yuansui/folio huggingface dataset:
Premises:
Some monitors equipped in the library are produced by AOC. 
All monitors equipped in the library are cheaper than 800 dollars. 
All monitors cheaper than 800 dollars are with a resolution lower than 1080p. 
If a monitor has a resolution lower than 1080p, then it does not support the type-c port. 
A-2017 supports the type-c port. 

Premises in first-order logic:
∃x ∃y (Monitor(x) ∧ ProducedBy(x, aOC) ∧ In(x, library) ∧ (¬(x=y)) ∧ Monitor(y) ∧ ProducedBy(y, aOC) ∧ In(y, library))
∀x ((Monitor(x) ∧ In(x, library)) → CheaperThan(x, dollars800))
∀x ((Monitor(x) ∧ CheaperThan(x, dollars800)) → ResolutionLessThan(x, p1080))
∀x ((Monitor(x) ∧ ResolutionLessThan(x, p1080)) → ¬Supports(x, type-CPort))
Supports(a-2017, type-CPort)

Conclusions:
A-2017 is produced by AOC. 
A-2017 is produced by AOC and equipped in the library. 
If either A-2017 is both with a resolution of 1080p and produced by AOC or it is neither, then it is not equipped in the library.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
ProducedBy(x, aOC)
ProducedBy(a-2017, aOC) ∧ In(a-2017, library)
¬(ResolutionLessThan(a-2017, p1080) ⊕ ProducedBy(x, aOC)) → ¬(In(a-2017, library))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
T
Premises:
No fish are birds.
An osprey is a bird.
A carp is a fish.
All goldfish are carp.
If Bubbles is either an osprey or a goldfish, then Bubbles is not also a fish.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Fish(x) → ¬Bird(x))
∀x (Osprey(x) → Bird(x))
∀x (Carp(x) → Fish(x))
∀x (Goldfish(x) → Carp(x))
Osprey(bubbles) ⊕ Goldfish(bubbles) → ¬Fish(bubbles)

Conclusions:
Bubbles is an Osprey.
Bubbles is a goldfish.
Bubbles is not a goldfish.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Osprey(bubbles)
Goldfish(bubbles)
¬Goldfish(bubbles)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
T
Premises:
There are no buildings in New Haven higher than 400 meters. 
All buildings managed by Yale Housing are in New Haven. 
All Manhattan skyscrapers are higher than 400 meters. 
All buildings owned by Bloomberg are in Manhattan. 
All buildings with the Bloomberg logo are buildings owned by Bloomberg. 
Tower A is neither a building in New Haven nor a skyscraper in Manhattan.
Tower B is a skyscraper building in Manhattan with a Bloomberg logo. 

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x ((Buildings(x) ∧ In(x, newHaven)) → ¬HigherThan(x, num400))
∀x ((Buildings(x) ∧ ManagedBy(x, yaleHousing)) → In(x, newHaven))
∀x ((Buildings(x) ∧ Skyscraper(x) ∧ In(x, manhattan)) → HigherThan(x, num400))
∀x ((Buildings(x) ∧ OwnedBy(x, bloomberg)) → Skyscraper(x) ∧ In(x, manhattan))
∀x ((Buildings(x) ∧ HasLogo(x, bloomberg)) → OwnedBy(x, bloomberg))
Buildings(towerA) ∧ (¬InNewHaven(towerA)) ∧ (¬ManhattanSkyscraper(towerA))
Buildings(towerB) ∧ HasLogo(towerB, bloomberg) ∧ Skyscraper(towerB) ∧ In(towerB, manhattan)

