone that knows about breath-first-search knows how to use a queue. 
If someone is a seasoned software engineer interviewer at Google, then they know what breath-first-search is. 
Someone is either a seasoned software engineer interviewer at Google, has human rights, or both. 
Every person who has human rights is entitled to the right to life and liberty. 
Everyone that knows how to use a queue knows about the first-in-first-out data structure. 
Everyone that is entitled to the right to life and liberty cannot be deprived of their rights without due process of law. 
Jack is entitled to the right to life and liberty, has human rights, or knows about the first-in-first-out data structure. 

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Know(x, breathFirstSearch) → Know(x, howToUseQueue))
∀x (Seasoned(x) ∧ SoftwareEngineerInterviewer(x) ∧ At(x, google) → Know(x, breathFirstSearch))
∀x ((Seasoned(x) ∧ SoftwareEngineerInterviewer(x) ∧ At(x, google)) ∨ Have(x, humanRights))
∀x (Have(x, humanRights) → EntitledTo(x, rightToLifeAndLiberty))
∀x (Know(x, howToUseQueue) → Know(x, firstInFirstOutDataStructure))
∀x (EntitledTo(x, rightToLifeAndLiberty) → ¬DeprivedOfWithout(x, rights, dueProcessOfLaw))
(EntitledTo(jack, rightToLifeAndLiberty) ∨ Have(jack, humanRights) ∨ Know(jack, firstInFirstOutDataStructure))

Conclusions:
Jack is a seasoned software engineer interviewer.
Jack cannot be deprived of their rights without due process of law.
Jack can be deprived of their rights without due process of law.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Seasoned(jack) ∧ SoftwareEngineerInterviewer(jack) ∧ At(jack, google)
¬DeprivedOfWithout(jack, rights, dueProcessOfLaw)
DeprivedOfWithout(jack, rights, dueProcessOfLaw)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
T
F
Premises:
All members of the university faculty are professors.
All principal investigators are members of the university faculty.
No professor is also an undergraduate student.
Anyone pursuing a bachelor's degree is an undergraduate student.
Leon is not pursuing a bachelor's degree, and he is not a principal investigator.
If Leon is not pursuing a bachelor's degree, then he is a professor.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (MemberOf(x, universityFaculty) → Professor(x))
∀x (PrincipalInvestigator(x) → MemberOf(x, universityFaculty))
∀x (Professor(x) → ¬UndergraduateStudent(x))
∀x (Pursuing(x, bachelor) → UndergraduateStudent(x))
¬(Pursuing(leon, bachelor) ⊕ PrincipalInvestigator(leon))
¬Pursuing(leon, bachelor) → Professor(leon)

Conclusions:
Leon is a member of university faculty.
Leon is neither an undergraduate student nor a principal investigator.
If leon is not a principal investigator, then Leon is an undergraduate student.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
MemberOf(leon, universityFaculty)
¬UndergraduateStudent(leon) ∧ ¬PrincipalInvestigator(leon)
¬PrincipalInvestigator(leon) → UndergraduateStudent(leon)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
T
F
Premises:
Anything lazy is unproductive.
No one unproductive is energetic.
If something is a sloth, then it is lazy.
Some animals are sloths.
Sid is neither an energetic person nor a sloth.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Lazy(x) → Unproductive(x))
∀x (Unproductive(x) → ¬Energetic(x))
∀x (Sloth(x) → Lazy(x))
∃x (Animal(x) ∧ Sloth(x))
¬Energetic(sid) ∧ ¬Sloth(sid))

Conclusions:
Sid is an animal.
Sid is an energetic person and an animal.
If Sid is either an animal or unproductive, then Sid is not an energetic person.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Animal(sid)
Energetic(sid) ∧ Animal(sid)
Animal(sid) ⊕ Unproductive(sid)) → ¬Energetic(sid)

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

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x ((Professional(x) ∧ SoccerPlayer(x)) → ¬Play(x, professionalBasketball)))
∀x ((Professional(x) ∧ Defender(x)) → (Professional(x) ∧ SoccerPlayer(x)))
∀x ((Professional(x) ∧ CenterBack(x)) → (Professional(x) ∧ Defender(x))
∃x (Athlete(x) ∧ Professional(x) ∧ CenterBack(x))
Play(stephenCurry, professionalBasketball)

Conclusions:
Stephen Curry is an athlete.
Stephen Curry is an athlete and a professional centerback.
If Stephen Curry is a professional centerback, then he is not an athlete.

