Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_gen

like 0

the fact that the wobbler is not conspicuous but it swoops pastorale does not hold.

sent1: that the sodium does not weaken is true. sent2: the fact that something is antiapartheid and it is a kind of a powdered is not correct if it is not aecial. sent3: if the puttyroot does not evaporate then the fact that the binder does overflow and it fronts is false. sent4: the pilgrim is not passionate. sent5: the harvest-lice does urinate but it is not photoelectric. sent6: the fact that everything is not aecial hold. sent7: a non-non-invertible thing that does recruit flavorsomeness is not expressible. sent8: the wobbler does swoop pastorale. sent9: the wobbler is not conspicuous if it is a kind of a axiology that is passionate. sent10: something does not evaporate if it is not a impairer. sent11: the puttyroot does dodge Empire and/or it is not a impairer if that the defendant romanticizes is right. sent12: if something is passionate but it is not a axiology it does not swoop pastorale. sent13: if that the lagan is antiapartheid and it does powder is not correct then it is not antiapartheid. sent14: the defendant romanticizes and is umbelliferous if that the cue is not a kind of a withe hold. sent15: the wobbler is not passionate. sent16: something is not conspicuous if it is a kind of a axiology and it is not passionate. sent17: if the bedpost does not swoop pastorale then it is non-grapelike thing that is a Navaho. sent18: if that the binder is a kind of an overflow and it is a kind of a front is not correct the wobbler is not a kind of a front. sent19: something is non-non-invertible thing that does recruit flavorsomeness if it is not antiapartheid. sent20: The pastorale does swoop wobbler. sent21: something does not evaporate if it dodges Empire. sent22: the wobbler is a kind of a axiology but it is not passionate. sent23: that the cue is not a kind of a withe is correct if something that is not grapelike is not expressible. sent24: if something does not weaken then the lagan is not grapelike.

¬(¬{B}{aa} & {A}{aa})

sent1: ¬{P}{g} sent2: (x): ¬{R}x -> ¬({O}x & {Q}x) sent3: ¬{D}{b} -> ¬({E}{a} & {C}{a}) sent4: ¬{AB}{ej} sent5: ({FE}{fn} & ¬{CI}{fn}) sent6: (x): ¬{R}x sent7: (x): (¬{M}x & {N}x) -> ¬{L}x sent8: {A}{aa} sent9: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent10: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{D}x sent11: {H}{c} -> ({G}{b} v ¬{F}{b}) sent12: (x): ({AB}x & ¬{AA}x) -> ¬{A}x sent13: ¬({O}{e} & {Q}{e}) -> ¬{O}{e} sent14: ¬{J}{d} -> ({H}{c} & {I}{c}) sent15: ¬{AB}{aa} sent16: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent17: ¬{A}{ef} -> (¬{K}{ef} & {FJ}{ef}) sent18: ¬({E}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{C}{aa} sent19: (x): ¬{O}x -> (¬{M}x & {N}x) sent20: {AC}{ab} sent21: (x): {G}x -> ¬{D}x sent22: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent23: (x): (¬{K}x & ¬{L}x) -> ¬{J}{d} sent24: (x): ¬{P}x -> ¬{K}{e}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the bedpost is not grapelike but it is a Navaho.

(¬{K}{ef} & {FJ}{ef})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the wobbler is not conspicuous but it swoops pastorale does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the sodium does not weaken is true. sent2: the fact that something is antiapartheid and it is a kind of a powdered is not correct if it is not aecial. sent3: if the puttyroot does not evaporate then the fact that the binder does overflow and it fronts is false. sent4: the pilgrim is not passionate. sent5: the harvest-lice does urinate but it is not photoelectric. sent6: the fact that everything is not aecial hold. sent7: a non-non-invertible thing that does recruit flavorsomeness is not expressible. sent8: the wobbler does swoop pastorale. sent9: the wobbler is not conspicuous if it is a kind of a axiology that is passionate. sent10: something does not evaporate if it is not a impairer. sent11: the puttyroot does dodge Empire and/or it is not a impairer if that the defendant romanticizes is right. sent12: if something is passionate but it is not a axiology it does not swoop pastorale. sent13: if that the lagan is antiapartheid and it does powder is not correct then it is not antiapartheid. sent14: the defendant romanticizes and is umbelliferous if that the cue is not a kind of a withe hold. sent15: the wobbler is not passionate. sent16: something is not conspicuous if it is a kind of a axiology and it is not passionate. sent17: if the bedpost does not swoop pastorale then it is non-grapelike thing that is a Navaho. sent18: if that the binder is a kind of an overflow and it is a kind of a front is not correct the wobbler is not a kind of a front. sent19: something is non-non-invertible thing that does recruit flavorsomeness if it is not antiapartheid. sent20: The pastorale does swoop wobbler. sent21: something does not evaporate if it dodges Empire. sent22: the wobbler is a kind of a axiology but it is not passionate. sent23: that the cue is not a kind of a withe is correct if something that is not grapelike is not expressible. sent24: if something does not weaken then the lagan is not grapelike. ; $proof$ =

sent16 -> int1: if the wobbler is both a axiology and not passionate then it is not conspicuous.; int1 & sent22 -> int2: the wobbler is not conspicuous.; int2 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is not conspicuous if it is a kind of a axiology and it is not passionate.

It is not noticeable if it is a kind of axiology and not passionate.

the wobbler does swoop pastorale.

the foreground does not speak iodination.

sent1: the mallow is not a Purcell. sent2: if the mallow is a Purcell or not a bioweapon or both the foreground does not dodge Donatism. sent3: the foreground does not speak mallow if it is not unconscientious. sent4: if the foreground does not dodge Donatism that it speaks iodination and/or is not a Purcell is not false. sent5: if something is a Aeolian then it is a Purcell. sent6: if that the foreground does recruit mischief is right then the mallow is Aeolian. sent7: something does recruit mischief and is not non-Aeolian if the fact that it does not speak mallow is not wrong. sent8: the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both if it is not a Purcell. sent9: something speaks iodination if it is a Purcell. sent10: the foreground does not speak iodination if the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both. sent11: if the mallow is not a Purcell then it is a bioweapon or dodges Donatism or both. sent12: the foreground does not speak iodination if the mallow does not dodge Donatism. sent13: that the iodination is non-Aeolian thing that does not recruit mischief is not right. sent14: the mallow is a bioweapon and/or it does dodge Donatism.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: ({A}{a} v ¬{AA}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{b} sent3: ¬{F}{b} -> ¬{E}{b} sent4: ¬{AB}{b} -> ({B}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) sent5: (x): {C}x -> {A}x sent6: {D}{b} -> {C}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({D}x & {C}x) sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent9: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent10: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent11: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent12: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent13: ¬(¬{C}{d} & ¬{D}{d}) sent14: ({AA}{a} v {AB}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

the foreground speaks iodination.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the foreground does not speak iodination. ; $context$ = sent1: the mallow is not a Purcell. sent2: if the mallow is a Purcell or not a bioweapon or both the foreground does not dodge Donatism. sent3: the foreground does not speak mallow if it is not unconscientious. sent4: if the foreground does not dodge Donatism that it speaks iodination and/or is not a Purcell is not false. sent5: if something is a Aeolian then it is a Purcell. sent6: if that the foreground does recruit mischief is right then the mallow is Aeolian. sent7: something does recruit mischief and is not non-Aeolian if the fact that it does not speak mallow is not wrong. sent8: the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both if it is not a Purcell. sent9: something speaks iodination if it is a Purcell. sent10: the foreground does not speak iodination if the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both. sent11: if the mallow is not a Purcell then it is a bioweapon or dodges Donatism or both. sent12: the foreground does not speak iodination if the mallow does not dodge Donatism. sent13: that the iodination is non-Aeolian thing that does not recruit mischief is not right. sent14: the mallow is a bioweapon and/or it does dodge Donatism. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent1 -> int1: the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both.; int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both if it is not a Purcell.

If the mallow is a bio weapon, it does not dodge Donatism or both.

the mallow is not a Purcell.

the foreground does not speak iodination.

sent1: the mallow is not a Purcell. sent2: if the mallow is a Purcell or not a bioweapon or both the foreground does not dodge Donatism. sent3: the foreground does not speak mallow if it is not unconscientious. sent4: if the foreground does not dodge Donatism that it speaks iodination and/or is not a Purcell is not false. sent5: if something is a Aeolian then it is a Purcell. sent6: if that the foreground does recruit mischief is right then the mallow is Aeolian. sent7: something does recruit mischief and is not non-Aeolian if the fact that it does not speak mallow is not wrong. sent8: the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both if it is not a Purcell. sent9: something speaks iodination if it is a Purcell. sent10: the foreground does not speak iodination if the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both. sent11: if the mallow is not a Purcell then it is a bioweapon or dodges Donatism or both. sent12: the foreground does not speak iodination if the mallow does not dodge Donatism. sent13: that the iodination is non-Aeolian thing that does not recruit mischief is not right. sent14: the mallow is a bioweapon and/or it does dodge Donatism.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: ({A}{a} v ¬{AA}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{b} sent3: ¬{F}{b} -> ¬{E}{b} sent4: ¬{AB}{b} -> ({B}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) sent5: (x): {C}x -> {A}x sent6: {D}{b} -> {C}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({D}x & {C}x) sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent9: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent10: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent11: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent12: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent13: ¬(¬{C}{d} & ¬{D}{d}) sent14: ({AA}{a} v {AB}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

the foreground speaks iodination.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the foreground does not speak iodination. ; $context$ = sent1: the mallow is not a Purcell. sent2: if the mallow is a Purcell or not a bioweapon or both the foreground does not dodge Donatism. sent3: the foreground does not speak mallow if it is not unconscientious. sent4: if the foreground does not dodge Donatism that it speaks iodination and/or is not a Purcell is not false. sent5: if something is a Aeolian then it is a Purcell. sent6: if that the foreground does recruit mischief is right then the mallow is Aeolian. sent7: something does recruit mischief and is not non-Aeolian if the fact that it does not speak mallow is not wrong. sent8: the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both if it is not a Purcell. sent9: something speaks iodination if it is a Purcell. sent10: the foreground does not speak iodination if the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both. sent11: if the mallow is not a Purcell then it is a bioweapon or dodges Donatism or both. sent12: the foreground does not speak iodination if the mallow does not dodge Donatism. sent13: that the iodination is non-Aeolian thing that does not recruit mischief is not right. sent14: the mallow is a bioweapon and/or it does dodge Donatism. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent1 -> int1: the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both.; int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both if it is not a Purcell.

If the mallow is a bioweapon, it does not dodge Donatism or both.

the foreground does not speak iodination if the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both.

that the diesel-hydraulic is not non-existential but a Zweig is wrong.

sent1: that something is existential hold if that it does not attach is not incorrect. sent2: the diesel-hydraulic is not a kind of a zone. sent3: something that does not recruit Westminster is existential. sent4: something is a misogynist. sent5: the diesel-hydraulic is not fractional. sent6: the diesel-hydraulic does not attach if there is something such that it is a misogynist. sent7: the mesohippus is a fineness if it is not cellulosid. sent8: the diesel-hydraulic is a kind of a Zweig and it recruits Westminster. sent9: there is something such that it is a Zweig. sent10: if something is a Zweig then the diesel-hydraulic does not recruit Sparidae.

¬({C}{a} & {D}{a})

sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent2: ¬{F}{a} sent3: (x): ¬{E}x -> {C}x sent4: (Ex): {A}x sent5: ¬{FS}{a} sent6: (x): {A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: ¬{HC}{dg} -> {JA}{dg} sent8: ({D}{a} & {E}{a}) sent9: (Ex): {D}x sent10: (x): {D}x -> ¬{HA}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the diesel-hydraulic is not non-existential but a Zweig is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is existential hold if that it does not attach is not incorrect. sent2: the diesel-hydraulic is not a kind of a zone. sent3: something that does not recruit Westminster is existential. sent4: something is a misogynist. sent5: the diesel-hydraulic is not fractional. sent6: the diesel-hydraulic does not attach if there is something such that it is a misogynist. sent7: the mesohippus is a fineness if it is not cellulosid. sent8: the diesel-hydraulic is a kind of a Zweig and it recruits Westminster. sent9: there is something such that it is a Zweig. sent10: if something is a Zweig then the diesel-hydraulic does not recruit Sparidae. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent6 -> int1: the diesel-hydraulic does not attach.; sent1 -> int2: if the diesel-hydraulic does not attach then it is existential.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the diesel-hydraulic is existential.; sent8 -> int4: the diesel-hydraulic is a Zweig.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is a misogynist.

Something is a misogynist.

the diesel-hydraulic does not attach if there is something such that it is a misogynist.

that the diesel-hydraulic is not non-existential but a Zweig is wrong.

sent1: that something is existential hold if that it does not attach is not incorrect. sent2: the diesel-hydraulic is not a kind of a zone. sent3: something that does not recruit Westminster is existential. sent4: something is a misogynist. sent5: the diesel-hydraulic is not fractional. sent6: the diesel-hydraulic does not attach if there is something such that it is a misogynist. sent7: the mesohippus is a fineness if it is not cellulosid. sent8: the diesel-hydraulic is a kind of a Zweig and it recruits Westminster. sent9: there is something such that it is a Zweig. sent10: if something is a Zweig then the diesel-hydraulic does not recruit Sparidae.

¬({C}{a} & {D}{a})

sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent2: ¬{F}{a} sent3: (x): ¬{E}x -> {C}x sent4: (Ex): {A}x sent5: ¬{FS}{a} sent6: (x): {A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: ¬{HC}{dg} -> {JA}{dg} sent8: ({D}{a} & {E}{a}) sent9: (Ex): {D}x sent10: (x): {D}x -> ¬{HA}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the diesel-hydraulic is not non-existential but a Zweig is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is existential hold if that it does not attach is not incorrect. sent2: the diesel-hydraulic is not a kind of a zone. sent3: something that does not recruit Westminster is existential. sent4: something is a misogynist. sent5: the diesel-hydraulic is not fractional. sent6: the diesel-hydraulic does not attach if there is something such that it is a misogynist. sent7: the mesohippus is a fineness if it is not cellulosid. sent8: the diesel-hydraulic is a kind of a Zweig and it recruits Westminster. sent9: there is something such that it is a Zweig. sent10: if something is a Zweig then the diesel-hydraulic does not recruit Sparidae. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent6 -> int1: the diesel-hydraulic does not attach.; sent1 -> int2: if the diesel-hydraulic does not attach then it is existential.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the diesel-hydraulic is existential.; sent8 -> int4: the diesel-hydraulic is a Zweig.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is a misogynist.

Someone is a misogynist.

that something is existential hold if that it does not attach is not incorrect.

that the diesel-hydraulic is not non-existential but a Zweig is wrong.

sent1: that something is existential hold if that it does not attach is not incorrect. sent2: the diesel-hydraulic is not a kind of a zone. sent3: something that does not recruit Westminster is existential. sent4: something is a misogynist. sent5: the diesel-hydraulic is not fractional. sent6: the diesel-hydraulic does not attach if there is something such that it is a misogynist. sent7: the mesohippus is a fineness if it is not cellulosid. sent8: the diesel-hydraulic is a kind of a Zweig and it recruits Westminster. sent9: there is something such that it is a Zweig. sent10: if something is a Zweig then the diesel-hydraulic does not recruit Sparidae.

¬({C}{a} & {D}{a})

sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent2: ¬{F}{a} sent3: (x): ¬{E}x -> {C}x sent4: (Ex): {A}x sent5: ¬{FS}{a} sent6: (x): {A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: ¬{HC}{dg} -> {JA}{dg} sent8: ({D}{a} & {E}{a}) sent9: (Ex): {D}x sent10: (x): {D}x -> ¬{HA}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the diesel-hydraulic is not non-existential but a Zweig is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is existential hold if that it does not attach is not incorrect. sent2: the diesel-hydraulic is not a kind of a zone. sent3: something that does not recruit Westminster is existential. sent4: something is a misogynist. sent5: the diesel-hydraulic is not fractional. sent6: the diesel-hydraulic does not attach if there is something such that it is a misogynist. sent7: the mesohippus is a fineness if it is not cellulosid. sent8: the diesel-hydraulic is a kind of a Zweig and it recruits Westminster. sent9: there is something such that it is a Zweig. sent10: if something is a Zweig then the diesel-hydraulic does not recruit Sparidae. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent6 -> int1: the diesel-hydraulic does not attach.; sent1 -> int2: if the diesel-hydraulic does not attach then it is existential.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the diesel-hydraulic is existential.; sent8 -> int4: the diesel-hydraulic is a Zweig.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is a misogynist.

Something is misogynist.

the diesel-hydraulic is a kind of a Zweig and it recruits Westminster.

if the strip is not lesser then the fact that the Uniat is a kind of absolutist thing that is not a synonymy is wrong.

¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = if the strip is not lesser then the fact that the Uniat is a kind of absolutist thing that is not a synonymy is wrong. ; $context$ = ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the plonk is a teammate that is bismuthic does not hold.

sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it is non-anthropometric thing that does not recruit waterproofing is incorrect then the conformist is neuromuscular. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it is either non-minimal or not non-bismuthic or both is not correct the answer is not a teammate. sent3: something is intramolecular. sent4: if that the plonk does not swoop horsebean is right then it is a teammate. sent5: something is either not a Charleroi or a andrena or both. sent6: that the answer is not minimal or it is a tyrannosaur or both is not correct. sent7: the necker is neoplastic and it is fertile if the fact that the papovavirus is not a kind of a visiting is not incorrect. sent8: the fact that the answer is not a kind of a tyrannosaur is right. sent9: something is not a grit. sent10: the papovavirus does not visit. sent11: the answer does not swoop horsebean. sent12: the fact that something swoops horsebean is true if it is neuromuscular. sent13: if something is neoplastic then the fact that it is not anthropometric and it does not recruit waterproofing is not right. sent14: there exists something such that it is impure. sent15: there is something such that that it is minimal and/or it is a tyrannosaur does not hold. sent16: the plonk does not swoop horsebean if there exists something such that that it is not minimal and/or it is a tyrannosaur is not correct. sent17: if that something does not swoop horsebean hold then it is a teammate and it is bismuthic. sent18: there is something such that it is not a tyrannosaur. sent19: that the plonk is not a teammate or does swoop Jew or both is false.

¬({C}{a} & {B}{a})

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) -> {D}{b} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {B}x) -> ¬{C}{aa} sent3: (Ex): {EF}x sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> {C}{a} sent5: (Ex): (¬{CE}x v {AF}x) sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent7: ¬{I}{d} -> ({G}{c} & {H}{c}) sent8: ¬{AB}{aa} sent9: (Ex): ¬{CH}x sent10: ¬{I}{d} sent11: ¬{A}{aa} sent12: (x): {D}x -> {A}x sent13: (x): {G}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) sent14: (Ex): {FQ}x sent15: (Ex): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) sent16: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent17: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({C}x & {B}x) sent18: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent19: ¬(¬{C}{a} v {FT}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the plonk is both a teammate and not non-bismuthic is not true.

¬({C}{a} & {B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the plonk is a teammate that is bismuthic does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it is non-anthropometric thing that does not recruit waterproofing is incorrect then the conformist is neuromuscular. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it is either non-minimal or not non-bismuthic or both is not correct the answer is not a teammate. sent3: something is intramolecular. sent4: if that the plonk does not swoop horsebean is right then it is a teammate. sent5: something is either not a Charleroi or a andrena or both. sent6: that the answer is not minimal or it is a tyrannosaur or both is not correct. sent7: the necker is neoplastic and it is fertile if the fact that the papovavirus is not a kind of a visiting is not incorrect. sent8: the fact that the answer is not a kind of a tyrannosaur is right. sent9: something is not a grit. sent10: the papovavirus does not visit. sent11: the answer does not swoop horsebean. sent12: the fact that something swoops horsebean is true if it is neuromuscular. sent13: if something is neoplastic then the fact that it is not anthropometric and it does not recruit waterproofing is not right. sent14: there exists something such that it is impure. sent15: there is something such that that it is minimal and/or it is a tyrannosaur does not hold. sent16: the plonk does not swoop horsebean if there exists something such that that it is not minimal and/or it is a tyrannosaur is not correct. sent17: if that something does not swoop horsebean hold then it is a teammate and it is bismuthic. sent18: there is something such that it is not a tyrannosaur. sent19: that the plonk is not a teammate or does swoop Jew or both is false. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: there exists something such that that it is not minimal or a tyrannosaur or both does not hold.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: the plonk does not swoop horsebean.; sent17 -> int3: if the plonk does not swoop horsebean then it is a teammate and it is bismuthic.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the answer is not minimal or it is a tyrannosaur or both is not correct.

The answer is either a tyrannosaur or not.

the plonk does not swoop horsebean if there exists something such that that it is not minimal and/or it is a tyrannosaur is not correct.

the fact that the plonk is a teammate that is bismuthic does not hold.

sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it is non-anthropometric thing that does not recruit waterproofing is incorrect then the conformist is neuromuscular. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it is either non-minimal or not non-bismuthic or both is not correct the answer is not a teammate. sent3: something is intramolecular. sent4: if that the plonk does not swoop horsebean is right then it is a teammate. sent5: something is either not a Charleroi or a andrena or both. sent6: that the answer is not minimal or it is a tyrannosaur or both is not correct. sent7: the necker is neoplastic and it is fertile if the fact that the papovavirus is not a kind of a visiting is not incorrect. sent8: the fact that the answer is not a kind of a tyrannosaur is right. sent9: something is not a grit. sent10: the papovavirus does not visit. sent11: the answer does not swoop horsebean. sent12: the fact that something swoops horsebean is true if it is neuromuscular. sent13: if something is neoplastic then the fact that it is not anthropometric and it does not recruit waterproofing is not right. sent14: there exists something such that it is impure. sent15: there is something such that that it is minimal and/or it is a tyrannosaur does not hold. sent16: the plonk does not swoop horsebean if there exists something such that that it is not minimal and/or it is a tyrannosaur is not correct. sent17: if that something does not swoop horsebean hold then it is a teammate and it is bismuthic. sent18: there is something such that it is not a tyrannosaur. sent19: that the plonk is not a teammate or does swoop Jew or both is false.

¬({C}{a} & {B}{a})

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) -> {D}{b} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {B}x) -> ¬{C}{aa} sent3: (Ex): {EF}x sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> {C}{a} sent5: (Ex): (¬{CE}x v {AF}x) sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent7: ¬{I}{d} -> ({G}{c} & {H}{c}) sent8: ¬{AB}{aa} sent9: (Ex): ¬{CH}x sent10: ¬{I}{d} sent11: ¬{A}{aa} sent12: (x): {D}x -> {A}x sent13: (x): {G}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) sent14: (Ex): {FQ}x sent15: (Ex): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) sent16: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent17: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({C}x & {B}x) sent18: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent19: ¬(¬{C}{a} v {FT}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the plonk is both a teammate and not non-bismuthic is not true.