Conclusions:
Tower A is higher than 400 meters. 
Tower A is not higher than 400 meters. 
Tower A is a building with the Bloomberg logo or it is managed by Yale Housing. 
Tower A is neither a building with the Bloomberg logo nor managed by Yale Housing.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
HigherThan(towerA, num400)
¬HigherThan(towerA, num400)
HasLogo(towerB, bloomberg) ∨ ManagedBy(x, yaleHousing)
¬HasLogo(towerB, bloomberg) ∧ (¬ManagedBy(x, yaleHousing))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
U
F
T
Premises:
Everything in Size Town is big or small.
All big things in Size Town are heavy.
All small things in Size Town are light.
All heavy things in Size Town are still.
All light things in Size Town are unstable.
All unstable things in Size Town are changing.
All unstable things in Size Town are unpredictable.
The bird is in Size Town and it is not both heavy and still.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (In(x, sizeTown) → (Big(x) ∨ Small(x)))
∀x (Big(x) ∧ In(x, sizeTown) → Heavy(x))
∀x (Small(x) ∧ In(x, sizeTown) → Light(x))
∀x (Heavy(x) ∧ In(x, sizeTown) → Still(x))
∀x (Light(x) ∧ In(x, sizeTown) → Unstable(x))
∀x (Unstable(x) ∧ In(x, sizeTown) → Changing(x))
∀x (Unstable(x) ∧ In(x, sizeTown) → Unpredictable(x))
In(bird, sizeTown) ∧ ¬(Heavy(bird) ∧ Still(bird))

Conclusions:
The bird is still.
The bird is not still.
The bird is unpredictable and changing.
The bird is unpredictable or changing.
The bird is either unpredictable or changing.
If the bird is small or still, then it is either unpredictable or changing.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Still(bird)
¬Still(bird)
Unpredictable(bird) ∧ Changing(bird)
Unpredictable(bird) ∨ Changing(bird) 
Unpredictable(bird) ⊕ Changing(bird) 
Small(bird) ∨ Still(bird) → Unpredictable(bird) ⊕ Changing(bird)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
U
T
T
F
F
Premises:
All young working professionals who have regular 9-5 jobs have stable jobs.
Some people living in Manhattan are young professionals with regular 9-5 jobs.
All people who have stable jobs are people who work regularly.
People who work regularly do not frequently disobey their bosses.
Mary either frequently disobeys her bosses and works regularly, or that she neither frequently disobeys her bosses nor works regularly.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (YoungWorkingProfessional(x) ∧ Have(x, regular9To5Job) → Have(x, stableJob))
∃x (LiveIn(x, manhattan) ∧ YoungWorkingProfessional(x) ∧ Have(x, regular9To5Job))
∀x (Have(x, stableJob) → WorkRegularly(x))
∀x (WorkRegularly(x) → ¬DisobeyFrequently(x, boss))
¬(DisobeyFrequently(mary, boss) ⊕ WorkRegularly(mary))

Conclusions:
Mary lives in Manhattan.
Mary lives in Manhattan and is a young working professional who has a regular 9-5 job.
If Mary is a young working professional who has a regular 9-5 job, then Mary does not live in Manhattan.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
LiveIn(mary, manhattan)
LiveIn(mary, manhattan) ∧ YoungWorkingProfessional(mary) ∧ Have(mary, regular9-5Job)
YoungWorkingProfessional(mary) ∧ Have(mary, regular9-5Job) → ¬LiveIn(mary, manhattan)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
T
Premises:
A neuroimaging technique is either an invasive neuroimaging technique or a noninvasive neuroimaging technique. 
All noninvasive neuroimaging techniques provide a spatial resolution of brains.
If a technique provides a spatial resolution of brains, then it is a measurement of brain activity. 
All measurements of brain activity are used by neuroscience researchers.
FMRI is either a measurement of brain activity or a noninvasive neuroimaging technique.
FMRI is a neuroimaging technique.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (NeuroimagingTechnique(x) → (Invasive(x) ⊕ Noninvasive(x))) 
∀x (Noninvasive(x) → Provides(x, spatialResolutionOfBrains))
∀x (Provides(x, spatialResolutionOfBrains) → Measure(x, brainActivity))
∀x (Measure(x, brainActivity) → UsedBy(x, neuroscienceResearchers))
Measure(fMRI, brainActivity) ⊕ Noninvasive(fMRI)
NeuroimagingTechnique(fMRI)