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

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
T
Premises:
Some people are both late-night and early-morning people.
If a person is an earl- morning person, they have early-morning habits.
Everyone who has early-morning habits gets up early.
Everyone who gets up early catches the sunrise.
James doesn't catch the sunrise.

Premises in first-order logic:
∃x (LateNightPerson(x) ∧ EarlyMorningPerson(x))
∀x (EarlyMorningPerson(x) → Have(x, earlyMorningHabit))
∀x (Have(x, earlyMorningHabit) → GetUpEarly(x))
∀x (GetUpEarly(x) → CatchTheSunrise(x))
¬CatchTheSunrise(james)

Conclusions:
James is a late night person.
James is a late night person and an early-morning person.
If James is an early-morning person, then he is a late night person.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
LateNightPerson(james)
LateNightPerson(james) ∧ EarlyMorningPerson(james)
EarlyMorningPerson(james) → LateNightPerson(james)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
T
Premises:
If people have a lot of music decorations in their rooms, they cannot pack and move out of their rooms very easily.
If people have high ambitions and future career goals, then they can pack and move out of their rooms very easily.
If people are big fans of pop bands and singers, then they have a lot of music decorations in their room.
All young teenage girls who attend music festival frequently are big fans of pop bands and singers.
If Sam has high ambitions and future career goals, then Sam is a big fan of pop bands and singers.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (HaveIn(x, aLotOfMusicDecoration, room) → ¬MoveOutEasily(x))
∀x (Ambitious(x) → MoveOutEasily(x))
∀x (BigFanOfMusic(x) → MusicDecorations(x, room))
∀x (AttendFrequently(x, musicFestival) ∧ YoungTeenageGirl(x) → BigFanOfPopBand(x) ∧ BigFanOfPopSinger(x))
Ambitious(sam) → BBigFanOfPopBand(sam) ∧ BigFanOfPopSinger(sam)

Conclusions:
Sam is a young teenage girl who attends music festival frequently
Sam is not a young teenage girl who attends music festival frequently
Sam is a big fan of pop bands and singers.
Sam neither has high ambitions and future career goals nor is she a young teenage girl attending music festival frequently
Sam has high ambitions and future career goals and is a young teenage girl attending music festival frequently.
Sam has high ambitions and future career goals and is a young teenage girl attending college.
If Sam is a young teenage girl attending college, then Sam either does not have high ambitions and future career goals or is a big fan of pop bands and singers.
If Sam has high ambitions and future career goals and is a young teenage girl attending college, then Sam either does not have high ambitions and future career goals or is not a young teenage girl attending college.
If Sam has high ambitions and future career goals, then Sam is a young teenage girl attending college.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Attend(sam, festival) ∧ YoungTeenageGirl(sam)
¬(Attend(sam, festival) ∧ YoungTeenageGirl(sam))
BigFanOfMusic(sam)
¬(Ambitious(sam) ∨ (Attend(sam, festival) ∧ YoungTeenageGirl(sam)))
Ambitious(sam) ∧ Attend(sam, festival) ∧ YoungTeenageGirl(sam)
Ambitious(sam) ∧ Attend(sam, festival) ∧ YoungTeenageGirl(sam)
Attend(sam, festival) ∧ YoungTeenageGirl(sam) → ¬(Ambitious(sam) ∨ (BigFanOfPopBand(sam) ∧ BigFanOfPopSinger(sam)))
Ambitious(sam) ∧ Attend(sam, festival) ∧ YoungTeenageGirl(sam) → ¬(Ambitious(sam) ∨ (Attend(sam, festival) ∧ YoungTeenageGirl(sam)))
Ambitious(sam) → Attend(sam, festival) ∧ YoungTeenageGirl(sam)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
F
T
U
T
F
F
T
T
T
Premises:
All of Michael's neighbors who grow their own fresh vegetables in their home gardens also have ample space.
All of Michael's neighbors who are young working professionals and live in large cities, do not have ample space.
All of Michael's neighbors who order takeout from delivery services often grow their own fresh vegetables in their home garden.
All of Michael's neighbors who enjoy going out often to restaurants with friends order takeout from delivery services often.
All of Michael's neighbors who regularly tout the benefits of homegrown and homecooked meals over fast food enjoy going out often to restaurants with friends. 
Peter, Michael's neighbor, grows his own fresh vegetables in his home garden, or regularly touts the benefits of homegrown and homecooked meals over fast food, or both.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (MichaelsNeightbor(x) ∧ GrowIn(x, vegetable, garden) → Have(x, ampleSpace))
∀x (MichaelsNeightbor(x) ∧ YoungWorkingProfession(x) ∧ LiveIn(x, largeCity) → ¬Have(x, ampleSpace))
∀x (MichaelsNeightbor(x) ∧ OrderOften(x, takeout) → Grow(x, vegetable, garden))
∀x (MichaelsNeightbor(x) ∧ EnjoyGoingOutOftenToWith(x, restaurant, friend) → OrderOften(x, takeout))
∀x (MichaelsNeightbor(x) ∧ ToutOver(x, homecookedMeals, fastFood) → EnjoyGoingOutOftenToWith(x, restaurant, friend))
MichaelsNeightbor(peter) ∧ (GrowIn(peter, vegetable, garden) ∨ ToutOver(peter, homecookedMeals, fastFood))