¬({C}{a} & {B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the plonk is a teammate that is bismuthic does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it is non-anthropometric thing that does not recruit waterproofing is incorrect then the conformist is neuromuscular. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it is either non-minimal or not non-bismuthic or both is not correct the answer is not a teammate. sent3: something is intramolecular. sent4: if that the plonk does not swoop horsebean is right then it is a teammate. sent5: something is either not a Charleroi or a andrena or both. sent6: that the answer is not minimal or it is a tyrannosaur or both is not correct. sent7: the necker is neoplastic and it is fertile if the fact that the papovavirus is not a kind of a visiting is not incorrect. sent8: the fact that the answer is not a kind of a tyrannosaur is right. sent9: something is not a grit. sent10: the papovavirus does not visit. sent11: the answer does not swoop horsebean. sent12: the fact that something swoops horsebean is true if it is neuromuscular. sent13: if something is neoplastic then the fact that it is not anthropometric and it does not recruit waterproofing is not right. sent14: there exists something such that it is impure. sent15: there is something such that that it is minimal and/or it is a tyrannosaur does not hold. sent16: the plonk does not swoop horsebean if there exists something such that that it is not minimal and/or it is a tyrannosaur is not correct. sent17: if that something does not swoop horsebean hold then it is a teammate and it is bismuthic. sent18: there is something such that it is not a tyrannosaur. sent19: that the plonk is not a teammate or does swoop Jew or both is false. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: there exists something such that that it is not minimal or a tyrannosaur or both does not hold.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: the plonk does not swoop horsebean.; sent17 -> int3: if the plonk does not swoop horsebean then it is a teammate and it is bismuthic.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the answer is not minimal or it is a tyrannosaur or both is not correct.

The answer is not minimal or it is a tyrannosaur.

if that something does not swoop horsebean hold then it is a teammate and it is bismuthic.

the Palatinate is iconic.

sent1: the Palatinate does not upload if that that the Capricorn does upload and it is algal is not right is correct. sent2: the Palatinate is nondeductible. sent3: something is not a kind of a consulate and is not iconic if it is expressible. sent4: the Palatinate is not iconic if the Alka-seltzer scavenges. sent5: the Palatinate is not iconic if the fact that the Alka-seltzer does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible does not hold. sent6: the fact that something does upload but it is not nondeductible is not correct if it is not iconic. sent7: the Alka-seltzer is algal and does not upload. sent8: that something does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible is wrong if it does not upload. sent9: if the abscission is not iconic that the fact that the Capricorn does upload and is algal is not true is not false.

{B}{a}

sent1: ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent2: {AB}{a} sent3: (x): {E}x -> (¬{D}x & ¬{B}x) sent4: {AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: ({C}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: ¬{B}{c} -> ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Palatinate does not upload.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Palatinate is iconic. ; $context$ = sent1: the Palatinate does not upload if that that the Capricorn does upload and it is algal is not right is correct. sent2: the Palatinate is nondeductible. sent3: something is not a kind of a consulate and is not iconic if it is expressible. sent4: the Palatinate is not iconic if the Alka-seltzer scavenges. sent5: the Palatinate is not iconic if the fact that the Alka-seltzer does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible does not hold. sent6: the fact that something does upload but it is not nondeductible is not correct if it is not iconic. sent7: the Alka-seltzer is algal and does not upload. sent8: that something does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible is wrong if it does not upload. sent9: if the abscission is not iconic that the fact that the Capricorn does upload and is algal is not true is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the fact that the fact that the Alka-seltzer does not scavenge and is not nondeductible is wrong if the Alka-seltzer does not upload hold.; sent7 -> int2: the Alka-seltzer does not upload.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the Alka-seltzer does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible is not right.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that something does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible is wrong if it does not upload.

If something does not upload, it is wrong.

the Alka-seltzer is algal and does not upload.

the Palatinate is iconic.

sent1: the Palatinate does not upload if that that the Capricorn does upload and it is algal is not right is correct. sent2: the Palatinate is nondeductible. sent3: something is not a kind of a consulate and is not iconic if it is expressible. sent4: the Palatinate is not iconic if the Alka-seltzer scavenges. sent5: the Palatinate is not iconic if the fact that the Alka-seltzer does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible does not hold. sent6: the fact that something does upload but it is not nondeductible is not correct if it is not iconic. sent7: the Alka-seltzer is algal and does not upload. sent8: that something does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible is wrong if it does not upload. sent9: if the abscission is not iconic that the fact that the Capricorn does upload and is algal is not true is not false.

{B}{a}

sent1: ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent2: {AB}{a} sent3: (x): {E}x -> (¬{D}x & ¬{B}x) sent4: {AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: ({C}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: ¬{B}{c} -> ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Palatinate does not upload.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Palatinate is iconic. ; $context$ = sent1: the Palatinate does not upload if that that the Capricorn does upload and it is algal is not right is correct. sent2: the Palatinate is nondeductible. sent3: something is not a kind of a consulate and is not iconic if it is expressible. sent4: the Palatinate is not iconic if the Alka-seltzer scavenges. sent5: the Palatinate is not iconic if the fact that the Alka-seltzer does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible does not hold. sent6: the fact that something does upload but it is not nondeductible is not correct if it is not iconic. sent7: the Alka-seltzer is algal and does not upload. sent8: that something does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible is wrong if it does not upload. sent9: if the abscission is not iconic that the fact that the Capricorn does upload and is algal is not true is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the fact that the fact that the Alka-seltzer does not scavenge and is not nondeductible is wrong if the Alka-seltzer does not upload hold.; sent7 -> int2: the Alka-seltzer does not upload.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the Alka-seltzer does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible is not right.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that something does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible is wrong if it does not upload.

It is wrong if something does not upload.

the Palatinate is not iconic if the fact that the Alka-seltzer does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible does not hold.

the recruiting crossbench and/or the walk happens.

sent1: both the speaking crossbench and the reproduction occurs. sent2: that the recruiting crossbench and/or the walking happens does not hold if the scraping does not occur. sent3: if the aceticness occurs that either the pavage does not occur or the robbing happens or both is incorrect. sent4: that if the hiatus does not occur not the swooping abiotrophy but the unbrokenness happens is not incorrect. sent5: the reverberantness does not occur. sent6: the recruiting rydberg is prevented by that the recruiting haymow occurs and the Levantineness happens. sent7: the intolerantness occurs and the aceticness does not occur. sent8: the atrocity does not occur and the perforation does not occur if the embolism does not occur. sent9: the cyclicness happens if the fact that the non-cyclicness and the recruiting crossbench happens is false. sent10: if the aceticness does not occur then that both the non-cyclicness and the recruiting crossbench happens is wrong. sent11: that the embolism happens is prevented by that the swooping abiotrophy does not occur and the electiveness does not occur. sent12: both the aceticness and the intolerantness happens if the recruiting rydberg does not occur. sent13: the resurrection and the patriarchalness happens. sent14: that both the recruiting haymow and the bastardization occurs is triggered by the unreverberantness. sent15: if the fact that the robbing happens is not incorrect then the recruiting crossbench occurs. sent16: the scraping happens. sent17: both the amnestying and the Levantineness happens if the atrocity does not occur. sent18: the hiatus does not occur. sent19: if the fact that the pavage does not occur or the robbing happens or both does not hold the scraping does not occur.

({C} v {D})

sent1: ({AS} & {IR}) sent2: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} v {D}) sent3: {F} -> ¬(¬{E} v {B}) sent4: ¬{T} -> (¬{Q} & {S}) sent5: ¬{P} sent6: ({J} & {I}) -> ¬{H} sent7: ({G} & ¬{F}) sent8: ¬{N} -> (¬{L} & ¬{M}) sent9: ¬(¬{DR} & {C}) -> {DR} sent10: ¬{F} -> ¬(¬{DR} & {C}) sent11: (¬{Q} & ¬{R}) -> ¬{N} sent12: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent13: ({AK} & {BL}) sent14: ¬{P} -> ({J} & {O}) sent15: {B} -> {C} sent16: {A} sent17: ¬{L} -> ({K} & {I}) sent18: ¬{T} sent19: ¬(¬{E} v {B}) -> ¬{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the cyclicness occurs and the diffusion occurs.

({DR} & {ER})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the recruiting crossbench and/or the walk happens. ; $context$ = sent1: both the speaking crossbench and the reproduction occurs. sent2: that the recruiting crossbench and/or the walking happens does not hold if the scraping does not occur. sent3: if the aceticness occurs that either the pavage does not occur or the robbing happens or both is incorrect. sent4: that if the hiatus does not occur not the swooping abiotrophy but the unbrokenness happens is not incorrect. sent5: the reverberantness does not occur. sent6: the recruiting rydberg is prevented by that the recruiting haymow occurs and the Levantineness happens. sent7: the intolerantness occurs and the aceticness does not occur. sent8: the atrocity does not occur and the perforation does not occur if the embolism does not occur. sent9: the cyclicness happens if the fact that the non-cyclicness and the recruiting crossbench happens is false. sent10: if the aceticness does not occur then that both the non-cyclicness and the recruiting crossbench happens is wrong. sent11: that the embolism happens is prevented by that the swooping abiotrophy does not occur and the electiveness does not occur. sent12: both the aceticness and the intolerantness happens if the recruiting rydberg does not occur. sent13: the resurrection and the patriarchalness happens. sent14: that both the recruiting haymow and the bastardization occurs is triggered by the unreverberantness. sent15: if the fact that the robbing happens is not incorrect then the recruiting crossbench occurs. sent16: the scraping happens. sent17: both the amnestying and the Levantineness happens if the atrocity does not occur. sent18: the hiatus does not occur. sent19: if the fact that the pavage does not occur or the robbing happens or both does not hold the scraping does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

both the aceticness and the intolerantness happens if the recruiting rydberg does not occur.

both the aceticness and the intolerantness happens if the recruiting rydberg does not occur.

the scraping happens.

the fact that the skyline is not an intifada and does not recruit mercantilism is wrong.

sent1: if the skyline does not recruit usufructuary it is not a kind of a Ecballium. sent2: if something devotes it recruits Stuttgart and/or does not recruit usufructuary. sent3: if the jawan recruits Stuttgart the missal does recruit usufructuary. sent4: the snow-in-summer does not dodge Key and/or it does not stipulate. sent5: the fact that the skyline does not recruit Bruchidae is correct if it does not swoop duce. sent6: the engorgement is not a Bigfoot if the genealogist is not fallible and is not a subscriber. sent7: if something is a Crockett then the missal glimpses and it is zoic. sent8: the snow-in-summer does not stipulate if it does not dodge Key or it does not stipulate or both. sent9: something does devote and is a hang if it is not pyrogallic. sent10: if the fact that the Bermudan swoops Jute is true then the fact that the genealogist does swoop seniti is right. sent11: that something is not fallible and is not a kind of a subscriber is true if it does swoop seniti. sent12: the fact that the skyline does swoop dosimetry and does not recruit usufructuary is not true. sent13: if the snow-in-summer does not stipulate then the Bermudan does swoop Jute and is a Assumption. sent14: if the slating is not a Ecballium the skyline is not an intifada and does not recruit mercantilism. sent15: that the skyline does not recruit usufructuary is not false. sent16: the fact that that the rootstock does sled but it does not recruit mercantilism is not false is not true if it does not bate. sent17: if the jawan does not recruit usufructuary then the fact that the missal recruit usufructuary is correct. sent18: the fact that the glomerulus is not a Ecballium and does not recruit recall is not right if that it is not a lithomancy is not incorrect. sent19: That the usufructuary does not recruit skyline is not false. sent20: something is a kind of a Crockett that recruits traveled if it is not a kind of a Bigfoot. sent21: the fact that the skullcap is antithyroid but it is not a clomipramine is wrong if it is not hermeneutics. sent22: everything is non-pyrogallic. sent23: the slating is a Ecballium if the missal is not a glimpse and it is not a Ecballium.

¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

sent1: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent2: (x): {E}x -> ({D}x v ¬{B}x) sent3: {D}{c} -> {B}{b} sent4: (¬{S}{h} v ¬{Q}{h}) sent5: ¬{AL}{aa} -> ¬{GH}{aa} sent6: (¬{K}{f} & ¬{L}{f}) -> ¬{J}{d} sent7: (x): {G}x -> ({C}{b} & {F}{b}) sent8: (¬{S}{h} v ¬{Q}{h}) -> ¬{Q}{h} sent9: (x): ¬{N}x -> ({E}x & {H}x) sent10: {O}{g} -> {M}{f} sent11: (x): {M}x -> (¬{K}x & ¬{L}x) sent12: ¬({HE}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) sent13: ¬{Q}{h} -> ({O}{g} & {P}{g}) sent14: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent15: ¬{B}{aa} sent16: ¬{CR}{ce} -> ¬({IS}{ce} & ¬{AB}{ce}) sent17: ¬{B}{c} -> {B}{b} sent18: ¬{R}{bq} -> ¬(¬{A}{bq} & ¬{AN}{bq}) sent19: ¬{AC}{ab} sent20: (x): ¬{J}x -> ({G}x & {I}x) sent21: ¬{JC}{fm} -> ¬({FP}{fm} & ¬{HJ}{fm}) sent22: (x): ¬{N}x sent23: (¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> {A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the skyline is not an intifada and it does not recruit mercantilism.

(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the skyline is not an intifada and does not recruit mercantilism is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the skyline does not recruit usufructuary it is not a kind of a Ecballium. sent2: if something devotes it recruits Stuttgart and/or does not recruit usufructuary. sent3: if the jawan recruits Stuttgart the missal does recruit usufructuary. sent4: the snow-in-summer does not dodge Key and/or it does not stipulate. sent5: the fact that the skyline does not recruit Bruchidae is correct if it does not swoop duce. sent6: the engorgement is not a Bigfoot if the genealogist is not fallible and is not a subscriber. sent7: if something is a Crockett then the missal glimpses and it is zoic. sent8: the snow-in-summer does not stipulate if it does not dodge Key or it does not stipulate or both. sent9: something does devote and is a hang if it is not pyrogallic. sent10: if the fact that the Bermudan swoops Jute is true then the fact that the genealogist does swoop seniti is right. sent11: that something is not fallible and is not a kind of a subscriber is true if it does swoop seniti. sent12: the fact that the skyline does swoop dosimetry and does not recruit usufructuary is not true. sent13: if the snow-in-summer does not stipulate then the Bermudan does swoop Jute and is a Assumption. sent14: if the slating is not a Ecballium the skyline is not an intifada and does not recruit mercantilism. sent15: that the skyline does not recruit usufructuary is not false. sent16: the fact that that the rootstock does sled but it does not recruit mercantilism is not false is not true if it does not bate. sent17: if the jawan does not recruit usufructuary then the fact that the missal recruit usufructuary is correct. sent18: the fact that the glomerulus is not a Ecballium and does not recruit recall is not right if that it is not a lithomancy is not incorrect. sent19: That the usufructuary does not recruit skyline is not false. sent20: something is a kind of a Crockett that recruits traveled if it is not a kind of a Bigfoot. sent21: the fact that the skullcap is antithyroid but it is not a clomipramine is wrong if it is not hermeneutics. sent22: everything is non-pyrogallic. sent23: the slating is a Ecballium if the missal is not a glimpse and it is not a Ecballium. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the skyline does not recruit usufructuary it is not a kind of a Ecballium.

if the skyline does not recruit usufructuary it is not a kind of a Ecballium.

that the skyline does not recruit usufructuary is not false.

the periosteum is not a kind of a Pica.

sent1: the silhouette is a Beaverbrook. sent2: if that something does recruit Jew and is a kind of a Kabbalah is wrong it is not plumbaginaceous. sent3: a non-plumbaginaceous thing does swoop hypertrophy and is a Pica. sent4: the silhouette is not frivolous. sent5: if the silhouette does not swoop hypertrophy the fact that the Southerner is plumbaginaceous and it is a kind of a Beaverbrook is false. sent6: the periosteum is not a kind of a Pica if the fact that the Southerner does not swoop hypertrophy and is a Kabbalah is false. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is labyrinthine thing that does not dodge lull is wrong. sent8: if something does recruit bluefish but it is not a Pica then it is not a headgear. sent9: a non-frivolous Beaverbrook is not plumbaginaceous.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: {AA}{aa} sent2: (x): ¬({E}x & {C}x) -> ¬{B}x sent3: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}x & {D}x) sent4: ¬{AB}{aa} sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({B}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent6: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent7: (Ex): ¬({G}x & ¬{H}x) sent8: (x): ({BR}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{BL}x sent9: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the periosteum is not a kind of a headgear if it does recruit bluefish and it is not a Pica.

({BR}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> ¬{BL}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the periosteum is not a kind of a Pica. ; $context$ = sent1: the silhouette is a Beaverbrook. sent2: if that something does recruit Jew and is a kind of a Kabbalah is wrong it is not plumbaginaceous. sent3: a non-plumbaginaceous thing does swoop hypertrophy and is a Pica. sent4: the silhouette is not frivolous. sent5: if the silhouette does not swoop hypertrophy the fact that the Southerner is plumbaginaceous and it is a kind of a Beaverbrook is false. sent6: the periosteum is not a kind of a Pica if the fact that the Southerner does not swoop hypertrophy and is a Kabbalah is false. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is labyrinthine thing that does not dodge lull is wrong. sent8: if something does recruit bluefish but it is not a Pica then it is not a headgear. sent9: a non-frivolous Beaverbrook is not plumbaginaceous. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

a non-frivolous Beaverbrook is not plumbaginaceous.

A non-frivolous Beaverbrook is not plumbaginaceous.

the silhouette is a Beaverbrook.

the periosteum is not a kind of a Pica.

sent1: the silhouette is a Beaverbrook. sent2: if that something does recruit Jew and is a kind of a Kabbalah is wrong it is not plumbaginaceous. sent3: a non-plumbaginaceous thing does swoop hypertrophy and is a Pica. sent4: the silhouette is not frivolous. sent5: if the silhouette does not swoop hypertrophy the fact that the Southerner is plumbaginaceous and it is a kind of a Beaverbrook is false. sent6: the periosteum is not a kind of a Pica if the fact that the Southerner does not swoop hypertrophy and is a Kabbalah is false. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is labyrinthine thing that does not dodge lull is wrong. sent8: if something does recruit bluefish but it is not a Pica then it is not a headgear. sent9: a non-frivolous Beaverbrook is not plumbaginaceous.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: {AA}{aa} sent2: (x): ¬({E}x & {C}x) -> ¬{B}x sent3: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}x & {D}x) sent4: ¬{AB}{aa} sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({B}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent6: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent7: (Ex): ¬({G}x & ¬{H}x) sent8: (x): ({BR}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{BL}x sent9: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the periosteum is not a kind of a headgear if it does recruit bluefish and it is not a Pica.

({BR}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> ¬{BL}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the periosteum is not a kind of a Pica. ; $context$ = sent1: the silhouette is a Beaverbrook. sent2: if that something does recruit Jew and is a kind of a Kabbalah is wrong it is not plumbaginaceous. sent3: a non-plumbaginaceous thing does swoop hypertrophy and is a Pica. sent4: the silhouette is not frivolous. sent5: if the silhouette does not swoop hypertrophy the fact that the Southerner is plumbaginaceous and it is a kind of a Beaverbrook is false. sent6: the periosteum is not a kind of a Pica if the fact that the Southerner does not swoop hypertrophy and is a Kabbalah is false. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is labyrinthine thing that does not dodge lull is wrong. sent8: if something does recruit bluefish but it is not a Pica then it is not a headgear. sent9: a non-frivolous Beaverbrook is not plumbaginaceous. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

a non-frivolous Beaverbrook is not plumbaginaceous.

The non-frivolous Beaverbrook is not plumbaginaceous.

the silhouette is not frivolous.

the flybridge is not a fold.

sent1: the flybridge is non-Senegalese a TLC if it is not a fold. sent2: The technocracy does not dodge haymow. sent3: there is nothing such that it is not a result or it is a trapezohedron or both. sent4: something is not a TLC if it does not swoop gallbladder and is Senegalese. sent5: something is non-jittery if the fact that it does not result and/or is a trapezohedron is wrong. sent6: the haymow does not dodge technocracy. sent7: the haymow does not swoop gallbladder but it is Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy. sent8: if the haymow is not a TLC then the flybridge does not fold. sent9: the fact that the haymow is not back-channel is not incorrect. sent10: something is not a Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy and it swoops gallbladder. sent11: something is not a Senegalese if it dodges technocracy and it is a TLC.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: ¬{C}{b} -> (¬{AB}{b} & {B}{b}) sent2: ¬{AC}{aa} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{F}x v {E}x) sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: (x): ¬(¬{F}x v {E}x) -> ¬{D}x sent6: ¬{A}{a} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent8: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent9: ¬{IN}{a} sent10: (x): (¬{A}x & {AA}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent11: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{AB}x

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the change is not a kind of a TLC hold.

¬{B}{cu}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the flybridge is not a fold. ; $context$ = sent1: the flybridge is non-Senegalese a TLC if it is not a fold. sent2: The technocracy does not dodge haymow. sent3: there is nothing such that it is not a result or it is a trapezohedron or both. sent4: something is not a TLC if it does not swoop gallbladder and is Senegalese. sent5: something is non-jittery if the fact that it does not result and/or is a trapezohedron is wrong. sent6: the haymow does not dodge technocracy. sent7: the haymow does not swoop gallbladder but it is Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy. sent8: if the haymow is not a TLC then the flybridge does not fold. sent9: the fact that the haymow is not back-channel is not incorrect. sent10: something is not a Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy and it swoops gallbladder. sent11: something is not a Senegalese if it dodges technocracy and it is a TLC. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent6 -> int1: that the haymow does not swoop gallbladder but it is a Senegalese is not incorrect.; sent4 -> int2: the haymow is not a TLC if it does not swoop gallbladder and is a Senegalese.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the haymow is not a TLC.; int3 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the haymow does not swoop gallbladder but it is Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy.

The haymow does not swoop the gallbladder, but it does dodge technocracy.

the haymow does not dodge technocracy.

the flybridge is not a fold.

sent1: the flybridge is non-Senegalese a TLC if it is not a fold. sent2: The technocracy does not dodge haymow. sent3: there is nothing such that it is not a result or it is a trapezohedron or both. sent4: something is not a TLC if it does not swoop gallbladder and is Senegalese. sent5: something is non-jittery if the fact that it does not result and/or is a trapezohedron is wrong. sent6: the haymow does not dodge technocracy. sent7: the haymow does not swoop gallbladder but it is Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy. sent8: if the haymow is not a TLC then the flybridge does not fold. sent9: the fact that the haymow is not back-channel is not incorrect. sent10: something is not a Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy and it swoops gallbladder. sent11: something is not a Senegalese if it dodges technocracy and it is a TLC.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: ¬{C}{b} -> (¬{AB}{b} & {B}{b}) sent2: ¬{AC}{aa} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{F}x v {E}x) sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: (x): ¬(¬{F}x v {E}x) -> ¬{D}x sent6: ¬{A}{a} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent8: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent9: ¬{IN}{a} sent10: (x): (¬{A}x & {AA}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent11: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{AB}x

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the change is not a kind of a TLC hold.

¬{B}{cu}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the flybridge is not a fold. ; $context$ = sent1: the flybridge is non-Senegalese a TLC if it is not a fold. sent2: The technocracy does not dodge haymow. sent3: there is nothing such that it is not a result or it is a trapezohedron or both. sent4: something is not a TLC if it does not swoop gallbladder and is Senegalese. sent5: something is non-jittery if the fact that it does not result and/or is a trapezohedron is wrong. sent6: the haymow does not dodge technocracy. sent7: the haymow does not swoop gallbladder but it is Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy. sent8: if the haymow is not a TLC then the flybridge does not fold. sent9: the fact that the haymow is not back-channel is not incorrect. sent10: something is not a Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy and it swoops gallbladder. sent11: something is not a Senegalese if it dodges technocracy and it is a TLC. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent6 -> int1: that the haymow does not swoop gallbladder but it is a Senegalese is not incorrect.; sent4 -> int2: the haymow is not a TLC if it does not swoop gallbladder and is a Senegalese.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the haymow is not a TLC.; int3 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the haymow does not swoop gallbladder but it is Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy.