Conclusions:
FMRI provides a spatial resolution of brains. 
FMRI is an invasive neuroimaging technique and is used by neuroscience researchers. 
FMRI is either an invasive neuroimaging technique or is used by neuroscience researchers. 
If fMRI is not an invasive neuroimaging technique used by neuroscience researchers, then fMRI is neither a noninvasive neuroimaging technique nor provides a spatial resolution of brains.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Provides(fMRI, spatialResolutionOfBrains)
Invasive(fMRI) ∧ UsedBy(fMRI, neuroscienceResearchers)
Invasive(fMRI) ⊕ UsedBy(fMRI, neuroscienceResearchers)
¬(Invasive(fMRI) ∧ UsedBy(fMRI, neuroscienceResearchers)) → ¬(Noninvasive(fMRI) ∨ Provides(fMRI, spatialResolutionOfBrains))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
T
F
T
Premises:
No trick-shot artist in Yale's varsity team struggles with half court shots.
Everyone on Yale's varsity team is someone who struggles with half court shots or who successfully shoots a high percentage of 3-pointers.  
Everyone on Yale's varsity team who successfully shoots a high percentage of 3-pointers is solid at shooting 2-pointers.  
No one on Yale's varsity team who is solid at shooting 2-pointers is bad at mid-range shots.  
Jack is on Yale's varsity team, and he is either a trick-shot artist or he successfully shoots a high percentage of 3-pointers.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x ((In(x, yaleSVarsityTeam) ∧ TrickShotArtist(x)) → ¬StruggleAt(x, halfCourtShot))
∀x (In(x, yaleSVarsityTeam) → (StruggleAt(x, halfCourtShot) ∨ GoodAt(x, threes)))
∀x ((In(x, yaleSVarsityTeam) ∧ GoodAt(x, threes)) → GoodAt(x, twos))
∀x ((In(x, yaleSVarsityTeam) ∧ GoodAt(x, twos)) → BadAt(x, midRangeShot))
In(jack, yaleSVarsityTeam) ∧ (TrickShotArtist(jack) ⊕  GoodAt(jack, threes))

Conclusions:
Jack struggles at half court shots.
Jack is bad at mid-range shots.
Jack is solid at shooting 2-pointers or bad at mid-range shots.
Jack is either solid at shooting 2-pointers or bad at mid-range shots.
Jack is a trick-shot artist or bad at mid-range shots.
Jack is either a trick-shot artist or bad at mid-range shots.
Jack is either a player who successfully shoots a high percentage of 3-pointers or is bad at mid-range shots.
If Jack is not solid at shooting 2-pointers and bad at mid-range shots, then Jack is not solid at shooting 2-pointers and is a player who successfully shoots a high percentage of 3-pointers.
If Jack is solid at shooting 2-pointers or successfully shoots a high percentage of 3-pointers, then Jack struggles at half court shots and is bad at mid-range shots.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
StruggleAt(jack, halfCourtShot)
BadAt(jack, midRangeShot)
GoodAt(jack, twos) ∨ BadAt(jack, midRangeShot)
GoodAt(jack, twos) ⊕ BadAt(jack, midRangeShot)
TrickShotArtist(jack) ∨ BadAt(jack, midRangeShot))
TrickShotArtist(jack) ⊕ BadAt(jack, midRangeShots)
GoodAt(jack, threes) ⊕ BadAt(jack, midRangeShot)
BadAt(jack, midRangeShot) ∧ GoodAt(jack, twos) → ¬GoodAt(jack, twos) ∧ GoodAt(jack, threes)
GoodAt(jack, twos) ∨ GoodAt(jack, threes) → BadAt(jack, halfCourtShot) ∧ BadAt(jack, midRangeShot)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
T
T
F
F
T
F
U
Premises:
All animals can breathe.
No rocks can breathe.
All mammals are animals.
All dogs are mammals.
All Corgis are dogs.
Bobby is an animal or a Corgi.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Animal(x) → Breathe(x))
∀x (Rock(x) → ¬Breathe(x))
∀x (Mammal(x) → Animal(x))
∀x (Dog(x) → Mammal(x))
∀x (Corgi(x) → Dog(x))
Animal(bobby) ∨ Corgi(bobby)

Conclusions:
Bobby is a dog.
Bobby is a rock.
Bobby is either an animal or a rock.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Dog(bobby)
Rock(bobby)
Animal(bobby) ⊕ Rock(bobby)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
T
Premises:
All growth stocks are bought to earn profits from rapid price appreciation.
If the stock price is bought to earn profits from rapid price appreciation, then it is not suitable for a retirement fund.
Some stocks are growth stocks.
All mature stocks are suitable for a retirement fund.
KO is a mature stock.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (GrowthStock(x) → BoughtToEarnProfitFrom(x, rapidPriceAppreciation))
∀x (BoughtToEarnProfitFrom(x, earnProfit, rapidPriceAppreciation) → ¬SuitableFor(x, retirementFund)) 
∃x (Stock(x) ∧ GrowthStock(x))
∀x (MatureStock(x) → SuitableFor(x, retirementFund))
MatureStock(kO)