Conclusions:
Peter enjoys going out often to restaurants with friends.
Peter is a young working professional who lives in large cities.
Peter grows his own fresh vegetables in their home garden or is a young working professional who lives in large cities.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
EnjoyGoingOutOftenTo(peter, restaurant, friend)
YoungWorkingProfession(peter) ∧ LiveIn(peter, largeCity)
GrowIn(peter, vegetable, garden) ∨ (YoungWorkingProfession(peter) ∧ LiveIn(peter, largeCity))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
T
Premises:
Every student at the Yale School of Management either enrolls part-time or full-time in the current semester.
No student at Yale School of Management who enrolls full-time takes less than two courses in the current semester.
If a student at Yale School of Management owns a new start-up, then that student takes less than two courses in the current semester.
All students at the Yale School of Management who are listed in the Forbes 30 Under 30 own new start-ups.
Jackie is a student studying at Yale School of Management, and she  takes less than two courses in the current semester, or she is listed in the Forbes 30 Under 30, or both.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x ((Student(x) ∧ Affiliated(x, yaleSchoolOfManagement)) → (PartTime(x) ⊕ FullTime(x))
∀x ((Student(x) ∧ Affiliated(x, yaleSchoolOfManagement) ∧ FullTime(x)) → (∃y(¬LessThan(y, num2) ∧ TakesCourses(x,y))
∀x ((Student(x) ∧ Affiliated(x, yaleSchoolOfManagement) ∧ Owns(x, startUp)) → (∃y(LessThan(y, num2) ∧ TakesCourses(x,y))
∀x ((Student(x) ∧ Affiliated(x, yaleSchoolOfManagement) ∧ ForbesList(x)) → Owns(x, startUp))
Student(jackie) ∧ Affiliated(jackie, yaleSchoolOfManagement) ∧ (∃y(LessThan(y, num2) ∧ TakesCourses(x,y))) ∨ ForbesList(jackie))

Conclusions:
Jackie owns a new start-up.
Jackie either enrolls as part-time or full-time in the current semester. 
Jackie enrolls as part time and takes less than two courses in the current semester.
Jackie either enrolls as part time or takes less than two courses in the current semester.
If Jackie either enrolls as part-time in the current semester and is listed in the Forbes 30 Under 30, or neither enrolls as part-time in the current semester nor is listed in the Forbes 30 Under 30, then Jackie takes less than two courses in the current semester and listed in the Forbes 30 Under 30.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Owns(jackie, startUp)
FullTime(jackie) ⊕ PartTime(jackie)
PartTime(jackie) ∧ (∃y (LessThan(y, num2) ∧ TakesCourses(x,y))
PartTime(jackie) ⊕ (∃y (LessThan(y, num2) ∧ TakesCourses(x,y)))
¬(PartTime(jackie) ⊕ ForbesList(jackie)) → ∃y (LessThan(y, num2) ∧ TakesCourses(x,y)) ∧ ForbesList(jackie)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
T
T
F
T
Premises:
All eels are fish. 
No fish are plants. 
Everything displayed in the collection is either a plant or an animal.
All multicellular animals are not bacteria.
All animals displayed in the collection are multicellular.
A sea eel is displayed in the collection.
The sea eel is an eel or an animal or not a plant.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Eel(x) → Fish(x))
∀x (Fish(x) → ¬Plant(x))
∀x (DisplayedIn(x, collection) → Plant(x) ⊕ Animal(x))
∀x (Multicellular(x) → ¬Bacteria(x))
∀x (DisplayedIn(x, collection) ∧ Animal(x) → Multicellular(x))
DisplayedIn(seaEel, collection)
Eel(seaEel) ∨ Animal(seaEel) ∨ ¬Plant(seaEel)

Conclusions:
The sea eel is an eel.
The sea eel is bacteria.
The sea eel is multicellular or is bacteria.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Eel(seaEel)
Bacteria(seaEel)
Multicellular(seaEel) ∨ Bacteria(seaEel) 

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