The haymow does not swoop the gallbladder but it does dodge technocracy.

something is not a TLC if it does not swoop gallbladder and is Senegalese.

the flybridge is not a fold.

sent1: the flybridge is non-Senegalese a TLC if it is not a fold. sent2: The technocracy does not dodge haymow. sent3: there is nothing such that it is not a result or it is a trapezohedron or both. sent4: something is not a TLC if it does not swoop gallbladder and is Senegalese. sent5: something is non-jittery if the fact that it does not result and/or is a trapezohedron is wrong. sent6: the haymow does not dodge technocracy. sent7: the haymow does not swoop gallbladder but it is Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy. sent8: if the haymow is not a TLC then the flybridge does not fold. sent9: the fact that the haymow is not back-channel is not incorrect. sent10: something is not a Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy and it swoops gallbladder. sent11: something is not a Senegalese if it dodges technocracy and it is a TLC.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: ¬{C}{b} -> (¬{AB}{b} & {B}{b}) sent2: ¬{AC}{aa} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{F}x v {E}x) sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: (x): ¬(¬{F}x v {E}x) -> ¬{D}x sent6: ¬{A}{a} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent8: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent9: ¬{IN}{a} sent10: (x): (¬{A}x & {AA}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent11: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{AB}x

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the change is not a kind of a TLC hold.

¬{B}{cu}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the flybridge is not a fold. ; $context$ = sent1: the flybridge is non-Senegalese a TLC if it is not a fold. sent2: The technocracy does not dodge haymow. sent3: there is nothing such that it is not a result or it is a trapezohedron or both. sent4: something is not a TLC if it does not swoop gallbladder and is Senegalese. sent5: something is non-jittery if the fact that it does not result and/or is a trapezohedron is wrong. sent6: the haymow does not dodge technocracy. sent7: the haymow does not swoop gallbladder but it is Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy. sent8: if the haymow is not a TLC then the flybridge does not fold. sent9: the fact that the haymow is not back-channel is not incorrect. sent10: something is not a Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy and it swoops gallbladder. sent11: something is not a Senegalese if it dodges technocracy and it is a TLC. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent6 -> int1: that the haymow does not swoop gallbladder but it is a Senegalese is not incorrect.; sent4 -> int2: the haymow is not a TLC if it does not swoop gallbladder and is a Senegalese.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the haymow is not a TLC.; int3 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the haymow does not swoop gallbladder but it is Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy.

The haymow doesn't swoop the gallbladder but it does dodge technocracy.

if the haymow is not a TLC then the flybridge does not fold.

the cereal is a bouillabaisse but it is not Monacan.

sent1: the cereal does not rap and it is not a kind of a choke if it does dodge motorcade. sent2: if something recruits pectin then it is a bouillabaisse. sent3: if the fact that something is not a rap is right then it is either a bouillabaisse or not Monacan or both. sent4: there is something such that it is not a Eleotridae. sent5: that the cereal is a rap and does not recruit pectin does not hold. sent6: if the fact that the cereal does rap but it does not recruit pectin does not hold then it does recruit pectin. sent7: the fact that either the boar is not a Jerome or it is a Eleotridae or both is not right. sent8: the consomme is non-Monacan if something is a bouillabaisse or it is not non-Monacan or both.

({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a})

sent1: {F}{a} -> (¬{D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent2: (x): {C}x -> {B}x sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x v ¬{A}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent5: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent6: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {C}{a} sent7: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent8: (x): ({B}x v ¬{A}x) -> ¬{A}{bp}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the consomme does recruit pectin.

{C}{bp}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the cereal is a bouillabaisse but it is not Monacan. ; $context$ = sent1: the cereal does not rap and it is not a kind of a choke if it does dodge motorcade. sent2: if something recruits pectin then it is a bouillabaisse. sent3: if the fact that something is not a rap is right then it is either a bouillabaisse or not Monacan or both. sent4: there is something such that it is not a Eleotridae. sent5: that the cereal is a rap and does not recruit pectin does not hold. sent6: if the fact that the cereal does rap but it does not recruit pectin does not hold then it does recruit pectin. sent7: the fact that either the boar is not a Jerome or it is a Eleotridae or both is not right. sent8: the consomme is non-Monacan if something is a bouillabaisse or it is not non-Monacan or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that either the boar is not a Jerome or it is a Eleotridae or both is not right.

The fact that it is a Eleotridae or not is not right.

if something recruits pectin then it is a bouillabaisse.

the cereal is a bouillabaisse but it is not Monacan.

sent1: the cereal does not rap and it is not a kind of a choke if it does dodge motorcade. sent2: if something recruits pectin then it is a bouillabaisse. sent3: if the fact that something is not a rap is right then it is either a bouillabaisse or not Monacan or both. sent4: there is something such that it is not a Eleotridae. sent5: that the cereal is a rap and does not recruit pectin does not hold. sent6: if the fact that the cereal does rap but it does not recruit pectin does not hold then it does recruit pectin. sent7: the fact that either the boar is not a Jerome or it is a Eleotridae or both is not right. sent8: the consomme is non-Monacan if something is a bouillabaisse or it is not non-Monacan or both.

({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a})

sent1: {F}{a} -> (¬{D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent2: (x): {C}x -> {B}x sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x v ¬{A}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent5: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent6: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {C}{a} sent7: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent8: (x): ({B}x v ¬{A}x) -> ¬{A}{bp}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the consomme does recruit pectin.

{C}{bp}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the cereal is a bouillabaisse but it is not Monacan. ; $context$ = sent1: the cereal does not rap and it is not a kind of a choke if it does dodge motorcade. sent2: if something recruits pectin then it is a bouillabaisse. sent3: if the fact that something is not a rap is right then it is either a bouillabaisse or not Monacan or both. sent4: there is something such that it is not a Eleotridae. sent5: that the cereal is a rap and does not recruit pectin does not hold. sent6: if the fact that the cereal does rap but it does not recruit pectin does not hold then it does recruit pectin. sent7: the fact that either the boar is not a Jerome or it is a Eleotridae or both is not right. sent8: the consomme is non-Monacan if something is a bouillabaisse or it is not non-Monacan or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that either the boar is not a Jerome or it is a Eleotridae or both is not right.

The fact that the boar is not a Jerome or Eleotridae is not right.

if the fact that the cereal does rap but it does not recruit pectin does not hold then it does recruit pectin.

the cereal is a bouillabaisse but it is not Monacan.

sent1: the cereal does not rap and it is not a kind of a choke if it does dodge motorcade. sent2: if something recruits pectin then it is a bouillabaisse. sent3: if the fact that something is not a rap is right then it is either a bouillabaisse or not Monacan or both. sent4: there is something such that it is not a Eleotridae. sent5: that the cereal is a rap and does not recruit pectin does not hold. sent6: if the fact that the cereal does rap but it does not recruit pectin does not hold then it does recruit pectin. sent7: the fact that either the boar is not a Jerome or it is a Eleotridae or both is not right. sent8: the consomme is non-Monacan if something is a bouillabaisse or it is not non-Monacan or both.

({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a})

sent1: {F}{a} -> (¬{D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent2: (x): {C}x -> {B}x sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x v ¬{A}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent5: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent6: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {C}{a} sent7: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent8: (x): ({B}x v ¬{A}x) -> ¬{A}{bp}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the consomme does recruit pectin.

{C}{bp}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the cereal is a bouillabaisse but it is not Monacan. ; $context$ = sent1: the cereal does not rap and it is not a kind of a choke if it does dodge motorcade. sent2: if something recruits pectin then it is a bouillabaisse. sent3: if the fact that something is not a rap is right then it is either a bouillabaisse or not Monacan or both. sent4: there is something such that it is not a Eleotridae. sent5: that the cereal is a rap and does not recruit pectin does not hold. sent6: if the fact that the cereal does rap but it does not recruit pectin does not hold then it does recruit pectin. sent7: the fact that either the boar is not a Jerome or it is a Eleotridae or both is not right. sent8: the consomme is non-Monacan if something is a bouillabaisse or it is not non-Monacan or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that either the boar is not a Jerome or it is a Eleotridae or both is not right.

The fact that the boar isn't a Jerome or Eleotridae isn't right.

that the cereal is a rap and does not recruit pectin does not hold.

that the basophil is not cecal hold.

sent1: that the basophil is both a rennet and a takeover is wrong. sent2: if something is a modernization but it is not a rennet then it is not cecal. sent3: if the inkberry is a keratotomy and it is cecal then that it is not a kind of a rennet is right. sent4: the basophil is a kind of a modernization if the inkberry is both not a daub and not subsurface. sent5: the inkberry is not a daub and it is not subsurface. sent6: the basophil is not a rennet if that it is a rennet and a takeover is wrong.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: ¬({A}{b} & {E}{b}) sent2: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: ({D}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent4: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent5: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent6: ¬({A}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{A}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

the humanities is not Aberdonian and it is not a kind of a modernization.

(¬{EO}{ig} & ¬{B}{ig})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the basophil is not cecal hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the basophil is both a rennet and a takeover is wrong. sent2: if something is a modernization but it is not a rennet then it is not cecal. sent3: if the inkberry is a keratotomy and it is cecal then that it is not a kind of a rennet is right. sent4: the basophil is a kind of a modernization if the inkberry is both not a daub and not subsurface. sent5: the inkberry is not a daub and it is not subsurface. sent6: the basophil is not a rennet if that it is a rennet and a takeover is wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the basophil is a modernization.; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: the basophil is not a rennet.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the basophil is a modernization but not a rennet.; sent2 -> int4: if the basophil is a modernization and not a rennet it is not cecal.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the basophil is a kind of a modernization if the inkberry is both not a daub and not subsurface.

The basophil is a kind of modernization if the inkberry is not a daub.

the inkberry is not a daub and it is not subsurface.

that the basophil is not cecal hold.

sent1: that the basophil is both a rennet and a takeover is wrong. sent2: if something is a modernization but it is not a rennet then it is not cecal. sent3: if the inkberry is a keratotomy and it is cecal then that it is not a kind of a rennet is right. sent4: the basophil is a kind of a modernization if the inkberry is both not a daub and not subsurface. sent5: the inkberry is not a daub and it is not subsurface. sent6: the basophil is not a rennet if that it is a rennet and a takeover is wrong.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: ¬({A}{b} & {E}{b}) sent2: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: ({D}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent4: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent5: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent6: ¬({A}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{A}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

the humanities is not Aberdonian and it is not a kind of a modernization.

(¬{EO}{ig} & ¬{B}{ig})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the basophil is not cecal hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the basophil is both a rennet and a takeover is wrong. sent2: if something is a modernization but it is not a rennet then it is not cecal. sent3: if the inkberry is a keratotomy and it is cecal then that it is not a kind of a rennet is right. sent4: the basophil is a kind of a modernization if the inkberry is both not a daub and not subsurface. sent5: the inkberry is not a daub and it is not subsurface. sent6: the basophil is not a rennet if that it is a rennet and a takeover is wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the basophil is a modernization.; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: the basophil is not a rennet.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the basophil is a modernization but not a rennet.; sent2 -> int4: if the basophil is a modernization and not a rennet it is not cecal.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the basophil is a kind of a modernization if the inkberry is both not a daub and not subsurface.

If the inkberry is not a daub and not a subsurface, the basophil is a kind of modernization.

the basophil is not a rennet if that it is a rennet and a takeover is wrong.

that the basophil is not cecal hold.

sent1: that the basophil is both a rennet and a takeover is wrong. sent2: if something is a modernization but it is not a rennet then it is not cecal. sent3: if the inkberry is a keratotomy and it is cecal then that it is not a kind of a rennet is right. sent4: the basophil is a kind of a modernization if the inkberry is both not a daub and not subsurface. sent5: the inkberry is not a daub and it is not subsurface. sent6: the basophil is not a rennet if that it is a rennet and a takeover is wrong.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: ¬({A}{b} & {E}{b}) sent2: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: ({D}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent4: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent5: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent6: ¬({A}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{A}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

the humanities is not Aberdonian and it is not a kind of a modernization.

(¬{EO}{ig} & ¬{B}{ig})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the basophil is not cecal hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the basophil is both a rennet and a takeover is wrong. sent2: if something is a modernization but it is not a rennet then it is not cecal. sent3: if the inkberry is a keratotomy and it is cecal then that it is not a kind of a rennet is right. sent4: the basophil is a kind of a modernization if the inkberry is both not a daub and not subsurface. sent5: the inkberry is not a daub and it is not subsurface. sent6: the basophil is not a rennet if that it is a rennet and a takeover is wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the basophil is a modernization.; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: the basophil is not a rennet.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the basophil is a modernization but not a rennet.; sent2 -> int4: if the basophil is a modernization and not a rennet it is not cecal.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the basophil is a kind of a modernization if the inkberry is both not a daub and not subsurface.

If the inkberry is neither a daub nor a subsurface, the basophil is a kind of modernization.

that the basophil is both a rennet and a takeover is wrong.

that the basophil is not cecal hold.

sent1: that the basophil is both a rennet and a takeover is wrong. sent2: if something is a modernization but it is not a rennet then it is not cecal. sent3: if the inkberry is a keratotomy and it is cecal then that it is not a kind of a rennet is right. sent4: the basophil is a kind of a modernization if the inkberry is both not a daub and not subsurface. sent5: the inkberry is not a daub and it is not subsurface. sent6: the basophil is not a rennet if that it is a rennet and a takeover is wrong.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: ¬({A}{b} & {E}{b}) sent2: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: ({D}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent4: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent5: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent6: ¬({A}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{A}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

the humanities is not Aberdonian and it is not a kind of a modernization.

(¬{EO}{ig} & ¬{B}{ig})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the basophil is not cecal hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the basophil is both a rennet and a takeover is wrong. sent2: if something is a modernization but it is not a rennet then it is not cecal. sent3: if the inkberry is a keratotomy and it is cecal then that it is not a kind of a rennet is right. sent4: the basophil is a kind of a modernization if the inkberry is both not a daub and not subsurface. sent5: the inkberry is not a daub and it is not subsurface. sent6: the basophil is not a rennet if that it is a rennet and a takeover is wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the basophil is a modernization.; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: the basophil is not a rennet.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the basophil is a modernization but not a rennet.; sent2 -> int4: if the basophil is a modernization and not a rennet it is not cecal.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the basophil is a kind of a modernization if the inkberry is both not a daub and not subsurface.

If the inkberry is not a daub, the basophil is a kind of modernization.

if something is a modernization but it is not a rennet then it is not cecal.

the suggestion does not occur.

sent1: that that the inconsiderableness does not occur and the heaves does not occur is incorrect if the speaking Maracaibo occurs hold. sent2: the shape-up happens and the untranslatableness occurs if that the swooping erythroderma does not occur hold. sent3: the apologeticsness occurs. sent4: if the swooping erythroderma does not occur the untranslatableness happens and the suggestion happens. sent5: the filtration happens. sent6: if the fact that the fact that not the recruiting USCB but the leptosporangiateness occurs hold is not correct then the meniscectomy happens. sent7: the commandment is prevented by that the meniscectomy but not the swooping firmness happens. sent8: that the recruiting USCB does not occur and the leptosporangiateness happens does not hold. sent9: the inconsiderableness and the speaking Maracaibo occurs if the recruiting Ur does not occur. sent10: the swooping erythroderma happens. sent11: if the untranslatableness occurs and the swooping erythroderma happens then the suggestion does not occur. sent12: if the Koranicness occurs then the fact that the dodging dimorphism occurs but the dodging Lawrence does not occur does not hold. sent13: the recruiting Plautus and the praetorianness happens. sent14: that the aspersion happens and the Koranicness happens is caused by that the commandment does not occur. sent15: the littleness does not occur if the fact that the inconsiderableness does not occur and the heaves does not occur is not correct. sent16: that the dodging Lawrence does not occur leads to that both the recruiting Ur and the speaking Maracaibo occurs. sent17: if the fact that the inconsiderableness happens hold then that not the littleness but the heaves happens does not hold. sent18: the swooping erythroderma does not occur if that both the non-littleness and the heaving occurs does not hold. sent19: the recruiting Ur does not occur if that the dodging dimorphism but not the dodging Lawrence happens is not correct.

¬{C}

sent1: {G} -> ¬(¬{F} & ¬{E}) sent2: ¬{B} -> ({EL} & {A}) sent3: {FH} sent4: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {C}) sent5: {AN} sent6: ¬(¬{R} & {S}) -> {O} sent7: ({O} & ¬{N}) -> ¬{M} sent8: ¬(¬{R} & {S}) sent9: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent10: {B} sent11: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent12: {K} -> ¬({J} & ¬{I}) sent13: ({AH} & {IJ}) sent14: ¬{M} -> ({L} & {K}) sent15: ¬(¬{F} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{D} sent16: ¬{I} -> ({H} & {G}) sent17: {F} -> ¬(¬{D} & {E}) sent18: ¬(¬{D} & {E}) -> ¬{B} sent19: ¬({J} & ¬{I}) -> ¬{H}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the suggestion happens.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the suggestion does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that that the inconsiderableness does not occur and the heaves does not occur is incorrect if the speaking Maracaibo occurs hold. sent2: the shape-up happens and the untranslatableness occurs if that the swooping erythroderma does not occur hold. sent3: the apologeticsness occurs. sent4: if the swooping erythroderma does not occur the untranslatableness happens and the suggestion happens. sent5: the filtration happens. sent6: if the fact that the fact that not the recruiting USCB but the leptosporangiateness occurs hold is not correct then the meniscectomy happens. sent7: the commandment is prevented by that the meniscectomy but not the swooping firmness happens. sent8: that the recruiting USCB does not occur and the leptosporangiateness happens does not hold. sent9: the inconsiderableness and the speaking Maracaibo occurs if the recruiting Ur does not occur. sent10: the swooping erythroderma happens. sent11: if the untranslatableness occurs and the swooping erythroderma happens then the suggestion does not occur. sent12: if the Koranicness occurs then the fact that the dodging dimorphism occurs but the dodging Lawrence does not occur does not hold. sent13: the recruiting Plautus and the praetorianness happens. sent14: that the aspersion happens and the Koranicness happens is caused by that the commandment does not occur. sent15: the littleness does not occur if the fact that the inconsiderableness does not occur and the heaves does not occur is not correct. sent16: that the dodging Lawrence does not occur leads to that both the recruiting Ur and the speaking Maracaibo occurs. sent17: if the fact that the inconsiderableness happens hold then that not the littleness but the heaves happens does not hold. sent18: the swooping erythroderma does not occur if that both the non-littleness and the heaving occurs does not hold. sent19: the recruiting Ur does not occur if that the dodging dimorphism but not the dodging Lawrence happens is not correct. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the shape-up happens and the untranslatableness occurs if that the swooping erythroderma does not occur hold.

the shape-up happens and the untranslatableness occurs if that the swooping erythroderma does not occur hold.

that the dodging Lawrence does not occur leads to that both the recruiting Ur and the speaking Maracaibo occurs.

the ministerialness does not occur.

sent1: the recruiting reproducibility occurs. sent2: if the fact that the coo but not the hooking happens is not correct then the recruiting winning occurs. sent3: the ministerialness is prevented by that the solarizing occurs and the recruiting winning occurs. sent4: both the solarizing and the feat occurs if the purring does not occur. sent5: the purring does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: {A} sent2: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent3: ({C} & {B}) -> ¬{D} sent4: ¬{F} -> ({C} & {E}) sent5: ¬{F}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the ministerialness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the recruiting reproducibility occurs. sent2: if the fact that the coo but not the hooking happens is not correct then the recruiting winning occurs. sent3: the ministerialness is prevented by that the solarizing occurs and the recruiting winning occurs. sent4: both the solarizing and the feat occurs if the purring does not occur. sent5: the purring does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

both the solarizing and the feat occurs if the purring does not occur.

both the solarizing and the feat occurs if the purring does not occur.

the purring does not occur.

there exists something such that if it is not zymotic then the fact that it is not a kind of a freak is not false.

sent1: there exists something such that if it is not zymotic the fact that it does freak hold. sent2: if something is not philological it is not a kind of a bugged. sent3: there is something such that if it is not viceregal that it does mutiny is correct. sent4: if something is not pyogenic that it is not a kind of a Albanian is not false. sent5: if the soapwort is zymotic that it is not a freak is not wrong. sent6: if something is not zymotic then it is a freak. sent7: there exists something such that if it is zymotic then that it does not freak hold.

(Ex): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x

sent1: (Ex): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent2: (x): ¬{M}x -> ¬{FK}x sent3: (Ex): ¬{EE}x -> {GF}x sent4: (x): ¬{CD}x -> ¬{CJ}x sent5: {B}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent6: (x): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent7: (Ex): {B}x -> ¬{C}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

there exists something such that if it is not philological then it is not a bugged.

(Ex): ¬{M}x -> ¬{FK}x

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not zymotic then the fact that it is not a kind of a freak is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is not zymotic the fact that it does freak hold. sent2: if something is not philological it is not a kind of a bugged. sent3: there is something such that if it is not viceregal that it does mutiny is correct. sent4: if something is not pyogenic that it is not a kind of a Albanian is not false. sent5: if the soapwort is zymotic that it is not a freak is not wrong. sent6: if something is not zymotic then it is a freak. sent7: there exists something such that if it is zymotic then that it does not freak hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the soapwort is zymotic that it is not a freak is not wrong.

if the soapwort is zymotic that it is not a freak is not wrong.

if something is not pyogenic that it is not a kind of a Albanian is not false.

the dextrose is not terpsichorean.

sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it does not recruit beat and it is a Glaswegian is not true. sent2: there exists nothing such that it is a bullshit and a scrapbook. sent3: if that something is Brobdingnagian thing that is a kind of a Taiwanese does not hold it is not a kind of a Taiwanese. sent4: if that something is not Taiwanese is right it is not a ramie and not a binary. sent5: the beat is not terpsichorean. sent6: if there exists something such that that the fact that it does not recruit beat and it is Glaswegian is not false is false then the clearing recruit beat. sent7: if that the beat bullshits and is a scrapbook is not true then the dextrose is not a binary. sent8: something that is not a binary is not terpsichorean.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: (Ex): ¬(¬{F}x & {G}x) sent2: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (x): ¬({E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{D}x sent4: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{A}x) sent5: ¬{B}{aa} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {G}x) -> {F}{c} sent7: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{B}x

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the dextrose is terpsichorean is not incorrect.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dextrose is not terpsichorean. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it does not recruit beat and it is a Glaswegian is not true. sent2: there exists nothing such that it is a bullshit and a scrapbook. sent3: if that something is Brobdingnagian thing that is a kind of a Taiwanese does not hold it is not a kind of a Taiwanese. sent4: if that something is not Taiwanese is right it is not a ramie and not a binary. sent5: the beat is not terpsichorean. sent6: if there exists something such that that the fact that it does not recruit beat and it is Glaswegian is not false is false then the clearing recruit beat. sent7: if that the beat bullshits and is a scrapbook is not true then the dextrose is not a binary. sent8: something that is not a binary is not terpsichorean. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: that that the beat is a kind of a bullshit that is a scrapbook does not hold is correct.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the dextrose is not a binary.; sent8 -> int3: the dextrose is not terpsichorean if it is not a binary.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists nothing such that it is a bullshit and a scrapbook.