Conclusions:
KO is a stock.
KO is a stock and a growth stock.
If KO is a growth stock or bought to earn profits from rapid price appreciation, then KO is neither a stock nor is its price volatile.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Stock(kO) 
¬GrowthStock(kO)
GrowthStock(kO) ∨ BoughtToEarnProfitFrom(kO, earnProfit, rapidPriceAppreciation) → ¬Stock(kO) ∧ ¬BoughtToEarnProfitFrom(kO, rapidPriceAppreciation)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
F
T
Premises:
If something is a plant, then it is not a cute animal. Simeng: All plants are not cute animals. 
All flowers are plants.
Every kitten is a cute animal.
If something is grown in a garden, then it is a flower.
Piper is a kitten or a cute animal.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Plant(x) → ¬CuteAnimal(x))
∀x (Flower(x) → Plant(x))
∀x (Kitten(x) → CuteAnimal(x))
∀x (GrownIn(x, garden) → Flower(x))
Kitten(piper) ∨ CuteAnimal(piper)

Conclusions:
Piper was grown in a garden.
Piper was not grown in a garden.
Piper is a kitten.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
GrownIn(piper, garden)
¬GrownIn(piper, garden)
Kitten(piper)

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
F
T
U
Premises:
If something is a deadly disease, then it comes with a low survival rate. 
Severe cancers are deadly diseases.
Bile duct cancer is a severe form cancer. 
All Cholangiocarcinoma is bile duct cancer.
Mild flu comes with a low survival rate.
Colorectal cancer is not both a bile duct cancer and with a low survival rate.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (DeadlyDiseases(x) → ComeWith(x, lowSurvivalRate))
∀x (SevereCancer(x) → DeadlyDiseases(x))
∀x (BileDuctCancer(x) → SevereCancer(x))
∀x (Cholangiocarcinoma(x) → BileDuctCancer(x))
∀x (MildFlu(x) → ¬ComeWith(x, lowSurvivalRate)) 
¬(BileDuctCancer(colorectalCancer) ∧ ComeWith(colorectalCancer, lowSurvivalRate))

Conclusions:
Colorectal cancer is a kind of severe cancer 
If colorectal cancer is a kind of bile duct cancer or a form of Cholangiocarcinoma, then colorectal cancer is a kind of bile duct cancer and a kind of mild flu. 
Colorectal cancer is a form of Cholangiocarcinoma and it is a kind of mild flu or a kind of bile duct cancer, or all of the above.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
SevereCancer(colorectalCancer) 
¬(BileDuctCancer(colorectalCancer) ∨ Cholangiocarcinoma(colorectalCancer)) ∨ (BileDuctCancer(colorectalCancer) ∧ MildFlu(colorectalCancer))
Cholangiocarcinoma(colorectalCancer) ∧ (MildFlu(colorectalCancer) ∨ BileDuctCancer(colorectalCancer))

Truth value of each conclusion (T = true, F = false, U = unknown):
U
T
F
Premises:
Shoes are not food.
All slippers are shoes.
Any object donated to the homeless charity is either clothes or food.
Wearable things are not edible.
All clothes are wearable. 
The watch is donated to the homeless charify.
If the watch is not both edible and a piece of clothing, then the watch is either both edible and a piece of clothing or the watch is neither of them.

Premises in first-order logic:
∀x (Shoe(x) → ¬Food(x))
∀x (Slipper(x) → Shoe(x))
∀x (DonatedTo(x, homelessCharity) → Food(x) ⊕ Clothes(x))
∀x (Wearable(x) → ¬Edible(x))
∀x (Clothes(x) → Wearable(x))
DonatedTo(watch, homelessCharify)
¬(Edible(watch) ∧ Clothes(watch)) → ¬(Edible(watch) ⊕ Clothes(watch))

Conclusions:
A watch is wearable.
A watch is a slipper.
A watch is neither edible nor a slipper.

Conclusions in first-order logic:
Wearable(watch)
Slipper(watch)
¬Edible(watch) ∧ ¬Slipper(watch)

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