There is no such thing as a bullshit and a scrapbook.

if that the beat bullshits and is a scrapbook is not true then the dextrose is not a binary.

the dextrose is not terpsichorean.

sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it does not recruit beat and it is a Glaswegian is not true. sent2: there exists nothing such that it is a bullshit and a scrapbook. sent3: if that something is Brobdingnagian thing that is a kind of a Taiwanese does not hold it is not a kind of a Taiwanese. sent4: if that something is not Taiwanese is right it is not a ramie and not a binary. sent5: the beat is not terpsichorean. sent6: if there exists something such that that the fact that it does not recruit beat and it is Glaswegian is not false is false then the clearing recruit beat. sent7: if that the beat bullshits and is a scrapbook is not true then the dextrose is not a binary. sent8: something that is not a binary is not terpsichorean.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: (Ex): ¬(¬{F}x & {G}x) sent2: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (x): ¬({E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{D}x sent4: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{A}x) sent5: ¬{B}{aa} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {G}x) -> {F}{c} sent7: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{B}x

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the dextrose is terpsichorean is not incorrect.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dextrose is not terpsichorean. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it does not recruit beat and it is a Glaswegian is not true. sent2: there exists nothing such that it is a bullshit and a scrapbook. sent3: if that something is Brobdingnagian thing that is a kind of a Taiwanese does not hold it is not a kind of a Taiwanese. sent4: if that something is not Taiwanese is right it is not a ramie and not a binary. sent5: the beat is not terpsichorean. sent6: if there exists something such that that the fact that it does not recruit beat and it is Glaswegian is not false is false then the clearing recruit beat. sent7: if that the beat bullshits and is a scrapbook is not true then the dextrose is not a binary. sent8: something that is not a binary is not terpsichorean. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: that that the beat is a kind of a bullshit that is a scrapbook does not hold is correct.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the dextrose is not a binary.; sent8 -> int3: the dextrose is not terpsichorean if it is not a binary.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists nothing such that it is a bullshit and a scrapbook.

There is no such thing as a bullshit.

something that is not a binary is not terpsichorean.

the iodination is not faecal.

sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is faecal and it does disband is wrong. sent2: that the vulture is not a inexplicitness and not a Saone is incorrect if it is exodontic. sent3: if that there exists something such that it is not a seigniorage is not false the graft is not a code. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a seigniorage that is faecal is not right. sent5: if there is something such that it is a seigniorage the fact that that the graft does disband and it is faecal is incorrect is correct. sent6: the graft is a seigniorage if the vulture is a kind of a inexplicitness. sent7: the graft does disband if something is both not a rut and not diamantine. sent8: the iodination is not faecal if there exists something such that it does not disband. sent9: the fact that the graft is faecal and it disbands is not right if there is something such that it is a seigniorage. sent10: the vulture is a inexplicitness if the fact that that it is not a kind of a inexplicitness and it is not a Saone is true is false. sent11: the fact that the iodination is a inexplicitness and it does disband does not hold. sent12: if there is something such that that it is a seigniorage and does disband is false then the iodination is not faecal. sent13: the vulture is both exodontic and a Petrarch if the buffer is not a PTO. sent14: there is something such that it does dodge candlenut. sent15: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a rut and it is not diamantine. sent16: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of an appliance that is squinty is wrong. sent17: something is a kind of a seigniorage that disbands. sent18: if something does dodge candlenut it is faecal.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: (Ex): ¬({D}x & {C}x) sent2: {F}{c} -> ¬(¬{E}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) sent3: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{S}{a} sent4: (Ex): ¬({B}x & {D}x) sent5: (x): {B}x -> ¬({C}{a} & {D}{a}) sent6: {E}{c} -> {B}{a} sent7: (x): (¬{I}x & ¬{J}x) -> {C}{a} sent8: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{D}{b} sent9: (x): {B}x -> ¬({D}{a} & {C}{a}) sent10: ¬(¬{E}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) -> {E}{c} sent11: ¬({E}{b} & {C}{b}) sent12: (x): ¬({B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}{b} sent13: ¬{K}{d} -> ({F}{c} & {H}{c}) sent14: (Ex): {A}x sent15: (Ex): (¬{I}x & ¬{J}x) sent16: (Ex): ¬({AD}x & {BD}x) sent17: (Ex): ({B}x & {C}x) sent18: (x): {A}x -> {D}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the iodination is faecal hold.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the iodination is not faecal. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is faecal and it does disband is wrong. sent2: that the vulture is not a inexplicitness and not a Saone is incorrect if it is exodontic. sent3: if that there exists something such that it is not a seigniorage is not false the graft is not a code. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a seigniorage that is faecal is not right. sent5: if there is something such that it is a seigniorage the fact that that the graft does disband and it is faecal is incorrect is correct. sent6: the graft is a seigniorage if the vulture is a kind of a inexplicitness. sent7: the graft does disband if something is both not a rut and not diamantine. sent8: the iodination is not faecal if there exists something such that it does not disband. sent9: the fact that the graft is faecal and it disbands is not right if there is something such that it is a seigniorage. sent10: the vulture is a inexplicitness if the fact that that it is not a kind of a inexplicitness and it is not a Saone is true is false. sent11: the fact that the iodination is a inexplicitness and it does disband does not hold. sent12: if there is something such that that it is a seigniorage and does disband is false then the iodination is not faecal. sent13: the vulture is both exodontic and a Petrarch if the buffer is not a PTO. sent14: there is something such that it does dodge candlenut. sent15: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a rut and it is not diamantine. sent16: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of an appliance that is squinty is wrong. sent17: something is a kind of a seigniorage that disbands. sent18: if something does dodge candlenut it is faecal. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that the fact that it is faecal and it does disband is wrong.

there exists something such that the fact that it is faecal and it does disband is wrong.

the fact that the iodination is a inexplicitness and it does disband does not hold.

that there exists something such that it is not an elite and it is not a kind of a Fuscoboletinus does not hold.

sent1: the warehouse is not a kind of an elite and it is not a kind of a Fuscoboletinus if something is a sourwood. sent2: there is something such that it does not incline. sent3: that something is a sourwood that does not dodge ranch does not hold if it is not an elite. sent4: something does not swoop midbrain and it is not propagandist. sent5: if the fact that something is a kind of a sourwood and does not dodge ranch does not hold that it dodge ranch is not false. sent6: if something is a sourwood the warehouse is not a Fuscoboletinus. sent7: something recruits district and does not dodge taxonomist. sent8: the warehouse is not Cameroonian and is not a lieutenant if there is something such that that it is an elite is not wrong. sent9: there is something such that it is a kind of a sourwood. sent10: something is an elite but not a Fuscoboletinus. sent11: the warehouse is not appellate and is not a Fuscoboletinus.

¬((Ex): (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x))

sent1: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{BA}x sent3: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{HP}x) sent4: (Ex): (¬{IT}x & ¬{JJ}x) sent5: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{HP}x) -> {HP}x sent6: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}{a} sent7: (Ex): ({AQ}x & ¬{CO}x) sent8: (x): {B}x -> (¬{IL}{a} & ¬{IN}{a}) sent9: (Ex): {A}x sent10: (Ex): ({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent11: (¬{FA}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

there exists something such that it dodges ranch.

(Ex): {HP}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that it is not an elite and it is not a kind of a Fuscoboletinus does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the warehouse is not a kind of an elite and it is not a kind of a Fuscoboletinus if something is a sourwood. sent2: there is something such that it does not incline. sent3: that something is a sourwood that does not dodge ranch does not hold if it is not an elite. sent4: something does not swoop midbrain and it is not propagandist. sent5: if the fact that something is a kind of a sourwood and does not dodge ranch does not hold that it dodge ranch is not false. sent6: if something is a sourwood the warehouse is not a Fuscoboletinus. sent7: something recruits district and does not dodge taxonomist. sent8: the warehouse is not Cameroonian and is not a lieutenant if there is something such that that it is an elite is not wrong. sent9: there is something such that it is a kind of a sourwood. sent10: something is an elite but not a Fuscoboletinus. sent11: the warehouse is not appellate and is not a Fuscoboletinus. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent1 -> int1: the warehouse is not an elite and not a Fuscoboletinus.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is a kind of a sourwood.

there is something such that it is a kind of a sourwood.

the warehouse is not a kind of an elite and it is not a kind of a Fuscoboletinus if something is a sourwood.

the Texan does not occur and the fossil does not occur.

sent1: the fact that both the non-Texanness and the non-fossilness happens is false if the jurisprudentialness does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the Bosnianness and the recruiting huisache occurs does not hold then the recruiting huisache does not occur. sent3: the inflection does not occur. sent4: if the jurisprudentialness happens the Bosnianness occurs. sent5: the Bosnianness does not occur if that that the non-Texanness and the non-fossilness occurs hold does not hold. sent6: the fact that the nonenzymaticness does not occur and the curbing does not occur is not right. sent7: the jurisprudentialness happens. sent8: the fact that both the non-Texanness and the fossilness occurs does not hold. sent9: the striating occurs. sent10: the noncellularness happens.

(¬{AA} & ¬{AB})

sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent2: ¬({B} & {HC}) -> ¬{HC} sent3: ¬{AF} sent4: {A} -> {B} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent6: ¬(¬{DQ} & ¬{HN}) sent7: {A} sent8: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent9: {HJ} sent10: {DP}

PROVED

PROVED

the recruiting huisache does not occur.

¬{HC}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Texan does not occur and the fossil does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that both the non-Texanness and the non-fossilness happens is false if the jurisprudentialness does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the Bosnianness and the recruiting huisache occurs does not hold then the recruiting huisache does not occur. sent3: the inflection does not occur. sent4: if the jurisprudentialness happens the Bosnianness occurs. sent5: the Bosnianness does not occur if that that the non-Texanness and the non-fossilness occurs hold does not hold. sent6: the fact that the nonenzymaticness does not occur and the curbing does not occur is not right. sent7: the jurisprudentialness happens. sent8: the fact that both the non-Texanness and the fossilness occurs does not hold. sent9: the striating occurs. sent10: the noncellularness happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the Texan does not occur and the fossil does not occur is incorrect.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the Bosnianness does not occur.; sent4 & sent7 -> int2: the Bosnianness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Bosnianness does not occur if that that the non-Texanness and the non-fossilness occurs hold does not hold.

The Bosnianness doesn't happen if the non-Texanness and non-fossilness doesn't hold.

if the jurisprudentialness happens the Bosnianness occurs.

the Texan does not occur and the fossil does not occur.

sent1: the fact that both the non-Texanness and the non-fossilness happens is false if the jurisprudentialness does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the Bosnianness and the recruiting huisache occurs does not hold then the recruiting huisache does not occur. sent3: the inflection does not occur. sent4: if the jurisprudentialness happens the Bosnianness occurs. sent5: the Bosnianness does not occur if that that the non-Texanness and the non-fossilness occurs hold does not hold. sent6: the fact that the nonenzymaticness does not occur and the curbing does not occur is not right. sent7: the jurisprudentialness happens. sent8: the fact that both the non-Texanness and the fossilness occurs does not hold. sent9: the striating occurs. sent10: the noncellularness happens.

(¬{AA} & ¬{AB})

sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent2: ¬({B} & {HC}) -> ¬{HC} sent3: ¬{AF} sent4: {A} -> {B} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent6: ¬(¬{DQ} & ¬{HN}) sent7: {A} sent8: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent9: {HJ} sent10: {DP}

PROVED

PROVED

the recruiting huisache does not occur.

¬{HC}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Texan does not occur and the fossil does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that both the non-Texanness and the non-fossilness happens is false if the jurisprudentialness does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the Bosnianness and the recruiting huisache occurs does not hold then the recruiting huisache does not occur. sent3: the inflection does not occur. sent4: if the jurisprudentialness happens the Bosnianness occurs. sent5: the Bosnianness does not occur if that that the non-Texanness and the non-fossilness occurs hold does not hold. sent6: the fact that the nonenzymaticness does not occur and the curbing does not occur is not right. sent7: the jurisprudentialness happens. sent8: the fact that both the non-Texanness and the fossilness occurs does not hold. sent9: the striating occurs. sent10: the noncellularness happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the Texan does not occur and the fossil does not occur is incorrect.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the Bosnianness does not occur.; sent4 & sent7 -> int2: the Bosnianness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Bosnianness does not occur if that that the non-Texanness and the non-fossilness occurs hold does not hold.

The Bosnianness doesn't occur if the non-Texanness and non-fossilness doesn't hold.

the jurisprudentialness happens.

the fact that the expanse is not estrous or is a Phanerozoic or both is not correct.

sent1: if the fact that the precinct is not estrous is not wrong then that the expanse either is not a manatee or is estrous or both does not hold. sent2: that the precinct is not a Phanerozoic or it is a manatee or both is not true if the expanse is not a kind of a manatee. sent3: that something is not a microflora but it is a manatee is not right if that it is not butyric hold. sent4: the precinct is not a kind of a microflora if it is not a manatee. sent5: the expanse is not a praya if it is not a microflora. sent6: the expanse is estrous. sent7: the precinct is not a manatee. sent8: if the precinct is not a Phanerozoic then the expanse is estrous. sent9: if something is not a microflora then it is not a Phanerozoic. sent10: if the precinct is not a Phanerozoic the fact that that the expanse is not estrous or is a Phanerozoic or both is incorrect is correct.

¬(¬{D}{b} v {C}{b})

sent1: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} v {D}{b}) sent2: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} v {A}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & {A}x) sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬{P}{b} sent6: {D}{b} sent7: ¬{A}{a} sent8: ¬{C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent9: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x sent10: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} v {C}{b})

PROVED

PROVED

that the expanse is not estrous and/or it is a Phanerozoic hold.

(¬{D}{b} v {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the expanse is not estrous or is a Phanerozoic or both is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the precinct is not estrous is not wrong then that the expanse either is not a manatee or is estrous or both does not hold. sent2: that the precinct is not a Phanerozoic or it is a manatee or both is not true if the expanse is not a kind of a manatee. sent3: that something is not a microflora but it is a manatee is not right if that it is not butyric hold. sent4: the precinct is not a kind of a microflora if it is not a manatee. sent5: the expanse is not a praya if it is not a microflora. sent6: the expanse is estrous. sent7: the precinct is not a manatee. sent8: if the precinct is not a Phanerozoic then the expanse is estrous. sent9: if something is not a microflora then it is not a Phanerozoic. sent10: if the precinct is not a Phanerozoic the fact that that the expanse is not estrous or is a Phanerozoic or both is incorrect is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent7 -> int1: the precinct is not a kind of a microflora.; sent9 -> int2: the precinct is not a Phanerozoic if it is not a microflora.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the precinct is not a Phanerozoic.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the precinct is not a kind of a microflora if it is not a manatee.

The precinct isn't a microflora if it isn't a manatee.

the precinct is not a manatee.

the fact that the expanse is not estrous or is a Phanerozoic or both is not correct.

sent1: if the fact that the precinct is not estrous is not wrong then that the expanse either is not a manatee or is estrous or both does not hold. sent2: that the precinct is not a Phanerozoic or it is a manatee or both is not true if the expanse is not a kind of a manatee. sent3: that something is not a microflora but it is a manatee is not right if that it is not butyric hold. sent4: the precinct is not a kind of a microflora if it is not a manatee. sent5: the expanse is not a praya if it is not a microflora. sent6: the expanse is estrous. sent7: the precinct is not a manatee. sent8: if the precinct is not a Phanerozoic then the expanse is estrous. sent9: if something is not a microflora then it is not a Phanerozoic. sent10: if the precinct is not a Phanerozoic the fact that that the expanse is not estrous or is a Phanerozoic or both is incorrect is correct.

¬(¬{D}{b} v {C}{b})

sent1: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} v {D}{b}) sent2: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} v {A}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & {A}x) sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬{P}{b} sent6: {D}{b} sent7: ¬{A}{a} sent8: ¬{C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent9: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x sent10: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} v {C}{b})

PROVED

PROVED

that the expanse is not estrous and/or it is a Phanerozoic hold.

(¬{D}{b} v {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the expanse is not estrous or is a Phanerozoic or both is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the precinct is not estrous is not wrong then that the expanse either is not a manatee or is estrous or both does not hold. sent2: that the precinct is not a Phanerozoic or it is a manatee or both is not true if the expanse is not a kind of a manatee. sent3: that something is not a microflora but it is a manatee is not right if that it is not butyric hold. sent4: the precinct is not a kind of a microflora if it is not a manatee. sent5: the expanse is not a praya if it is not a microflora. sent6: the expanse is estrous. sent7: the precinct is not a manatee. sent8: if the precinct is not a Phanerozoic then the expanse is estrous. sent9: if something is not a microflora then it is not a Phanerozoic. sent10: if the precinct is not a Phanerozoic the fact that that the expanse is not estrous or is a Phanerozoic or both is incorrect is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent7 -> int1: the precinct is not a kind of a microflora.; sent9 -> int2: the precinct is not a Phanerozoic if it is not a microflora.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the precinct is not a Phanerozoic.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the precinct is not a kind of a microflora if it is not a manatee.

The precinct is not a microflora if it is not a manatee.

if something is not a microflora then it is not a Phanerozoic.

the fact that the expanse is not estrous or is a Phanerozoic or both is not correct.

sent1: if the fact that the precinct is not estrous is not wrong then that the expanse either is not a manatee or is estrous or both does not hold. sent2: that the precinct is not a Phanerozoic or it is a manatee or both is not true if the expanse is not a kind of a manatee. sent3: that something is not a microflora but it is a manatee is not right if that it is not butyric hold. sent4: the precinct is not a kind of a microflora if it is not a manatee. sent5: the expanse is not a praya if it is not a microflora. sent6: the expanse is estrous. sent7: the precinct is not a manatee. sent8: if the precinct is not a Phanerozoic then the expanse is estrous. sent9: if something is not a microflora then it is not a Phanerozoic. sent10: if the precinct is not a Phanerozoic the fact that that the expanse is not estrous or is a Phanerozoic or both is incorrect is correct.

¬(¬{D}{b} v {C}{b})

sent1: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} v {D}{b}) sent2: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} v {A}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & {A}x) sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬{P}{b} sent6: {D}{b} sent7: ¬{A}{a} sent8: ¬{C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent9: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x sent10: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} v {C}{b})

PROVED

PROVED

that the expanse is not estrous and/or it is a Phanerozoic hold.

(¬{D}{b} v {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the expanse is not estrous or is a Phanerozoic or both is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the precinct is not estrous is not wrong then that the expanse either is not a manatee or is estrous or both does not hold. sent2: that the precinct is not a Phanerozoic or it is a manatee or both is not true if the expanse is not a kind of a manatee. sent3: that something is not a microflora but it is a manatee is not right if that it is not butyric hold. sent4: the precinct is not a kind of a microflora if it is not a manatee. sent5: the expanse is not a praya if it is not a microflora. sent6: the expanse is estrous. sent7: the precinct is not a manatee. sent8: if the precinct is not a Phanerozoic then the expanse is estrous. sent9: if something is not a microflora then it is not a Phanerozoic. sent10: if the precinct is not a Phanerozoic the fact that that the expanse is not estrous or is a Phanerozoic or both is incorrect is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent7 -> int1: the precinct is not a kind of a microflora.; sent9 -> int2: the precinct is not a Phanerozoic if it is not a microflora.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the precinct is not a Phanerozoic.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the precinct is not a kind of a microflora if it is not a manatee.

If it is not a manatee, the precinct is not a microflora.

if the precinct is not a Phanerozoic the fact that that the expanse is not estrous or is a Phanerozoic or both is incorrect is correct.

the tropic is over-the-counter and/or it is not nonrepetitive.

sent1: that the molding is Noachian and/or not Bhutanese does not hold. sent2: either the tropic is over-the-counter or it is not nonrepetitive or both if the celibate is not a kind of a dialogue. sent3: the celibate is not a dialogue if the fact that the molding is Noachian and/or not a Bhutanese is not true.

({A}{c} v ¬{C}{c})

sent1: ¬({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: ¬{B}{b} -> ({A}{c} v ¬{C}{c}) sent3: ¬({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the tropic is over-the-counter and/or it is not nonrepetitive. ; $context$ = sent1: that the molding is Noachian and/or not Bhutanese does not hold. sent2: either the tropic is over-the-counter or it is not nonrepetitive or both if the celibate is not a kind of a dialogue. sent3: the celibate is not a dialogue if the fact that the molding is Noachian and/or not a Bhutanese is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the celibate is not a dialogue.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the celibate is not a dialogue if the fact that the molding is Noachian and/or not a Bhutanese is not true.

The celibate is not a dialogue if the mold is Noachian or not a Bhutanese.

that the molding is Noachian and/or not Bhutanese does not hold.

the tropic is over-the-counter and/or it is not nonrepetitive.

sent1: that the molding is Noachian and/or not Bhutanese does not hold. sent2: either the tropic is over-the-counter or it is not nonrepetitive or both if the celibate is not a kind of a dialogue. sent3: the celibate is not a dialogue if the fact that the molding is Noachian and/or not a Bhutanese is not true.

({A}{c} v ¬{C}{c})

sent1: ¬({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: ¬{B}{b} -> ({A}{c} v ¬{C}{c}) sent3: ¬({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the tropic is over-the-counter and/or it is not nonrepetitive. ; $context$ = sent1: that the molding is Noachian and/or not Bhutanese does not hold. sent2: either the tropic is over-the-counter or it is not nonrepetitive or both if the celibate is not a kind of a dialogue. sent3: the celibate is not a dialogue if the fact that the molding is Noachian and/or not a Bhutanese is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the celibate is not a dialogue.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the celibate is not a dialogue if the fact that the molding is Noachian and/or not a Bhutanese is not true.

The celibate is not a dialogue if the molding is Noachian or not a Bhutanese.

either the tropic is over-the-counter or it is not nonrepetitive or both if the celibate is not a kind of a dialogue.

the fact that the stearin dodges transplant and it is a pastorale is not right.

sent1: if something does not dodge haymow that it does dodge osteopathy and it elegizes is not correct. sent2: the speed does dodge polyptoton and grits. sent3: the ganoin is not sinkable and does bring. sent4: if that the haymow is a sky but it is not unsinkable is not wrong the ganoin is not unsinkable. sent5: the ganoin is a kind of a pastorale. sent6: the fact that the stearin is a sky and it dodges transplant is true. sent7: the ganoin is a kind of a sky. sent8: the haymow is a sky if there exists something such that it is a December and/or not a salvo. sent9: if the fact that that the haymow dodges osteopathy and it does elegize is not false is not correct then it is not a kind of a crocolite. sent10: something is sinkable thing that does not bring if it is not a crocolite. sent11: that either the coralroot is a December or it is not a salvo or both hold. sent12: the haymow does not dodge haymow if it is a LASIK and it is a kind of a biennial. sent13: the diaper does speak decagon and does dodge transplant. sent14: the fact that the stearin does dodge transplant and it is a kind of a pastorale is false if the ganoin is not unsinkable. sent15: if the ganoin brings the stearin is a pastorale.

¬({D}{b} & {C}{b})

sent1: (x): ¬{K}x -> ¬({I}x & {J}x) sent2: ({HS}{je} & {JG}{je}) sent3: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent4: ({E}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent5: {C}{a} sent6: ({E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent7: {E}{a} sent8: (x): ({F}x v ¬{G}x) -> {E}{c} sent9: ¬({I}{c} & {J}{c}) -> ¬{H}{c} sent10: (x): ¬{H}x -> (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent11: ({F}{d} v ¬{G}{d}) sent12: ({M}{c} & {L}{c}) -> ¬{K}{c} sent13: ({AD}{u} & {D}{u}) sent14: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({D}{b} & {C}{b}) sent15: {B}{a} -> {C}{b}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the stearin does dodge transplant and it is a pastorale does not hold.

¬({D}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the stearin dodges transplant and it is a pastorale is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not dodge haymow that it does dodge osteopathy and it elegizes is not correct. sent2: the speed does dodge polyptoton and grits. sent3: the ganoin is not sinkable and does bring. sent4: if that the haymow is a sky but it is not unsinkable is not wrong the ganoin is not unsinkable. sent5: the ganoin is a kind of a pastorale. sent6: the fact that the stearin is a sky and it dodges transplant is true. sent7: the ganoin is a kind of a sky. sent8: the haymow is a sky if there exists something such that it is a December and/or not a salvo. sent9: if the fact that that the haymow dodges osteopathy and it does elegize is not false is not correct then it is not a kind of a crocolite. sent10: something is sinkable thing that does not bring if it is not a crocolite. sent11: that either the coralroot is a December or it is not a salvo or both hold. sent12: the haymow does not dodge haymow if it is a LASIK and it is a kind of a biennial. sent13: the diaper does speak decagon and does dodge transplant. sent14: the fact that the stearin does dodge transplant and it is a kind of a pastorale is false if the ganoin is not unsinkable. sent15: if the ganoin brings the stearin is a pastorale. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the ganoin brings.; int1 & sent15 -> int2: the stearin is a pastorale.; sent6 -> int3: the stearin dodges transplant.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the ganoin is not sinkable and does bring.

The ganoin does bring and is not sinkable.

if the ganoin brings the stearin is a pastorale.

the fact that the stearin dodges transplant and it is a pastorale is not right.

sent1: if something does not dodge haymow that it does dodge osteopathy and it elegizes is not correct. sent2: the speed does dodge polyptoton and grits. sent3: the ganoin is not sinkable and does bring. sent4: if that the haymow is a sky but it is not unsinkable is not wrong the ganoin is not unsinkable. sent5: the ganoin is a kind of a pastorale. sent6: the fact that the stearin is a sky and it dodges transplant is true. sent7: the ganoin is a kind of a sky. sent8: the haymow is a sky if there exists something such that it is a December and/or not a salvo. sent9: if the fact that that the haymow dodges osteopathy and it does elegize is not false is not correct then it is not a kind of a crocolite. sent10: something is sinkable thing that does not bring if it is not a crocolite. sent11: that either the coralroot is a December or it is not a salvo or both hold. sent12: the haymow does not dodge haymow if it is a LASIK and it is a kind of a biennial. sent13: the diaper does speak decagon and does dodge transplant. sent14: the fact that the stearin does dodge transplant and it is a kind of a pastorale is false if the ganoin is not unsinkable. sent15: if the ganoin brings the stearin is a pastorale.

¬({D}{b} & {C}{b})

sent1: (x): ¬{K}x -> ¬({I}x & {J}x) sent2: ({HS}{je} & {JG}{je}) sent3: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent4: ({E}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent5: {C}{a} sent6: ({E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent7: {E}{a} sent8: (x): ({F}x v ¬{G}x) -> {E}{c} sent9: ¬({I}{c} & {J}{c}) -> ¬{H}{c} sent10: (x): ¬{H}x -> (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent11: ({F}{d} v ¬{G}{d}) sent12: ({M}{c} & {L}{c}) -> ¬{K}{c} sent13: ({AD}{u} & {D}{u}) sent14: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({D}{b} & {C}{b}) sent15: {B}{a} -> {C}{b}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the stearin does dodge transplant and it is a pastorale does not hold.

¬({D}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the stearin dodges transplant and it is a pastorale is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not dodge haymow that it does dodge osteopathy and it elegizes is not correct. sent2: the speed does dodge polyptoton and grits. sent3: the ganoin is not sinkable and does bring. sent4: if that the haymow is a sky but it is not unsinkable is not wrong the ganoin is not unsinkable. sent5: the ganoin is a kind of a pastorale. sent6: the fact that the stearin is a sky and it dodges transplant is true. sent7: the ganoin is a kind of a sky. sent8: the haymow is a sky if there exists something such that it is a December and/or not a salvo. sent9: if the fact that that the haymow dodges osteopathy and it does elegize is not false is not correct then it is not a kind of a crocolite. sent10: something is sinkable thing that does not bring if it is not a crocolite. sent11: that either the coralroot is a December or it is not a salvo or both hold. sent12: the haymow does not dodge haymow if it is a LASIK and it is a kind of a biennial. sent13: the diaper does speak decagon and does dodge transplant. sent14: the fact that the stearin does dodge transplant and it is a kind of a pastorale is false if the ganoin is not unsinkable. sent15: if the ganoin brings the stearin is a pastorale. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the ganoin brings.; int1 & sent15 -> int2: the stearin is a pastorale.; sent6 -> int3: the stearin dodges transplant.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the ganoin is not sinkable and does bring.

The ganoin is not sinkable.

the fact that the stearin is a sky and it dodges transplant is true.

the apple is mayoral.

sent1: the macedoine is impure. sent2: the combatant is mayoral. sent3: the Laconian is a kind of a workpiece and is impure. sent4: the ouzo is mayoral. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that it is impure is not incorrect. sent6: something is a kind of a thorax and is impure if that it is not a quoits is not false. sent7: there exists something such that it is both not non-xeric and not pregnant. sent8: the apple is impure. sent9: the macedoine is mayoral. sent10: something is not a quoits if the fact that it is a quoits and it does animate is not true. sent11: there is something such that it is a boulder. sent12: the macedoine is mayoral if there exists something such that it is a kind of impure thing that is a kind of a quoits. sent13: the apple is a copilot. sent14: the apple is behavioral. sent15: something does compact. sent16: the macedoine does swoop logogram and it purses. sent17: everything is a toast. sent18: there exists something such that it is a WAC. sent19: the macedoine is a quoits. sent20: there is something such that it is a kind of a quoits. sent21: if there is something such that that it is a kind of mayoral thing that is a quoits is true then the apple is impure.

{C}{b}

sent1: {A}{a} sent2: {C}{ge} sent3: ({DD}{hn} & {A}{hn}) sent4: {C}{fh} sent5: (Ex): {A}x sent6: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({L}x & {A}x) sent7: (Ex): ({HL}x & {GG}x) sent8: {A}{b} sent9: {C}{a} sent10: (x): ¬({B}x & {D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent11: (Ex): {FQ}x sent12: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} sent13: {DG}{b} sent14: {IE}{b} sent15: (Ex): {GL}x sent16: ({GE}{a} & {BU}{a}) sent17: (x): {AO}x sent18: (Ex): {JG}x sent19: {B}{a} sent20: (Ex): {B}x sent21: (x): ({C}x & {B}x) -> {A}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

something is a kind of a toast that is a thorax.

(Ex): ({AO}x & {L}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the apple is mayoral. ; $context$ = sent1: the macedoine is impure. sent2: the combatant is mayoral. sent3: the Laconian is a kind of a workpiece and is impure. sent4: the ouzo is mayoral. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that it is impure is not incorrect. sent6: something is a kind of a thorax and is impure if that it is not a quoits is not false. sent7: there exists something such that it is both not non-xeric and not pregnant. sent8: the apple is impure. sent9: the macedoine is mayoral. sent10: something is not a quoits if the fact that it is a quoits and it does animate is not true. sent11: there is something such that it is a boulder. sent12: the macedoine is mayoral if there exists something such that it is a kind of impure thing that is a kind of a quoits. sent13: the apple is a copilot. sent14: the apple is behavioral. sent15: something does compact. sent16: the macedoine does swoop logogram and it purses. sent17: everything is a toast. sent18: there exists something such that it is a WAC. sent19: the macedoine is a quoits. sent20: there is something such that it is a kind of a quoits. sent21: if there is something such that that it is a kind of mayoral thing that is a quoits is true then the apple is impure. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the macedoine is impure.

the macedoine is impure.

the macedoine is a quoits.

that that the galacticness occurs and the tragedy happens is not incorrect is incorrect.

sent1: the retraction occurs and the breeziness occurs. sent2: if the recruiting hee-haw does not occur the fact that the metallic happens hold. sent3: if the necessariness does not occur then the fact that the speaking Dromaeosauridae occurs is true. sent4: the dodging Xenopodidae does not occur. sent5: the inversion does not occur. sent6: the swooping cereal does not occur and the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur. sent7: if that the denotativeness does not occur is not incorrect both the tragedy and the placation happens. sent8: the amphitheatricness happens and the vulvectomy occurs. sent9: that the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur prevents the non-galacticness. sent10: that the inputting does not occur causes that the cuckoldry happens and the spiking occurs. sent11: the denotativeness does not occur. sent12: the comber does not occur. sent13: both the punching and the creating occurs.

¬({C} & {D})

sent1: ({CO} & {CF}) sent2: ¬{CE} -> {IF} sent3: ¬{AB} -> {AQ} sent4: ¬{JK} sent5: ¬{HS} sent6: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent7: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent8: ({DN} & {T}) sent9: ¬{B} -> {C} sent10: ¬{BI} -> ({R} & {GK}) sent11: ¬{F} sent12: ¬{CJ} sent13: ({GM} & {HB})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that that the galacticness occurs and the tragedy happens is not incorrect is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the retraction occurs and the breeziness occurs. sent2: if the recruiting hee-haw does not occur the fact that the metallic happens hold. sent3: if the necessariness does not occur then the fact that the speaking Dromaeosauridae occurs is true. sent4: the dodging Xenopodidae does not occur. sent5: the inversion does not occur. sent6: the swooping cereal does not occur and the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur. sent7: if that the denotativeness does not occur is not incorrect both the tragedy and the placation happens. sent8: the amphitheatricness happens and the vulvectomy occurs. sent9: that the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur prevents the non-galacticness. sent10: that the inputting does not occur causes that the cuckoldry happens and the spiking occurs. sent11: the denotativeness does not occur. sent12: the comber does not occur. sent13: both the punching and the creating occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the galacticness happens.; sent7 & sent11 -> int3: both the tragedy and the placation happens.; int3 -> int4: the tragedy occurs.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the swooping cereal does not occur and the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur.

The swooping cereal doesn't happen and the dodging Tachyglossidae doesn't happen.

that the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur prevents the non-galacticness.

that that the galacticness occurs and the tragedy happens is not incorrect is incorrect.

sent1: the retraction occurs and the breeziness occurs. sent2: if the recruiting hee-haw does not occur the fact that the metallic happens hold. sent3: if the necessariness does not occur then the fact that the speaking Dromaeosauridae occurs is true. sent4: the dodging Xenopodidae does not occur. sent5: the inversion does not occur. sent6: the swooping cereal does not occur and the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur. sent7: if that the denotativeness does not occur is not incorrect both the tragedy and the placation happens. sent8: the amphitheatricness happens and the vulvectomy occurs. sent9: that the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur prevents the non-galacticness. sent10: that the inputting does not occur causes that the cuckoldry happens and the spiking occurs. sent11: the denotativeness does not occur. sent12: the comber does not occur. sent13: both the punching and the creating occurs.

¬({C} & {D})

sent1: ({CO} & {CF}) sent2: ¬{CE} -> {IF} sent3: ¬{AB} -> {AQ} sent4: ¬{JK} sent5: ¬{HS} sent6: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent7: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent8: ({DN} & {T}) sent9: ¬{B} -> {C} sent10: ¬{BI} -> ({R} & {GK}) sent11: ¬{F} sent12: ¬{CJ} sent13: ({GM} & {HB})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that that the galacticness occurs and the tragedy happens is not incorrect is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the retraction occurs and the breeziness occurs. sent2: if the recruiting hee-haw does not occur the fact that the metallic happens hold. sent3: if the necessariness does not occur then the fact that the speaking Dromaeosauridae occurs is true. sent4: the dodging Xenopodidae does not occur. sent5: the inversion does not occur. sent6: the swooping cereal does not occur and the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur. sent7: if that the denotativeness does not occur is not incorrect both the tragedy and the placation happens. sent8: the amphitheatricness happens and the vulvectomy occurs. sent9: that the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur prevents the non-galacticness. sent10: that the inputting does not occur causes that the cuckoldry happens and the spiking occurs. sent11: the denotativeness does not occur. sent12: the comber does not occur. sent13: both the punching and the creating occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the galacticness happens.; sent7 & sent11 -> int3: both the tragedy and the placation happens.; int3 -> int4: the tragedy occurs.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the swooping cereal does not occur and the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur.

The swooping cereals don't happen and the dodging Tachyglossidae doesn't happen.

if that the denotativeness does not occur is not incorrect both the tragedy and the placation happens.

that that the galacticness occurs and the tragedy happens is not incorrect is incorrect.

sent1: the retraction occurs and the breeziness occurs. sent2: if the recruiting hee-haw does not occur the fact that the metallic happens hold. sent3: if the necessariness does not occur then the fact that the speaking Dromaeosauridae occurs is true. sent4: the dodging Xenopodidae does not occur. sent5: the inversion does not occur. sent6: the swooping cereal does not occur and the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur. sent7: if that the denotativeness does not occur is not incorrect both the tragedy and the placation happens. sent8: the amphitheatricness happens and the vulvectomy occurs. sent9: that the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur prevents the non-galacticness. sent10: that the inputting does not occur causes that the cuckoldry happens and the spiking occurs. sent11: the denotativeness does not occur. sent12: the comber does not occur. sent13: both the punching and the creating occurs.

¬({C} & {D})

sent1: ({CO} & {CF}) sent2: ¬{CE} -> {IF} sent3: ¬{AB} -> {AQ} sent4: ¬{JK} sent5: ¬{HS} sent6: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent7: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent8: ({DN} & {T}) sent9: ¬{B} -> {C} sent10: ¬{BI} -> ({R} & {GK}) sent11: ¬{F} sent12: ¬{CJ} sent13: ({GM} & {HB})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that that the galacticness occurs and the tragedy happens is not incorrect is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the retraction occurs and the breeziness occurs. sent2: if the recruiting hee-haw does not occur the fact that the metallic happens hold. sent3: if the necessariness does not occur then the fact that the speaking Dromaeosauridae occurs is true. sent4: the dodging Xenopodidae does not occur. sent5: the inversion does not occur. sent6: the swooping cereal does not occur and the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur. sent7: if that the denotativeness does not occur is not incorrect both the tragedy and the placation happens. sent8: the amphitheatricness happens and the vulvectomy occurs. sent9: that the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur prevents the non-galacticness. sent10: that the inputting does not occur causes that the cuckoldry happens and the spiking occurs. sent11: the denotativeness does not occur. sent12: the comber does not occur. sent13: both the punching and the creating occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the galacticness happens.; sent7 & sent11 -> int3: both the tragedy and the placation happens.; int3 -> int4: the tragedy occurs.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the swooping cereal does not occur and the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur.

The swooping cereal does not happen.

the denotativeness does not occur.

both the non-cheliceralness and the underageness happens.

sent1: that the tracing does not occur is brought about by the dodging gamete or that the dodging setter does not occur or both. sent2: the conversing and the confession occurs if the macrencephalicness does not occur. sent3: that the conversing does not occur causes that the underageness occurs and the cheliceralness happens. sent4: the non-macrencephalicness leads to that the conversing does not occur and the confession does not occur. sent5: the swooping videocassette happens and the swooping redetermination occurs if the tracing does not occur. sent6: that the taste and the Citation happens results in that the cheliceralness does not occur. sent7: the underageness happens. sent8: the tasting occurs. sent9: the fact that the leadership and the swooping redetermination happens does not hold if the swooping videocassette does not occur. sent10: the retention happens. sent11: the electricalness does not occur if that either the Citation does not occur or the taste happens or both is not right. sent12: the fact that the cheliceralness does not occur but the underageness happens is false if the taste does not occur. sent13: if the swooping redetermination happens then the leadership but not the macrencephalicness occurs. sent14: the long-chainness happens.

(¬{C} & {D})

sent1: ({L} v ¬{M}) -> ¬{K} sent2: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent3: ¬{E} -> ({D} & {C}) sent4: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent5: ¬{K} -> ({J} & {I}) sent6: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent7: {D} sent8: {A} sent9: ¬{J} -> ¬({H} & {I}) sent10: {DA} sent11: ¬(¬{B} v {A}) -> ¬{HC} sent12: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{C} & {D}) sent13: {I} -> ({H} & ¬{G}) sent14: {GG}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the electricalness does not occur is not wrong.

¬{HC}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the non-cheliceralness and the underageness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the tracing does not occur is brought about by the dodging gamete or that the dodging setter does not occur or both. sent2: the conversing and the confession occurs if the macrencephalicness does not occur. sent3: that the conversing does not occur causes that the underageness occurs and the cheliceralness happens. sent4: the non-macrencephalicness leads to that the conversing does not occur and the confession does not occur. sent5: the swooping videocassette happens and the swooping redetermination occurs if the tracing does not occur. sent6: that the taste and the Citation happens results in that the cheliceralness does not occur. sent7: the underageness happens. sent8: the tasting occurs. sent9: the fact that the leadership and the swooping redetermination happens does not hold if the swooping videocassette does not occur. sent10: the retention happens. sent11: the electricalness does not occur if that either the Citation does not occur or the taste happens or both is not right. sent12: the fact that the cheliceralness does not occur but the underageness happens is false if the taste does not occur. sent13: if the swooping redetermination happens then the leadership but not the macrencephalicness occurs. sent14: the long-chainness happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the tasting occurs.

the tasting occurs.

the underageness happens.

the falcon does dodge Homer.

sent1: if that the semiprofessional is invulnerable but it does not dodge Sorbian is wrong then the Homer is a tenrec. sent2: something that is not a kind of a hare and dodges Homer is a bailor. sent3: everything does dodge Sorbian and it does recruit falcon. sent4: the manikin is not invulnerable if there exists something such that it does dodge Sorbian. sent5: if the Pneumovax is not a materialist then the melosa is dizygotic and it is a bailor. sent6: the falcon is not a kind of a bailor if that the melosa does hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect. sent7: if the manikin is not invulnerable the Homer is a desperation and/or it is a tenrec. sent8: if the Pneumovax does not dodge longbowman the falcon is not a kind of a materialist. sent9: the heliometer is dizygotic if the melosa is a kind of a bailor. sent10: something is not a materialist. sent11: the customer is a desperation if it does not recruit falcon. sent12: the fact that if the Homer is a desperation then the Pneumovax is a kind of a tenrec is not false. sent13: that the falcon is dizygotic is not incorrect if there is something such that it is not a materialist. sent14: the Homer does not dodge longbowman if the manikin does dodge longbowman but it is not a Haitian. sent15: the fact that the semiprofessional is invulnerable but it does not dodge Sorbian does not hold. sent16: if the falcon is not a materialist the melosa is a bailor and it dodges Homer. sent17: if something is not a kind of a bailor but it is dizygotic then it dodges Homer. sent18: the falcon is not a bailor if the melosa is not a kind of a hare. sent19: the reveler is not a hare. sent20: the fact that the melosa is a hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect. sent21: if that something does dodge longbowman and is not a Haitian is not true then it does not dodge longbowman. sent22: there exists something such that the fact that it does not swoop Sutherland or it does not dodge weepiness or both does not hold. sent23: there is something such that it is a materialist. sent24: if the customer is a desperation then the manikin does dodge longbowman but it is not Haitian. sent25: if something is a tenrec then the fact that it dodges longbowman and is not Haitian is not true.

{C}{b}

sent1: ¬({I}{g} & ¬{J}{g}) -> {F}{d} sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x & {C}x) -> {B}x sent3: (x): ({J}x & {K}x) sent4: (x): {J}x -> ¬{I}{e} sent5: ¬{D}{c} -> ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent6: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent7: ¬{I}{e} -> ({H}{d} v {F}{d}) sent8: ¬{E}{c} -> ¬{D}{b} sent9: {B}{a} -> {A}{jg} sent10: (Ex): ¬{D}x sent11: ¬{K}{f} -> {H}{f} sent12: {H}{d} -> {F}{c} sent13: (x): ¬{D}x -> {A}{b} sent14: ({E}{e} & ¬{G}{e}) -> ¬{E}{d} sent15: ¬({I}{g} & ¬{J}{g}) sent16: ¬{D}{b} -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent17: (x): (¬{B}x & {A}x) -> {C}x sent18: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent19: ¬{AA}{cd} sent20: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent21: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{E}x sent22: (Ex): ¬(¬{L}x v ¬{M}x) sent23: (Ex): {D}x sent24: {H}{f} -> ({E}{e} & ¬{G}{e}) sent25: (x): {F}x -> ¬({E}x & ¬{G}x)

PROVED

PROVED

the heliometer is dizygotic.

{A}{jg}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the falcon does dodge Homer. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the semiprofessional is invulnerable but it does not dodge Sorbian is wrong then the Homer is a tenrec. sent2: something that is not a kind of a hare and dodges Homer is a bailor. sent3: everything does dodge Sorbian and it does recruit falcon. sent4: the manikin is not invulnerable if there exists something such that it does dodge Sorbian. sent5: if the Pneumovax is not a materialist then the melosa is dizygotic and it is a bailor. sent6: the falcon is not a kind of a bailor if that the melosa does hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect. sent7: if the manikin is not invulnerable the Homer is a desperation and/or it is a tenrec. sent8: if the Pneumovax does not dodge longbowman the falcon is not a kind of a materialist. sent9: the heliometer is dizygotic if the melosa is a kind of a bailor. sent10: something is not a materialist. sent11: the customer is a desperation if it does not recruit falcon. sent12: the fact that if the Homer is a desperation then the Pneumovax is a kind of a tenrec is not false. sent13: that the falcon is dizygotic is not incorrect if there is something such that it is not a materialist. sent14: the Homer does not dodge longbowman if the manikin does dodge longbowman but it is not a Haitian. sent15: the fact that the semiprofessional is invulnerable but it does not dodge Sorbian does not hold. sent16: if the falcon is not a materialist the melosa is a bailor and it dodges Homer. sent17: if something is not a kind of a bailor but it is dizygotic then it dodges Homer. sent18: the falcon is not a bailor if the melosa is not a kind of a hare. sent19: the reveler is not a hare. sent20: the fact that the melosa is a hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect. sent21: if that something does dodge longbowman and is not a Haitian is not true then it does not dodge longbowman. sent22: there exists something such that the fact that it does not swoop Sutherland or it does not dodge weepiness or both does not hold. sent23: there is something such that it is a materialist. sent24: if the customer is a desperation then the manikin does dodge longbowman but it is not Haitian. sent25: if something is a tenrec then the fact that it dodges longbowman and is not Haitian is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent20 -> int1: the falcon is not a bailor.; sent10 & sent13 -> int2: that the falcon is dizygotic is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the falcon is not a bailor but it is dizygotic.; sent17 -> int4: if the falcon is not a bailor but it is dizygotic the fact that it dodges Homer is right.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the falcon is not a kind of a bailor if that the melosa does hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect.

The falcon is not a bailor if the melosa does hare.

the fact that the melosa is a hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect.

the falcon does dodge Homer.

sent1: if that the semiprofessional is invulnerable but it does not dodge Sorbian is wrong then the Homer is a tenrec. sent2: something that is not a kind of a hare and dodges Homer is a bailor. sent3: everything does dodge Sorbian and it does recruit falcon. sent4: the manikin is not invulnerable if there exists something such that it does dodge Sorbian. sent5: if the Pneumovax is not a materialist then the melosa is dizygotic and it is a bailor. sent6: the falcon is not a kind of a bailor if that the melosa does hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect. sent7: if the manikin is not invulnerable the Homer is a desperation and/or it is a tenrec. sent8: if the Pneumovax does not dodge longbowman the falcon is not a kind of a materialist. sent9: the heliometer is dizygotic if the melosa is a kind of a bailor. sent10: something is not a materialist. sent11: the customer is a desperation if it does not recruit falcon. sent12: the fact that if the Homer is a desperation then the Pneumovax is a kind of a tenrec is not false. sent13: that the falcon is dizygotic is not incorrect if there is something such that it is not a materialist. sent14: the Homer does not dodge longbowman if the manikin does dodge longbowman but it is not a Haitian. sent15: the fact that the semiprofessional is invulnerable but it does not dodge Sorbian does not hold. sent16: if the falcon is not a materialist the melosa is a bailor and it dodges Homer. sent17: if something is not a kind of a bailor but it is dizygotic then it dodges Homer. sent18: the falcon is not a bailor if the melosa is not a kind of a hare. sent19: the reveler is not a hare. sent20: the fact that the melosa is a hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect. sent21: if that something does dodge longbowman and is not a Haitian is not true then it does not dodge longbowman. sent22: there exists something such that the fact that it does not swoop Sutherland or it does not dodge weepiness or both does not hold. sent23: there is something such that it is a materialist. sent24: if the customer is a desperation then the manikin does dodge longbowman but it is not Haitian. sent25: if something is a tenrec then the fact that it dodges longbowman and is not Haitian is not true.

{C}{b}

sent1: ¬({I}{g} & ¬{J}{g}) -> {F}{d} sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x & {C}x) -> {B}x sent3: (x): ({J}x & {K}x) sent4: (x): {J}x -> ¬{I}{e} sent5: ¬{D}{c} -> ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent6: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent7: ¬{I}{e} -> ({H}{d} v {F}{d}) sent8: ¬{E}{c} -> ¬{D}{b} sent9: {B}{a} -> {A}{jg} sent10: (Ex): ¬{D}x sent11: ¬{K}{f} -> {H}{f} sent12: {H}{d} -> {F}{c} sent13: (x): ¬{D}x -> {A}{b} sent14: ({E}{e} & ¬{G}{e}) -> ¬{E}{d} sent15: ¬({I}{g} & ¬{J}{g}) sent16: ¬{D}{b} -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent17: (x): (¬{B}x & {A}x) -> {C}x sent18: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent19: ¬{AA}{cd} sent20: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent21: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{E}x sent22: (Ex): ¬(¬{L}x v ¬{M}x) sent23: (Ex): {D}x sent24: {H}{f} -> ({E}{e} & ¬{G}{e}) sent25: (x): {F}x -> ¬({E}x & ¬{G}x)

PROVED

PROVED

the heliometer is dizygotic.

{A}{jg}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the falcon does dodge Homer. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the semiprofessional is invulnerable but it does not dodge Sorbian is wrong then the Homer is a tenrec. sent2: something that is not a kind of a hare and dodges Homer is a bailor. sent3: everything does dodge Sorbian and it does recruit falcon. sent4: the manikin is not invulnerable if there exists something such that it does dodge Sorbian. sent5: if the Pneumovax is not a materialist then the melosa is dizygotic and it is a bailor. sent6: the falcon is not a kind of a bailor if that the melosa does hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect. sent7: if the manikin is not invulnerable the Homer is a desperation and/or it is a tenrec. sent8: if the Pneumovax does not dodge longbowman the falcon is not a kind of a materialist. sent9: the heliometer is dizygotic if the melosa is a kind of a bailor. sent10: something is not a materialist. sent11: the customer is a desperation if it does not recruit falcon. sent12: the fact that if the Homer is a desperation then the Pneumovax is a kind of a tenrec is not false. sent13: that the falcon is dizygotic is not incorrect if there is something such that it is not a materialist. sent14: the Homer does not dodge longbowman if the manikin does dodge longbowman but it is not a Haitian. sent15: the fact that the semiprofessional is invulnerable but it does not dodge Sorbian does not hold. sent16: if the falcon is not a materialist the melosa is a bailor and it dodges Homer. sent17: if something is not a kind of a bailor but it is dizygotic then it dodges Homer. sent18: the falcon is not a bailor if the melosa is not a kind of a hare. sent19: the reveler is not a hare. sent20: the fact that the melosa is a hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect. sent21: if that something does dodge longbowman and is not a Haitian is not true then it does not dodge longbowman. sent22: there exists something such that the fact that it does not swoop Sutherland or it does not dodge weepiness or both does not hold. sent23: there is something such that it is a materialist. sent24: if the customer is a desperation then the manikin does dodge longbowman but it is not Haitian. sent25: if something is a tenrec then the fact that it dodges longbowman and is not Haitian is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent20 -> int1: the falcon is not a bailor.; sent10 & sent13 -> int2: that the falcon is dizygotic is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the falcon is not a bailor but it is dizygotic.; sent17 -> int4: if the falcon is not a bailor but it is dizygotic the fact that it dodges Homer is right.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the falcon is not a kind of a bailor if that the melosa does hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect.

If the melosa does hare and it is incorrect, the falcon is not a bailor.

something is not a materialist.

the falcon does dodge Homer.

sent1: if that the semiprofessional is invulnerable but it does not dodge Sorbian is wrong then the Homer is a tenrec. sent2: something that is not a kind of a hare and dodges Homer is a bailor. sent3: everything does dodge Sorbian and it does recruit falcon. sent4: the manikin is not invulnerable if there exists something such that it does dodge Sorbian. sent5: if the Pneumovax is not a materialist then the melosa is dizygotic and it is a bailor. sent6: the falcon is not a kind of a bailor if that the melosa does hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect. sent7: if the manikin is not invulnerable the Homer is a desperation and/or it is a tenrec. sent8: if the Pneumovax does not dodge longbowman the falcon is not a kind of a materialist. sent9: the heliometer is dizygotic if the melosa is a kind of a bailor. sent10: something is not a materialist. sent11: the customer is a desperation if it does not recruit falcon. sent12: the fact that if the Homer is a desperation then the Pneumovax is a kind of a tenrec is not false. sent13: that the falcon is dizygotic is not incorrect if there is something such that it is not a materialist. sent14: the Homer does not dodge longbowman if the manikin does dodge longbowman but it is not a Haitian. sent15: the fact that the semiprofessional is invulnerable but it does not dodge Sorbian does not hold. sent16: if the falcon is not a materialist the melosa is a bailor and it dodges Homer. sent17: if something is not a kind of a bailor but it is dizygotic then it dodges Homer. sent18: the falcon is not a bailor if the melosa is not a kind of a hare. sent19: the reveler is not a hare. sent20: the fact that the melosa is a hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect. sent21: if that something does dodge longbowman and is not a Haitian is not true then it does not dodge longbowman. sent22: there exists something such that the fact that it does not swoop Sutherland or it does not dodge weepiness or both does not hold. sent23: there is something such that it is a materialist. sent24: if the customer is a desperation then the manikin does dodge longbowman but it is not Haitian. sent25: if something is a tenrec then the fact that it dodges longbowman and is not Haitian is not true.

{C}{b}

sent1: ¬({I}{g} & ¬{J}{g}) -> {F}{d} sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x & {C}x) -> {B}x sent3: (x): ({J}x & {K}x) sent4: (x): {J}x -> ¬{I}{e} sent5: ¬{D}{c} -> ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent6: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent7: ¬{I}{e} -> ({H}{d} v {F}{d}) sent8: ¬{E}{c} -> ¬{D}{b} sent9: {B}{a} -> {A}{jg} sent10: (Ex): ¬{D}x sent11: ¬{K}{f} -> {H}{f} sent12: {H}{d} -> {F}{c} sent13: (x): ¬{D}x -> {A}{b} sent14: ({E}{e} & ¬{G}{e}) -> ¬{E}{d} sent15: ¬({I}{g} & ¬{J}{g}) sent16: ¬{D}{b} -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent17: (x): (¬{B}x & {A}x) -> {C}x sent18: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent19: ¬{AA}{cd} sent20: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent21: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{E}x sent22: (Ex): ¬(¬{L}x v ¬{M}x) sent23: (Ex): {D}x sent24: {H}{f} -> ({E}{e} & ¬{G}{e}) sent25: (x): {F}x -> ¬({E}x & ¬{G}x)

PROVED

PROVED

the heliometer is dizygotic.

{A}{jg}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the falcon does dodge Homer. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the semiprofessional is invulnerable but it does not dodge Sorbian is wrong then the Homer is a tenrec. sent2: something that is not a kind of a hare and dodges Homer is a bailor. sent3: everything does dodge Sorbian and it does recruit falcon. sent4: the manikin is not invulnerable if there exists something such that it does dodge Sorbian. sent5: if the Pneumovax is not a materialist then the melosa is dizygotic and it is a bailor. sent6: the falcon is not a kind of a bailor if that the melosa does hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect. sent7: if the manikin is not invulnerable the Homer is a desperation and/or it is a tenrec. sent8: if the Pneumovax does not dodge longbowman the falcon is not a kind of a materialist. sent9: the heliometer is dizygotic if the melosa is a kind of a bailor. sent10: something is not a materialist. sent11: the customer is a desperation if it does not recruit falcon. sent12: the fact that if the Homer is a desperation then the Pneumovax is a kind of a tenrec is not false. sent13: that the falcon is dizygotic is not incorrect if there is something such that it is not a materialist. sent14: the Homer does not dodge longbowman if the manikin does dodge longbowman but it is not a Haitian. sent15: the fact that the semiprofessional is invulnerable but it does not dodge Sorbian does not hold. sent16: if the falcon is not a materialist the melosa is a bailor and it dodges Homer. sent17: if something is not a kind of a bailor but it is dizygotic then it dodges Homer. sent18: the falcon is not a bailor if the melosa is not a kind of a hare. sent19: the reveler is not a hare. sent20: the fact that the melosa is a hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect. sent21: if that something does dodge longbowman and is not a Haitian is not true then it does not dodge longbowman. sent22: there exists something such that the fact that it does not swoop Sutherland or it does not dodge weepiness or both does not hold. sent23: there is something such that it is a materialist. sent24: if the customer is a desperation then the manikin does dodge longbowman but it is not Haitian. sent25: if something is a tenrec then the fact that it dodges longbowman and is not Haitian is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent20 -> int1: the falcon is not a bailor.; sent10 & sent13 -> int2: that the falcon is dizygotic is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the falcon is not a bailor but it is dizygotic.; sent17 -> int4: if the falcon is not a bailor but it is dizygotic the fact that it dodges Homer is right.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the falcon is not a kind of a bailor if that the melosa does hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect.

The falcon is not a bailor if the melosa does hare and it is an interstate.

that the falcon is dizygotic is not incorrect if there is something such that it is not a materialist.

the falcon does dodge Homer.

sent1: if that the semiprofessional is invulnerable but it does not dodge Sorbian is wrong then the Homer is a tenrec. sent2: something that is not a kind of a hare and dodges Homer is a bailor. sent3: everything does dodge Sorbian and it does recruit falcon. sent4: the manikin is not invulnerable if there exists something such that it does dodge Sorbian. sent5: if the Pneumovax is not a materialist then the melosa is dizygotic and it is a bailor. sent6: the falcon is not a kind of a bailor if that the melosa does hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect. sent7: if the manikin is not invulnerable the Homer is a desperation and/or it is a tenrec. sent8: if the Pneumovax does not dodge longbowman the falcon is not a kind of a materialist. sent9: the heliometer is dizygotic if the melosa is a kind of a bailor. sent10: something is not a materialist. sent11: the customer is a desperation if it does not recruit falcon. sent12: the fact that if the Homer is a desperation then the Pneumovax is a kind of a tenrec is not false. sent13: that the falcon is dizygotic is not incorrect if there is something such that it is not a materialist. sent14: the Homer does not dodge longbowman if the manikin does dodge longbowman but it is not a Haitian. sent15: the fact that the semiprofessional is invulnerable but it does not dodge Sorbian does not hold. sent16: if the falcon is not a materialist the melosa is a bailor and it dodges Homer. sent17: if something is not a kind of a bailor but it is dizygotic then it dodges Homer. sent18: the falcon is not a bailor if the melosa is not a kind of a hare. sent19: the reveler is not a hare. sent20: the fact that the melosa is a hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect. sent21: if that something does dodge longbowman and is not a Haitian is not true then it does not dodge longbowman. sent22: there exists something such that the fact that it does not swoop Sutherland or it does not dodge weepiness or both does not hold. sent23: there is something such that it is a materialist. sent24: if the customer is a desperation then the manikin does dodge longbowman but it is not Haitian. sent25: if something is a tenrec then the fact that it dodges longbowman and is not Haitian is not true.

{C}{b}

sent1: ¬({I}{g} & ¬{J}{g}) -> {F}{d} sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x & {C}x) -> {B}x sent3: (x): ({J}x & {K}x) sent4: (x): {J}x -> ¬{I}{e} sent5: ¬{D}{c} -> ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent6: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent7: ¬{I}{e} -> ({H}{d} v {F}{d}) sent8: ¬{E}{c} -> ¬{D}{b} sent9: {B}{a} -> {A}{jg} sent10: (Ex): ¬{D}x sent11: ¬{K}{f} -> {H}{f} sent12: {H}{d} -> {F}{c} sent13: (x): ¬{D}x -> {A}{b} sent14: ({E}{e} & ¬{G}{e}) -> ¬{E}{d} sent15: ¬({I}{g} & ¬{J}{g}) sent16: ¬{D}{b} -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent17: (x): (¬{B}x & {A}x) -> {C}x sent18: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent19: ¬{AA}{cd} sent20: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent21: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{E}x sent22: (Ex): ¬(¬{L}x v ¬{M}x) sent23: (Ex): {D}x sent24: {H}{f} -> ({E}{e} & ¬{G}{e}) sent25: (x): {F}x -> ¬({E}x & ¬{G}x)

PROVED

PROVED

the heliometer is dizygotic.

{A}{jg}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the falcon does dodge Homer. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the semiprofessional is invulnerable but it does not dodge Sorbian is wrong then the Homer is a tenrec. sent2: something that is not a kind of a hare and dodges Homer is a bailor. sent3: everything does dodge Sorbian and it does recruit falcon. sent4: the manikin is not invulnerable if there exists something such that it does dodge Sorbian. sent5: if the Pneumovax is not a materialist then the melosa is dizygotic and it is a bailor. sent6: the falcon is not a kind of a bailor if that the melosa does hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect. sent7: if the manikin is not invulnerable the Homer is a desperation and/or it is a tenrec. sent8: if the Pneumovax does not dodge longbowman the falcon is not a kind of a materialist. sent9: the heliometer is dizygotic if the melosa is a kind of a bailor. sent10: something is not a materialist. sent11: the customer is a desperation if it does not recruit falcon. sent12: the fact that if the Homer is a desperation then the Pneumovax is a kind of a tenrec is not false. sent13: that the falcon is dizygotic is not incorrect if there is something such that it is not a materialist. sent14: the Homer does not dodge longbowman if the manikin does dodge longbowman but it is not a Haitian. sent15: the fact that the semiprofessional is invulnerable but it does not dodge Sorbian does not hold. sent16: if the falcon is not a materialist the melosa is a bailor and it dodges Homer. sent17: if something is not a kind of a bailor but it is dizygotic then it dodges Homer. sent18: the falcon is not a bailor if the melosa is not a kind of a hare. sent19: the reveler is not a hare. sent20: the fact that the melosa is a hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect. sent21: if that something does dodge longbowman and is not a Haitian is not true then it does not dodge longbowman. sent22: there exists something such that the fact that it does not swoop Sutherland or it does not dodge weepiness or both does not hold. sent23: there is something such that it is a materialist. sent24: if the customer is a desperation then the manikin does dodge longbowman but it is not Haitian. sent25: if something is a tenrec then the fact that it dodges longbowman and is not Haitian is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent20 -> int1: the falcon is not a bailor.; sent10 & sent13 -> int2: that the falcon is dizygotic is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the falcon is not a bailor but it is dizygotic.; sent17 -> int4: if the falcon is not a bailor but it is dizygotic the fact that it dodges Homer is right.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the falcon is not a kind of a bailor if that the melosa does hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect.

The falcon is not a bailor if the melosa does hare and it is incorrect.

if something is not a kind of a bailor but it is dizygotic then it dodges Homer.

either the matricide does not occur or the gauntlet happens or both.

sent1: the refocusing occurs. sent2: the matricide does not occur if the recruiting humin occurs.

(¬{C} v {D})

sent1: {B} sent2: {A} -> ¬{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = either the matricide does not occur or the gauntlet happens or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the refocusing occurs. sent2: the matricide does not occur if the recruiting humin occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the matricide does not occur if the recruiting humin occurs.

the matricide does not occur if the recruiting humin occurs.

the refocusing occurs.

the butt does not swoop cosmetic.

sent1: there is something such that it is not costive. sent2: the lineman is not a rind. sent3: the lineman is not costive if something that does not recruit Synentognathi does not swoop cosmetic. sent4: a coal swoops cosmetic. sent5: that the lineman does not recruit Synentognathi is not incorrect if something does not swoop cosmetic and is not costive. sent6: that the butt is a kind of non-liliaceous thing that is an insolvency is not right. sent7: if something that does not recruit Synentognathi is not costive then the butt does not swoop cosmetic. sent8: the butt does not swoop cosmetic if something that does not recruit Synentognathi is costive. sent9: something does recruit Synentognathi but it is not costive. sent10: if the warthog does not swoop disquieting then it is liliaceous but not a Rhinobatidae. sent11: the butt is not a crumpet and it is not a Bathyergidae. sent12: the lineman is not costive.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent2: ¬{BQ}{aa} sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent4: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent5: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent6: ¬(¬{C}{a} & {CU}{a}) sent7: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent8: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent9: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent10: ¬{E}{b} -> ({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent11: (¬{IL}{a} & ¬{CF}{a}) sent12: ¬{AB}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the laryngopharynx is not a kind of an insolvency and it does not swoop Hargeisa.

(¬{CU}{ae} & ¬{DT}{ae})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the butt does not swoop cosmetic. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is not costive. sent2: the lineman is not a rind. sent3: the lineman is not costive if something that does not recruit Synentognathi does not swoop cosmetic. sent4: a coal swoops cosmetic. sent5: that the lineman does not recruit Synentognathi is not incorrect if something does not swoop cosmetic and is not costive. sent6: that the butt is a kind of non-liliaceous thing that is an insolvency is not right. sent7: if something that does not recruit Synentognathi is not costive then the butt does not swoop cosmetic. sent8: the butt does not swoop cosmetic if something that does not recruit Synentognathi is costive. sent9: something does recruit Synentognathi but it is not costive. sent10: if the warthog does not swoop disquieting then it is liliaceous but not a Rhinobatidae. sent11: the butt is not a crumpet and it is not a Bathyergidae. sent12: the lineman is not costive. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the lineman is not a rind.

the lineman is not a rind.

the lineman is not costive if something that does not recruit Synentognathi does not swoop cosmetic.

there exists something such that it swoops monetarism or it does not dodge 1870s or both.

sent1: the courlan is not abiogenetic. sent2: the courlan either does swoop monetarism or does dodge 1870s or both. sent3: there is something such that it is a kind of a deaf or it does not speak chinked or both. sent4: the zinc hums if there is something such that the fact that it is a Key and/or is not strategics is not right. sent5: The 1870s does not dodge courlan. sent6: the slippage does swoop monetarism if the scraper swoop monetarism. sent7: the fact that everything recruits stint is true. sent8: the fact that the slippage does not dodge 1870s and speaks Humulus is not correct if that it does swoop monetarism hold. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not dodge 1870s and speaks Humulus is not correct that the courlan does not speaks Humulus hold. sent10: if there is something such that the fact that it subjects and it is a huisache does not hold the parget untunes. sent11: the fact that something is a kind of a Key or it is not strategics or both is incorrect if that it does recruit stint is not incorrect. sent12: if the parget untunes then the scraper swoops monetarism. sent13: there is something such that it does swoop monetarism and/or it does dodge 1870s.

(Ex): ({A}x v ¬{B}x)

sent1: ¬{HH}{a} sent2: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent3: (Ex): ({R}x v ¬{JD}x) sent4: (x): ¬({H}x v ¬{G}x) -> {F}{f} sent5: ¬{AA}{aa} sent6: {A}{c} -> {A}{b} sent7: (x): {I}x sent8: {A}{b} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & {DN}{b}) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {DN}x) -> ¬{DN}{a} sent10: (x): ¬({E}x & {D}x) -> {C}{d} sent11: (x): {I}x -> ¬({H}x v ¬{G}x) sent12: {C}{d} -> {A}{c} sent13: (Ex): ({A}x v {B}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the courlan does not speak Humulus.

¬{DN}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it swoops monetarism or it does not dodge 1870s or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the courlan is not abiogenetic. sent2: the courlan either does swoop monetarism or does dodge 1870s or both. sent3: there is something such that it is a kind of a deaf or it does not speak chinked or both. sent4: the zinc hums if there is something such that the fact that it is a Key and/or is not strategics is not right. sent5: The 1870s does not dodge courlan. sent6: the slippage does swoop monetarism if the scraper swoop monetarism. sent7: the fact that everything recruits stint is true. sent8: the fact that the slippage does not dodge 1870s and speaks Humulus is not correct if that it does swoop monetarism hold. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not dodge 1870s and speaks Humulus is not correct that the courlan does not speaks Humulus hold. sent10: if there is something such that the fact that it subjects and it is a huisache does not hold the parget untunes. sent11: the fact that something is a kind of a Key or it is not strategics or both is incorrect if that it does recruit stint is not incorrect. sent12: if the parget untunes then the scraper swoops monetarism. sent13: there is something such that it does swoop monetarism and/or it does dodge 1870s. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the courlan either does swoop monetarism or does dodge 1870s or both.

the courlan either does swoop monetarism or does dodge 1870s or both.

the courlan is not abiogenetic.

the beeswax is not a kind of a sixtieth or is not a Petaurus or both.

sent1: that the beeswax is not a sixtieth and/or is not a Petaurus is not right if the screwtop does not swoop beeswax. sent2: the sieve does not recruit chondrichthian if the fact that it is not a numeral and recruit chondrichthian is incorrect. sent3: the fact that if something is legless but it does not read then it is not nonalcoholic is not incorrect. sent4: that the chondrichthian is polyphonic and/or it does not dodge Shaker does not hold if that the spear is not nonalcoholic is right. sent5: the screwtop does swoop beeswax. sent6: The beeswax does swoop screwtop. sent7: if the sieve does not recruit chondrichthian the spear is legless but it is not a read. sent8: the beeswax is not a sixtieth and/or it is not a Petaurus if the screwtop does swoop beeswax. sent9: if the fact that the chondrichthian is polyphonic and/or it does not dodge Shaker is not correct the stake is not polyphonic. sent10: if the screwtop does swoop beeswax either the beeswax is a sixtieth or it is not a kind of a Petaurus or both. sent11: the stake is not a poltroon but off if it is not polyphonic. sent12: the beeswax is not a sixtieth and/or it is a Petaurus.

(¬{AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b})

sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) sent2: ¬(¬{K}{f} & {I}{f}) -> ¬{I}{f} sent3: (x): ({G}x & ¬{H}x) -> ¬{F}x sent4: ¬{F}{e} -> ¬({D}{d} v ¬{E}{d}) sent5: {A}{a} sent6: {AC}{aa} sent7: ¬{I}{f} -> ({G}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) sent8: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) sent9: ¬({D}{d} v ¬{E}{d}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent10: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) sent11: ¬{D}{c} -> (¬{B}{c} & {C}{c}) sent12: (¬{AA}{b} v {AB}{b})

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that that either the beeswax is not a sixtieth or it is not a Petaurus or both is not true is not false.

¬(¬{AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the beeswax is not a kind of a sixtieth or is not a Petaurus or both. ; $context$ = sent1: that the beeswax is not a sixtieth and/or is not a Petaurus is not right if the screwtop does not swoop beeswax. sent2: the sieve does not recruit chondrichthian if the fact that it is not a numeral and recruit chondrichthian is incorrect. sent3: the fact that if something is legless but it does not read then it is not nonalcoholic is not incorrect. sent4: that the chondrichthian is polyphonic and/or it does not dodge Shaker does not hold if that the spear is not nonalcoholic is right. sent5: the screwtop does swoop beeswax. sent6: The beeswax does swoop screwtop. sent7: if the sieve does not recruit chondrichthian the spear is legless but it is not a read. sent8: the beeswax is not a sixtieth and/or it is not a Petaurus if the screwtop does swoop beeswax. sent9: if the fact that the chondrichthian is polyphonic and/or it does not dodge Shaker is not correct the stake is not polyphonic. sent10: if the screwtop does swoop beeswax either the beeswax is a sixtieth or it is not a kind of a Petaurus or both. sent11: the stake is not a poltroon but off if it is not polyphonic. sent12: the beeswax is not a sixtieth and/or it is a Petaurus. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the beeswax is not a sixtieth and/or it is not a Petaurus if the screwtop does swoop beeswax.

the beeswax is not a sixtieth and/or it is not a Petaurus if the screwtop does swoop beeswax.

the screwtop does swoop beeswax.

the SLS does dodge masted.

sent1: everything is not holistic. sent2: the fact that if something dodges masted then the fact that either it is not a coupon or it is a bylaw or both is false hold. sent3: the SLS is not a podetium. sent4: the SLS does not swoop state. sent5: something is not a Vanbrugh if it is alkahestic and/or it is not a kind of a Vanbrugh. sent6: the SLS is not holistic if there is something such that it is nonspatial. sent7: if something is not a Vanbrugh it does dodge masted and swoops state. sent8: if that something does recruit September but it is not a kirpan is false it is not spatial. sent9: if the SLS dodges masted it is not a crocodile and/or it is a podetium. sent10: if the Hawaiian is nidifugous the fact that that the sanicle does recruit September but it is not a kirpan is not correct hold. sent11: if the SLS is not holistic then the hairpin is alkahestic or it is not a Vanbrugh or both. sent12: the Elamite is not dysphemistic and/or it is abasic. sent13: if the SLS does not swoop state then the fact that it either is not a crocodile or is a podetium or both is incorrect. sent14: The state does not swoop SLS. sent15: that the parsley is not a coupon is true. sent16: the Hawaiian is a path and it is nidifugous.

{A}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬{E}x sent2: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{HE}x v {IR}x) sent3: ¬{AB}{a} sent4: ¬{B}{a} sent5: (x): ({D}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{C}x sent6: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{E}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent8: (x): ¬({H}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{F}x sent9: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent10: {I}{c} -> ¬({H}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) sent11: ¬{E}{a} -> ({D}{ht} v ¬{C}{ht}) sent12: (¬{Q}{df} v {BJ}{df}) sent13: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent14: ¬{AE}{ac} sent15: ¬{HE}{e} sent16: ({J}{c} & {I}{c})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the hairpin is not a coupon or a bylaw or both is false.

¬(¬{HE}{ht} v {IR}{ht})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the SLS does dodge masted. ; $context$ = sent1: everything is not holistic. sent2: the fact that if something dodges masted then the fact that either it is not a coupon or it is a bylaw or both is false hold. sent3: the SLS is not a podetium. sent4: the SLS does not swoop state. sent5: something is not a Vanbrugh if it is alkahestic and/or it is not a kind of a Vanbrugh. sent6: the SLS is not holistic if there is something such that it is nonspatial. sent7: if something is not a Vanbrugh it does dodge masted and swoops state. sent8: if that something does recruit September but it is not a kirpan is false it is not spatial. sent9: if the SLS dodges masted it is not a crocodile and/or it is a podetium. sent10: if the Hawaiian is nidifugous the fact that that the sanicle does recruit September but it is not a kirpan is not correct hold. sent11: if the SLS is not holistic then the hairpin is alkahestic or it is not a Vanbrugh or both. sent12: the Elamite is not dysphemistic and/or it is abasic. sent13: if the SLS does not swoop state then the fact that it either is not a crocodile or is a podetium or both is incorrect. sent14: The state does not swoop SLS. sent15: that the parsley is not a coupon is true. sent16: the Hawaiian is a path and it is nidifugous. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the SLS does dodge masted.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: either the SLS is not a crocodile or it is a podetium or both.; sent13 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the SLS is not a crocodile and/or is a podetium is wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the SLS dodges masted it is not a crocodile and/or it is a podetium.

If the SLS dodges masted it is either a crocodile or a podetium.

if the SLS does not swoop state then the fact that it either is not a crocodile or is a podetium or both is incorrect.

the SLS does dodge masted.

sent1: everything is not holistic. sent2: the fact that if something dodges masted then the fact that either it is not a coupon or it is a bylaw or both is false hold. sent3: the SLS is not a podetium. sent4: the SLS does not swoop state. sent5: something is not a Vanbrugh if it is alkahestic and/or it is not a kind of a Vanbrugh. sent6: the SLS is not holistic if there is something such that it is nonspatial. sent7: if something is not a Vanbrugh it does dodge masted and swoops state. sent8: if that something does recruit September but it is not a kirpan is false it is not spatial. sent9: if the SLS dodges masted it is not a crocodile and/or it is a podetium. sent10: if the Hawaiian is nidifugous the fact that that the sanicle does recruit September but it is not a kirpan is not correct hold. sent11: if the SLS is not holistic then the hairpin is alkahestic or it is not a Vanbrugh or both. sent12: the Elamite is not dysphemistic and/or it is abasic. sent13: if the SLS does not swoop state then the fact that it either is not a crocodile or is a podetium or both is incorrect. sent14: The state does not swoop SLS. sent15: that the parsley is not a coupon is true. sent16: the Hawaiian is a path and it is nidifugous.

{A}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬{E}x sent2: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{HE}x v {IR}x) sent3: ¬{AB}{a} sent4: ¬{B}{a} sent5: (x): ({D}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{C}x sent6: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{E}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent8: (x): ¬({H}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{F}x sent9: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent10: {I}{c} -> ¬({H}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) sent11: ¬{E}{a} -> ({D}{ht} v ¬{C}{ht}) sent12: (¬{Q}{df} v {BJ}{df}) sent13: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent14: ¬{AE}{ac} sent15: ¬{HE}{e} sent16: ({J}{c} & {I}{c})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the hairpin is not a coupon or a bylaw or both is false.

¬(¬{HE}{ht} v {IR}{ht})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the SLS does dodge masted. ; $context$ = sent1: everything is not holistic. sent2: the fact that if something dodges masted then the fact that either it is not a coupon or it is a bylaw or both is false hold. sent3: the SLS is not a podetium. sent4: the SLS does not swoop state. sent5: something is not a Vanbrugh if it is alkahestic and/or it is not a kind of a Vanbrugh. sent6: the SLS is not holistic if there is something such that it is nonspatial. sent7: if something is not a Vanbrugh it does dodge masted and swoops state. sent8: if that something does recruit September but it is not a kirpan is false it is not spatial. sent9: if the SLS dodges masted it is not a crocodile and/or it is a podetium. sent10: if the Hawaiian is nidifugous the fact that that the sanicle does recruit September but it is not a kirpan is not correct hold. sent11: if the SLS is not holistic then the hairpin is alkahestic or it is not a Vanbrugh or both. sent12: the Elamite is not dysphemistic and/or it is abasic. sent13: if the SLS does not swoop state then the fact that it either is not a crocodile or is a podetium or both is incorrect. sent14: The state does not swoop SLS. sent15: that the parsley is not a coupon is true. sent16: the Hawaiian is a path and it is nidifugous. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the SLS does dodge masted.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: either the SLS is not a crocodile or it is a podetium or both.; sent13 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the SLS is not a crocodile and/or is a podetium is wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the SLS dodges masted it is not a crocodile and/or it is a podetium.

If the SLS dodges masted, it is either a crocodile or a podetium.

the SLS does not swoop state.

the preempting does not occur.

sent1: if the recruiting Sanguinaria occurs then that the recruiting Altaic but not the swooping expressionism happens does not hold. sent2: the recruiting behaviorism does not occur and the recruiting Sanguinaria occurs.

¬{E}

sent1: {B} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D}) sent2: (¬{A} & {B})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the preempting does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the recruiting Sanguinaria occurs then that the recruiting Altaic but not the swooping expressionism happens does not hold. sent2: the recruiting behaviorism does not occur and the recruiting Sanguinaria occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the recruiting behaviorism does not occur and the recruiting Sanguinaria occurs.

the recruiting behaviorism does not occur and the recruiting Sanguinaria occurs.

if the recruiting Sanguinaria occurs then that the recruiting Altaic but not the swooping expressionism happens does not hold.

the fife dodges Monterey and is not a PAYE.

sent1: the fact that something does emigrate but it is not bladdery is incorrect if it is a Bretagne. sent2: the rayon freezes.

({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬({CJ}x & ¬{FU}x) sent2: {B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the craniometer does emigrate and is not bladdery is not right.

¬({CJ}{ap} & ¬{FU}{ap})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fife dodges Monterey and is not a PAYE. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something does emigrate but it is not bladdery is incorrect if it is a Bretagne. sent2: the rayon freezes. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the rayon freezes.

the rayon freezes.

the fact that something does emigrate but it is not bladdery is incorrect if it is a Bretagne.

the fact that the salute does not occur is right.

sent1: the slavery occurs. sent2: the theming occurs. sent3: the saluting does not occur if the accountancy does not occur. sent4: that the connection does not occur causes that the neurobiologicalness does not occur and the suppling does not occur. sent5: the dodging lunchtime happens if the traditionalism happens. sent6: if the accountancy happens the salute occurs. sent7: the brave occurs. sent8: if the neurobiologicalness does not occur then the slavery happens and the salute occurs. sent9: the accountancy and the slavery happens.

¬{C}

sent1: {B} sent2: {FO} sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬{C} sent4: ¬{F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent5: {AR} -> {EN} sent6: {A} -> {C} sent7: {ED} sent8: ¬{D} -> ({B} & {C}) sent9: ({A} & {B})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the salute does not occur.

¬{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the salute does not occur is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the slavery occurs. sent2: the theming occurs. sent3: the saluting does not occur if the accountancy does not occur. sent4: that the connection does not occur causes that the neurobiologicalness does not occur and the suppling does not occur. sent5: the dodging lunchtime happens if the traditionalism happens. sent6: if the accountancy happens the salute occurs. sent7: the brave occurs. sent8: if the neurobiologicalness does not occur then the slavery happens and the salute occurs. sent9: the accountancy and the slavery happens. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> int1: the accountancy occurs.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the accountancy and the slavery happens.

the accountancy and the slavery happens.

if the accountancy happens the salute occurs.

the fact that the roadhouse is not a kind of a stifle hold.

sent1: that the roadhouse is a stifle is true if the linocut is a kind of a MS. sent2: the Donatist is a kind of non-nutritional thing that does not revamp if the streptocarpus does germinate. sent3: if the Donatist is non-nutritional thing that does not revamp the muton revamp. sent4: if the linocut is unrespectable it is a MS. sent5: if the linocut is not unrespectable the roadhouse is not a stifle. sent6: the streptocarpus does germinate if it is a no. sent7: if something does revamp then it swoops Araceae. sent8: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a deco and it is not a kind of a Georgian is incorrect. sent9: the linocut is unrespectable.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent2: {G}{e} -> (¬{F}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) sent3: (¬{F}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) -> {E}{c} sent4: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent6: {H}{e} -> {G}{e} sent7: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{I}x & ¬{J}x) sent9: {A}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the roadhouse is not a stifle.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the roadhouse is not a kind of a stifle hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the roadhouse is a stifle is true if the linocut is a kind of a MS. sent2: the Donatist is a kind of non-nutritional thing that does not revamp if the streptocarpus does germinate. sent3: if the Donatist is non-nutritional thing that does not revamp the muton revamp. sent4: if the linocut is unrespectable it is a MS. sent5: if the linocut is not unrespectable the roadhouse is not a stifle. sent6: the streptocarpus does germinate if it is a no. sent7: if something does revamp then it swoops Araceae. sent8: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a deco and it is not a kind of a Georgian is incorrect. sent9: the linocut is unrespectable. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent9 -> int1: the linocut is a MS.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the linocut is unrespectable it is a MS.

The linocut is unrespectable.

the linocut is unrespectable.

the fact that the roadhouse is not a kind of a stifle hold.

sent1: that the roadhouse is a stifle is true if the linocut is a kind of a MS. sent2: the Donatist is a kind of non-nutritional thing that does not revamp if the streptocarpus does germinate. sent3: if the Donatist is non-nutritional thing that does not revamp the muton revamp. sent4: if the linocut is unrespectable it is a MS. sent5: if the linocut is not unrespectable the roadhouse is not a stifle. sent6: the streptocarpus does germinate if it is a no. sent7: if something does revamp then it swoops Araceae. sent8: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a deco and it is not a kind of a Georgian is incorrect. sent9: the linocut is unrespectable.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent2: {G}{e} -> (¬{F}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) sent3: (¬{F}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) -> {E}{c} sent4: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent6: {H}{e} -> {G}{e} sent7: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{I}x & ¬{J}x) sent9: {A}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the roadhouse is not a stifle.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the roadhouse is not a kind of a stifle hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the roadhouse is a stifle is true if the linocut is a kind of a MS. sent2: the Donatist is a kind of non-nutritional thing that does not revamp if the streptocarpus does germinate. sent3: if the Donatist is non-nutritional thing that does not revamp the muton revamp. sent4: if the linocut is unrespectable it is a MS. sent5: if the linocut is not unrespectable the roadhouse is not a stifle. sent6: the streptocarpus does germinate if it is a no. sent7: if something does revamp then it swoops Araceae. sent8: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a deco and it is not a kind of a Georgian is incorrect. sent9: the linocut is unrespectable. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent9 -> int1: the linocut is a MS.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the linocut is unrespectable it is a MS.

It is aMS if the linocut is unrespectable.

that the roadhouse is a stifle is true if the linocut is a kind of a MS.

that the lip-gloss is both a sherry and a builder is incorrect.

sent1: if the pith is not a kind of a Assamese that the lip-gloss is a kind of a sherry and it is a builder does not hold. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not a Rhinobatidae the vigilante recruits Cunningham and it does team. sent3: the signor is both an antigen and a guillemot. sent4: if something is a pillar that the Moro is a kind of corvine thing that recruits escutcheon does not hold. sent5: there is something such that it is a pillar. sent6: that the Moro is not corvine is not false if that it is corvine and it does recruit escutcheon is not correct. sent7: the pith is not a kind of a Assamese if the tampion is not a majors and not a yodh. sent8: the lip-gloss is a sherry. sent9: something is both not a majors and not a yodh if it is not nonarbitrable. sent10: the lip-gloss is a kind of a builder. sent11: the Moro does continue. sent12: if the Moro does continue but it is not corvine then it is not a Rhinobatidae.

¬({A}{a} & {B}{a})

sent1: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬{J}x -> ({G}{e} & {I}{e}) sent3: ({FC}{bn} & {GN}{bn}) sent4: (x): {M}x -> ¬({L}{f} & {N}{f}) sent5: (Ex): {M}x sent6: ¬({L}{f} & {N}{f}) -> ¬{L}{f} sent7: (¬{D}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent8: {A}{a} sent9: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) sent10: {B}{a} sent11: {K}{f} sent12: ({K}{f} & ¬{L}{f}) -> ¬{J}{f}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the lip-gloss is a sherry and it is a builder is incorrect.

¬({A}{a} & {B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the lip-gloss is both a sherry and a builder is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pith is not a kind of a Assamese that the lip-gloss is a kind of a sherry and it is a builder does not hold. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not a Rhinobatidae the vigilante recruits Cunningham and it does team. sent3: the signor is both an antigen and a guillemot. sent4: if something is a pillar that the Moro is a kind of corvine thing that recruits escutcheon does not hold. sent5: there is something such that it is a pillar. sent6: that the Moro is not corvine is not false if that it is corvine and it does recruit escutcheon is not correct. sent7: the pith is not a kind of a Assamese if the tampion is not a majors and not a yodh. sent8: the lip-gloss is a sherry. sent9: something is both not a majors and not a yodh if it is not nonarbitrable. sent10: the lip-gloss is a kind of a builder. sent11: the Moro does continue. sent12: if the Moro does continue but it is not corvine then it is not a Rhinobatidae. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the lip-gloss is a sherry.

the lip-gloss is a sherry.

the lip-gloss is a kind of a builder.

the phosphatase is holy and is a kind of a oxheart.

sent1: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a arachnoid and it is a kind of an overcoat is not false. sent2: that that the length does not swoop A-line but it is a patient is not incorrect is not right. sent3: if the length is a kind of a patient then the phosphatase is a oxheart. sent4: the phosphatase is a kind of a patient. sent5: that the dimorphism is not a sherbert and does not swoop A-line is wrong. sent6: the length is a sherbert. sent7: if a non-arachnoid thing is not a kind of an overcoat then the dimorphism is not a kind of a sherbert. sent8: that the length does not swoop A-line and is not a patient is incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that it is not arachnoid. sent10: something is not an overcoat. sent11: if the dimorphism does swoop A-line the length is a sherbert. sent12: if that the length does not swoop A-line and is not patient does not hold the phosphatase is a oxheart. sent13: the dimorphism is a kind of a oxheart. sent14: if the dimorphism is not a sherbert then the phosphatase is holy. sent15: something is arachnoid but it is not an overcoat. sent16: there is something such that it is not arachnoid and it is not an overcoat.

({B}{b} & {C}{b})

sent1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: ¬(¬{E}{c} & {D}{c}) sent3: {D}{c} -> {C}{b} sent4: {D}{b} sent5: ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent6: {A}{c} sent7: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent8: ¬(¬{E}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent11: {E}{a} -> {A}{c} sent12: ¬(¬{E}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) -> {C}{b} sent13: {C}{a} sent14: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent15: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent16: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the phosphatase is holy and is a kind of a oxheart. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a arachnoid and it is a kind of an overcoat is not false. sent2: that that the length does not swoop A-line but it is a patient is not incorrect is not right. sent3: if the length is a kind of a patient then the phosphatase is a oxheart. sent4: the phosphatase is a kind of a patient. sent5: that the dimorphism is not a sherbert and does not swoop A-line is wrong. sent6: the length is a sherbert. sent7: if a non-arachnoid thing is not a kind of an overcoat then the dimorphism is not a kind of a sherbert. sent8: that the length does not swoop A-line and is not a patient is incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that it is not arachnoid. sent10: something is not an overcoat. sent11: if the dimorphism does swoop A-line the length is a sherbert. sent12: if that the length does not swoop A-line and is not patient does not hold the phosphatase is a oxheart. sent13: the dimorphism is a kind of a oxheart. sent14: if the dimorphism is not a sherbert then the phosphatase is holy. sent15: something is arachnoid but it is not an overcoat. sent16: there is something such that it is not arachnoid and it is not an overcoat. ; $proof$ =

sent16 & sent7 -> int1: the dimorphism is not a sherbert.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the phosphatase is holy.; sent12 & sent8 -> int3: the phosphatase is a oxheart.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not arachnoid and it is not an overcoat.

It is not an overcoat and it is not arachnoid.

if a non-arachnoid thing is not a kind of an overcoat then the dimorphism is not a kind of a sherbert.

the phosphatase is holy and is a kind of a oxheart.

sent1: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a arachnoid and it is a kind of an overcoat is not false. sent2: that that the length does not swoop A-line but it is a patient is not incorrect is not right. sent3: if the length is a kind of a patient then the phosphatase is a oxheart. sent4: the phosphatase is a kind of a patient. sent5: that the dimorphism is not a sherbert and does not swoop A-line is wrong. sent6: the length is a sherbert. sent7: if a non-arachnoid thing is not a kind of an overcoat then the dimorphism is not a kind of a sherbert. sent8: that the length does not swoop A-line and is not a patient is incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that it is not arachnoid. sent10: something is not an overcoat. sent11: if the dimorphism does swoop A-line the length is a sherbert. sent12: if that the length does not swoop A-line and is not patient does not hold the phosphatase is a oxheart. sent13: the dimorphism is a kind of a oxheart. sent14: if the dimorphism is not a sherbert then the phosphatase is holy. sent15: something is arachnoid but it is not an overcoat. sent16: there is something such that it is not arachnoid and it is not an overcoat.

({B}{b} & {C}{b})

sent1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: ¬(¬{E}{c} & {D}{c}) sent3: {D}{c} -> {C}{b} sent4: {D}{b} sent5: ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent6: {A}{c} sent7: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent8: ¬(¬{E}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent11: {E}{a} -> {A}{c} sent12: ¬(¬{E}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) -> {C}{b} sent13: {C}{a} sent14: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent15: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent16: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the phosphatase is holy and is a kind of a oxheart. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a arachnoid and it is a kind of an overcoat is not false. sent2: that that the length does not swoop A-line but it is a patient is not incorrect is not right. sent3: if the length is a kind of a patient then the phosphatase is a oxheart. sent4: the phosphatase is a kind of a patient. sent5: that the dimorphism is not a sherbert and does not swoop A-line is wrong. sent6: the length is a sherbert. sent7: if a non-arachnoid thing is not a kind of an overcoat then the dimorphism is not a kind of a sherbert. sent8: that the length does not swoop A-line and is not a patient is incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that it is not arachnoid. sent10: something is not an overcoat. sent11: if the dimorphism does swoop A-line the length is a sherbert. sent12: if that the length does not swoop A-line and is not patient does not hold the phosphatase is a oxheart. sent13: the dimorphism is a kind of a oxheart. sent14: if the dimorphism is not a sherbert then the phosphatase is holy. sent15: something is arachnoid but it is not an overcoat. sent16: there is something such that it is not arachnoid and it is not an overcoat. ; $proof$ =

sent16 & sent7 -> int1: the dimorphism is not a sherbert.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the phosphatase is holy.; sent12 & sent8 -> int3: the phosphatase is a oxheart.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not arachnoid and it is not an overcoat.

It isn't an overcoat and it isn't arachnoid.

if the dimorphism is not a sherbert then the phosphatase is holy.

the phosphatase is holy and is a kind of a oxheart.

sent1: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a arachnoid and it is a kind of an overcoat is not false. sent2: that that the length does not swoop A-line but it is a patient is not incorrect is not right. sent3: if the length is a kind of a patient then the phosphatase is a oxheart. sent4: the phosphatase is a kind of a patient. sent5: that the dimorphism is not a sherbert and does not swoop A-line is wrong. sent6: the length is a sherbert. sent7: if a non-arachnoid thing is not a kind of an overcoat then the dimorphism is not a kind of a sherbert. sent8: that the length does not swoop A-line and is not a patient is incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that it is not arachnoid. sent10: something is not an overcoat. sent11: if the dimorphism does swoop A-line the length is a sherbert. sent12: if that the length does not swoop A-line and is not patient does not hold the phosphatase is a oxheart. sent13: the dimorphism is a kind of a oxheart. sent14: if the dimorphism is not a sherbert then the phosphatase is holy. sent15: something is arachnoid but it is not an overcoat. sent16: there is something such that it is not arachnoid and it is not an overcoat.

({B}{b} & {C}{b})

sent1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: ¬(¬{E}{c} & {D}{c}) sent3: {D}{c} -> {C}{b} sent4: {D}{b} sent5: ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent6: {A}{c} sent7: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent8: ¬(¬{E}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent11: {E}{a} -> {A}{c} sent12: ¬(¬{E}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) -> {C}{b} sent13: {C}{a} sent14: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent15: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent16: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the phosphatase is holy and is a kind of a oxheart. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a arachnoid and it is a kind of an overcoat is not false. sent2: that that the length does not swoop A-line but it is a patient is not incorrect is not right. sent3: if the length is a kind of a patient then the phosphatase is a oxheart. sent4: the phosphatase is a kind of a patient. sent5: that the dimorphism is not a sherbert and does not swoop A-line is wrong. sent6: the length is a sherbert. sent7: if a non-arachnoid thing is not a kind of an overcoat then the dimorphism is not a kind of a sherbert. sent8: that the length does not swoop A-line and is not a patient is incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that it is not arachnoid. sent10: something is not an overcoat. sent11: if the dimorphism does swoop A-line the length is a sherbert. sent12: if that the length does not swoop A-line and is not patient does not hold the phosphatase is a oxheart. sent13: the dimorphism is a kind of a oxheart. sent14: if the dimorphism is not a sherbert then the phosphatase is holy. sent15: something is arachnoid but it is not an overcoat. sent16: there is something such that it is not arachnoid and it is not an overcoat. ; $proof$ =

sent16 & sent7 -> int1: the dimorphism is not a sherbert.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the phosphatase is holy.; sent12 & sent8 -> int3: the phosphatase is a oxheart.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not arachnoid and it is not an overcoat.

It is not arachnoid and it is not an overcoat.

if that the length does not swoop A-line and is not patient does not hold the phosphatase is a oxheart.

the phosphatase is holy and is a kind of a oxheart.

sent1: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a arachnoid and it is a kind of an overcoat is not false. sent2: that that the length does not swoop A-line but it is a patient is not incorrect is not right. sent3: if the length is a kind of a patient then the phosphatase is a oxheart. sent4: the phosphatase is a kind of a patient. sent5: that the dimorphism is not a sherbert and does not swoop A-line is wrong. sent6: the length is a sherbert. sent7: if a non-arachnoid thing is not a kind of an overcoat then the dimorphism is not a kind of a sherbert. sent8: that the length does not swoop A-line and is not a patient is incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that it is not arachnoid. sent10: something is not an overcoat. sent11: if the dimorphism does swoop A-line the length is a sherbert. sent12: if that the length does not swoop A-line and is not patient does not hold the phosphatase is a oxheart. sent13: the dimorphism is a kind of a oxheart. sent14: if the dimorphism is not a sherbert then the phosphatase is holy. sent15: something is arachnoid but it is not an overcoat. sent16: there is something such that it is not arachnoid and it is not an overcoat.

({B}{b} & {C}{b})

sent1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: ¬(¬{E}{c} & {D}{c}) sent3: {D}{c} -> {C}{b} sent4: {D}{b} sent5: ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent6: {A}{c} sent7: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent8: ¬(¬{E}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent11: {E}{a} -> {A}{c} sent12: ¬(¬{E}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) -> {C}{b} sent13: {C}{a} sent14: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent15: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent16: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the phosphatase is holy and is a kind of a oxheart. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a arachnoid and it is a kind of an overcoat is not false. sent2: that that the length does not swoop A-line but it is a patient is not incorrect is not right. sent3: if the length is a kind of a patient then the phosphatase is a oxheart. sent4: the phosphatase is a kind of a patient. sent5: that the dimorphism is not a sherbert and does not swoop A-line is wrong. sent6: the length is a sherbert. sent7: if a non-arachnoid thing is not a kind of an overcoat then the dimorphism is not a kind of a sherbert. sent8: that the length does not swoop A-line and is not a patient is incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that it is not arachnoid. sent10: something is not an overcoat. sent11: if the dimorphism does swoop A-line the length is a sherbert. sent12: if that the length does not swoop A-line and is not patient does not hold the phosphatase is a oxheart. sent13: the dimorphism is a kind of a oxheart. sent14: if the dimorphism is not a sherbert then the phosphatase is holy. sent15: something is arachnoid but it is not an overcoat. sent16: there is something such that it is not arachnoid and it is not an overcoat. ; $proof$ =

sent16 & sent7 -> int1: the dimorphism is not a sherbert.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the phosphatase is holy.; sent12 & sent8 -> int3: the phosphatase is a oxheart.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not arachnoid and it is not an overcoat.

It's not an overcoat and it's not arachnoid.

that the length does not swoop A-line and is not a patient is incorrect.

the rangpur is not comparable.

sent1: the thrombolytic is not comparable if the rangpur is deniable and is a mulloway. sent2: the thrombolytic is a sphenoid. sent3: the thrombolytic is a mulloway. sent4: the rangpur is scentless. sent5: the rangpur is cystic. sent6: the fact that the rangpur is Senecan is correct. sent7: the rangpur is not deniable if the thrombolytic is comparable and is a mulloway. sent8: the thrombolytic is comparable. sent9: the balsam is not comparable. sent10: the thrombolytic is deniable. sent11: the ripcord is comparable. sent12: the browntail is not comparable. sent13: the fact that the aldol is deniable is not wrong. sent14: the rangpur is not comparable if the thrombolytic is a kind of deniable thing that is a mulloway. sent15: the childbirth is not comparable. sent16: the thrombolytic is a Holocaust. sent17: the thrombolytic is not a kind of a mulloway if the rangpur is deniable and is comparable. sent18: the thrombolytic is a grainfield and it is insensitive. sent19: the rangpur is a kind of a mulloway and recruits stratocracy. sent20: the thrombolytic is not a kind of a mulloway if the rangpur is comparable and is deniable. sent21: the thrombolytic is not a saxifrage. sent22: if the rangpur is a kind of a mulloway and is deniable that the thrombolytic is not comparable is not wrong. sent23: the rangpur is not deniable if that the thrombolytic is a kind of a mulloway and is comparable is correct.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: ({A}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent2: {CS}{a} sent3: {B}{a} sent4: {ER}{b} sent5: {DB}{b} sent6: {HE}{b} sent7: ({C}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent8: {C}{a} sent9: ¬{C}{gb} sent10: {A}{a} sent11: {C}{cb} sent12: ¬{C}{du} sent13: {A}{ap} sent14: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent15: ¬{C}{da} sent16: {CR}{a} sent17: ({A}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent18: ({GL}{a} & {GC}{a}) sent19: ({B}{b} & {EI}{b}) sent20: ({C}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent21: ¬{AI}{a} sent22: ({B}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent23: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the rangpur is not comparable. ; $context$ = sent1: the thrombolytic is not comparable if the rangpur is deniable and is a mulloway. sent2: the thrombolytic is a sphenoid. sent3: the thrombolytic is a mulloway. sent4: the rangpur is scentless. sent5: the rangpur is cystic. sent6: the fact that the rangpur is Senecan is correct. sent7: the rangpur is not deniable if the thrombolytic is comparable and is a mulloway. sent8: the thrombolytic is comparable. sent9: the balsam is not comparable. sent10: the thrombolytic is deniable. sent11: the ripcord is comparable. sent12: the browntail is not comparable. sent13: the fact that the aldol is deniable is not wrong. sent14: the rangpur is not comparable if the thrombolytic is a kind of deniable thing that is a mulloway. sent15: the childbirth is not comparable. sent16: the thrombolytic is a Holocaust. sent17: the thrombolytic is not a kind of a mulloway if the rangpur is deniable and is comparable. sent18: the thrombolytic is a grainfield and it is insensitive. sent19: the rangpur is a kind of a mulloway and recruits stratocracy. sent20: the thrombolytic is not a kind of a mulloway if the rangpur is comparable and is deniable. sent21: the thrombolytic is not a saxifrage. sent22: if the rangpur is a kind of a mulloway and is deniable that the thrombolytic is not comparable is not wrong. sent23: the rangpur is not deniable if that the thrombolytic is a kind of a mulloway and is comparable is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent3 -> int1: the thrombolytic is deniable and it is a mulloway.; sent14 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the thrombolytic is deniable.

The disease is deniable.

the thrombolytic is a mulloway.

the rangpur is not comparable.

sent1: the thrombolytic is not comparable if the rangpur is deniable and is a mulloway. sent2: the thrombolytic is a sphenoid. sent3: the thrombolytic is a mulloway. sent4: the rangpur is scentless. sent5: the rangpur is cystic. sent6: the fact that the rangpur is Senecan is correct. sent7: the rangpur is not deniable if the thrombolytic is comparable and is a mulloway. sent8: the thrombolytic is comparable. sent9: the balsam is not comparable. sent10: the thrombolytic is deniable. sent11: the ripcord is comparable. sent12: the browntail is not comparable. sent13: the fact that the aldol is deniable is not wrong. sent14: the rangpur is not comparable if the thrombolytic is a kind of deniable thing that is a mulloway. sent15: the childbirth is not comparable. sent16: the thrombolytic is a Holocaust. sent17: the thrombolytic is not a kind of a mulloway if the rangpur is deniable and is comparable. sent18: the thrombolytic is a grainfield and it is insensitive. sent19: the rangpur is a kind of a mulloway and recruits stratocracy. sent20: the thrombolytic is not a kind of a mulloway if the rangpur is comparable and is deniable. sent21: the thrombolytic is not a saxifrage. sent22: if the rangpur is a kind of a mulloway and is deniable that the thrombolytic is not comparable is not wrong. sent23: the rangpur is not deniable if that the thrombolytic is a kind of a mulloway and is comparable is correct.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: ({A}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent2: {CS}{a} sent3: {B}{a} sent4: {ER}{b} sent5: {DB}{b} sent6: {HE}{b} sent7: ({C}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent8: {C}{a} sent9: ¬{C}{gb} sent10: {A}{a} sent11: {C}{cb} sent12: ¬{C}{du} sent13: {A}{ap} sent14: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent15: ¬{C}{da} sent16: {CR}{a} sent17: ({A}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent18: ({GL}{a} & {GC}{a}) sent19: ({B}{b} & {EI}{b}) sent20: ({C}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent21: ¬{AI}{a} sent22: ({B}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent23: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the rangpur is not comparable. ; $context$ = sent1: the thrombolytic is not comparable if the rangpur is deniable and is a mulloway. sent2: the thrombolytic is a sphenoid. sent3: the thrombolytic is a mulloway. sent4: the rangpur is scentless. sent5: the rangpur is cystic. sent6: the fact that the rangpur is Senecan is correct. sent7: the rangpur is not deniable if the thrombolytic is comparable and is a mulloway. sent8: the thrombolytic is comparable. sent9: the balsam is not comparable. sent10: the thrombolytic is deniable. sent11: the ripcord is comparable. sent12: the browntail is not comparable. sent13: the fact that the aldol is deniable is not wrong. sent14: the rangpur is not comparable if the thrombolytic is a kind of deniable thing that is a mulloway. sent15: the childbirth is not comparable. sent16: the thrombolytic is a Holocaust. sent17: the thrombolytic is not a kind of a mulloway if the rangpur is deniable and is comparable. sent18: the thrombolytic is a grainfield and it is insensitive. sent19: the rangpur is a kind of a mulloway and recruits stratocracy. sent20: the thrombolytic is not a kind of a mulloway if the rangpur is comparable and is deniable. sent21: the thrombolytic is not a saxifrage. sent22: if the rangpur is a kind of a mulloway and is deniable that the thrombolytic is not comparable is not wrong. sent23: the rangpur is not deniable if that the thrombolytic is a kind of a mulloway and is comparable is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent3 -> int1: the thrombolytic is deniable and it is a mulloway.; sent14 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the thrombolytic is deniable.

Thelytic is deniable.

the rangpur is not comparable if the thrombolytic is a kind of deniable thing that is a mulloway.

the knob does not swoop Gambian.

sent1: that the knob swoops cornered and it does swoop Gambian is wrong. sent2: the aquavit is not a Polyodon. sent3: something does not swoop Gambian but it is a Polyodon if it is a kind of a Malebranche. sent4: if something is a kind of a flats the aquavit swoops Gambian. sent5: the knob swoops Gambian if there exists something such that that it swoops cornered and is not a kind of a flats is not correct. sent6: the fact that if the aquavit is not the Polyodon then the fact that the aquavit does swoop cornered and is not flats is false hold. sent7: something is postpositive but it does not deplume. sent8: the native is a Polyodon. sent9: there exists something such that the fact that it does swoop cornered and is a kind of a Polyodon is not right.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: ¬({AA}{b} & {B}{b}) sent2: ¬{A}{a} sent3: (x): {C}x -> (¬{B}x & {A}x) sent4: (x): {AB}x -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}{b} sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent7: (Ex): ({HN}x & ¬{BL}x) sent8: {A}{l} sent9: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {A}x)

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the knob does not swoop Gambian.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the knob does not swoop Gambian. ; $context$ = sent1: that the knob swoops cornered and it does swoop Gambian is wrong. sent2: the aquavit is not a Polyodon. sent3: something does not swoop Gambian but it is a Polyodon if it is a kind of a Malebranche. sent4: if something is a kind of a flats the aquavit swoops Gambian. sent5: the knob swoops Gambian if there exists something such that that it swoops cornered and is not a kind of a flats is not correct. sent6: the fact that if the aquavit is not the Polyodon then the fact that the aquavit does swoop cornered and is not flats is false hold. sent7: something is postpositive but it does not deplume. sent8: the native is a Polyodon. sent9: there exists something such that the fact that it does swoop cornered and is a kind of a Polyodon is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent2 -> int1: that the aquavit swoops cornered but it is not a flats is not correct.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it does swoop cornered and is not a kind of a flats is false.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that if the aquavit is not the Polyodon then the fact that the aquavit does swoop cornered and is not flats is false hold.

The fact that the aquavit does swoop cornered and is not flats is false.

the aquavit is not a Polyodon.

the knob does not swoop Gambian.

sent1: that the knob swoops cornered and it does swoop Gambian is wrong. sent2: the aquavit is not a Polyodon. sent3: something does not swoop Gambian but it is a Polyodon if it is a kind of a Malebranche. sent4: if something is a kind of a flats the aquavit swoops Gambian. sent5: the knob swoops Gambian if there exists something such that that it swoops cornered and is not a kind of a flats is not correct. sent6: the fact that if the aquavit is not the Polyodon then the fact that the aquavit does swoop cornered and is not flats is false hold. sent7: something is postpositive but it does not deplume. sent8: the native is a Polyodon. sent9: there exists something such that the fact that it does swoop cornered and is a kind of a Polyodon is not right.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: ¬({AA}{b} & {B}{b}) sent2: ¬{A}{a} sent3: (x): {C}x -> (¬{B}x & {A}x) sent4: (x): {AB}x -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}{b} sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent7: (Ex): ({HN}x & ¬{BL}x) sent8: {A}{l} sent9: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {A}x)

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the knob does not swoop Gambian.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the knob does not swoop Gambian. ; $context$ = sent1: that the knob swoops cornered and it does swoop Gambian is wrong. sent2: the aquavit is not a Polyodon. sent3: something does not swoop Gambian but it is a Polyodon if it is a kind of a Malebranche. sent4: if something is a kind of a flats the aquavit swoops Gambian. sent5: the knob swoops Gambian if there exists something such that that it swoops cornered and is not a kind of a flats is not correct. sent6: the fact that if the aquavit is not the Polyodon then the fact that the aquavit does swoop cornered and is not flats is false hold. sent7: something is postpositive but it does not deplume. sent8: the native is a Polyodon. sent9: there exists something such that the fact that it does swoop cornered and is a kind of a Polyodon is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent2 -> int1: that the aquavit swoops cornered but it is not a flats is not correct.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it does swoop cornered and is not a kind of a flats is false.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that if the aquavit is not the Polyodon then the fact that the aquavit does swoop cornered and is not flats is false hold.

The fact that the aquavit swoops cornered and is not flats is false.

the knob swoops Gambian if there exists something such that that it swoops cornered and is not a kind of a flats is not correct.

the terpene is not entrepreneurial.

sent1: if the fact that the missal is indirect and it does corrupt is wrong then the terpene is non-adverbial. sent2: the bascule does not swoop cosmetic and is not a kind of a kishke if it is a weekend. sent3: if the missal is not Dickensian then the bascule is a kind of an adverbial. sent4: the fact that something is a kind of indirect thing that corrupts is not correct if that it is not ipsilateral is right. sent5: if the missal is not gastric it is not Dickensian. sent6: if that something is corrupt an adverbial is not true it is not adverbial. sent7: that something is ipsilateral and is a fight is wrong if that it is not a kind of a kishke is right. sent8: something is entrepreneurial if that it is gastric and/or it is not Dickensian does not hold. sent9: if something is not adverbial then that it is gastric or it is not Dickensian or both is false. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is both ipsilateral and indirect is false. sent11: if the bascule is a kind of adverbial thing that is not Dickensian the terpene is not entrepreneurial. sent12: something either does not recur or is not a canter or both. sent13: the bascule is a weekend if something does not recur or it is not a kind of a canter or both. sent14: the missal is not gastric. sent15: that that the missal does corrupt and it is a kind of an adverbial is not incorrect is wrong if it is not entrepreneurial. sent16: if that the missal is not Dickensian is not incorrect the bascule is a kind of an adverbial but it is not Dickensian.

¬{D}{c}

sent1: ¬({F}{a} & {E}{a}) -> ¬{C}{c} sent2: {K}{b} -> (¬{J}{b} & ¬{H}{b}) sent3: ¬{B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent4: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬({F}x & {E}x) sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: (x): ¬({E}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}x sent7: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬({G}x & {I}x) sent8: (x): ¬({A}x v ¬{B}x) -> {D}x sent9: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x v ¬{B}x) sent10: (Ex): ¬({G}x & {F}x) sent11: ({C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent12: (Ex): (¬{M}x v ¬{L}x) sent13: (x): (¬{M}x v ¬{L}x) -> {K}{b} sent14: ¬{A}{a} sent15: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬({E}{a} & {C}{a}) sent16: ¬{B}{a} -> ({C}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

PROVED

PROVED

the terpene is entrepreneurial.

{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the terpene is not entrepreneurial. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the missal is indirect and it does corrupt is wrong then the terpene is non-adverbial. sent2: the bascule does not swoop cosmetic and is not a kind of a kishke if it is a weekend. sent3: if the missal is not Dickensian then the bascule is a kind of an adverbial. sent4: the fact that something is a kind of indirect thing that corrupts is not correct if that it is not ipsilateral is right. sent5: if the missal is not gastric it is not Dickensian. sent6: if that something is corrupt an adverbial is not true it is not adverbial. sent7: that something is ipsilateral and is a fight is wrong if that it is not a kind of a kishke is right. sent8: something is entrepreneurial if that it is gastric and/or it is not Dickensian does not hold. sent9: if something is not adverbial then that it is gastric or it is not Dickensian or both is false. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is both ipsilateral and indirect is false. sent11: if the bascule is a kind of adverbial thing that is not Dickensian the terpene is not entrepreneurial. sent12: something either does not recur or is not a canter or both. sent13: the bascule is a weekend if something does not recur or it is not a kind of a canter or both. sent14: the missal is not gastric. sent15: that that the missal does corrupt and it is a kind of an adverbial is not incorrect is wrong if it is not entrepreneurial. sent16: if that the missal is not Dickensian is not incorrect the bascule is a kind of an adverbial but it is not Dickensian. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent14 -> int1: the missal is not Dickensian.; sent16 & int1 -> int2: the bascule is an adverbial but not Dickensian.; sent11 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the missal is not gastric it is not Dickensian.

The missal is not Dickensian.

the missal is not gastric.

the terpene is not entrepreneurial.

sent1: if the fact that the missal is indirect and it does corrupt is wrong then the terpene is non-adverbial. sent2: the bascule does not swoop cosmetic and is not a kind of a kishke if it is a weekend. sent3: if the missal is not Dickensian then the bascule is a kind of an adverbial. sent4: the fact that something is a kind of indirect thing that corrupts is not correct if that it is not ipsilateral is right. sent5: if the missal is not gastric it is not Dickensian. sent6: if that something is corrupt an adverbial is not true it is not adverbial. sent7: that something is ipsilateral and is a fight is wrong if that it is not a kind of a kishke is right. sent8: something is entrepreneurial if that it is gastric and/or it is not Dickensian does not hold. sent9: if something is not adverbial then that it is gastric or it is not Dickensian or both is false. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is both ipsilateral and indirect is false. sent11: if the bascule is a kind of adverbial thing that is not Dickensian the terpene is not entrepreneurial. sent12: something either does not recur or is not a canter or both. sent13: the bascule is a weekend if something does not recur or it is not a kind of a canter or both. sent14: the missal is not gastric. sent15: that that the missal does corrupt and it is a kind of an adverbial is not incorrect is wrong if it is not entrepreneurial. sent16: if that the missal is not Dickensian is not incorrect the bascule is a kind of an adverbial but it is not Dickensian.

¬{D}{c}

sent1: ¬({F}{a} & {E}{a}) -> ¬{C}{c} sent2: {K}{b} -> (¬{J}{b} & ¬{H}{b}) sent3: ¬{B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent4: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬({F}x & {E}x) sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: (x): ¬({E}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}x sent7: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬({G}x & {I}x) sent8: (x): ¬({A}x v ¬{B}x) -> {D}x sent9: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x v ¬{B}x) sent10: (Ex): ¬({G}x & {F}x) sent11: ({C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent12: (Ex): (¬{M}x v ¬{L}x) sent13: (x): (¬{M}x v ¬{L}x) -> {K}{b} sent14: ¬{A}{a} sent15: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬({E}{a} & {C}{a}) sent16: ¬{B}{a} -> ({C}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

PROVED

PROVED

the terpene is entrepreneurial.

{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the terpene is not entrepreneurial. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the missal is indirect and it does corrupt is wrong then the terpene is non-adverbial. sent2: the bascule does not swoop cosmetic and is not a kind of a kishke if it is a weekend. sent3: if the missal is not Dickensian then the bascule is a kind of an adverbial. sent4: the fact that something is a kind of indirect thing that corrupts is not correct if that it is not ipsilateral is right. sent5: if the missal is not gastric it is not Dickensian. sent6: if that something is corrupt an adverbial is not true it is not adverbial. sent7: that something is ipsilateral and is a fight is wrong if that it is not a kind of a kishke is right. sent8: something is entrepreneurial if that it is gastric and/or it is not Dickensian does not hold. sent9: if something is not adverbial then that it is gastric or it is not Dickensian or both is false. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is both ipsilateral and indirect is false. sent11: if the bascule is a kind of adverbial thing that is not Dickensian the terpene is not entrepreneurial. sent12: something either does not recur or is not a canter or both. sent13: the bascule is a weekend if something does not recur or it is not a kind of a canter or both. sent14: the missal is not gastric. sent15: that that the missal does corrupt and it is a kind of an adverbial is not incorrect is wrong if it is not entrepreneurial. sent16: if that the missal is not Dickensian is not incorrect the bascule is a kind of an adverbial but it is not Dickensian. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent14 -> int1: the missal is not Dickensian.; sent16 & int1 -> int2: the bascule is an adverbial but not Dickensian.; sent11 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the missal is not gastric it is not Dickensian.

The missal is not Dickensian if it is not gastric.

if that the missal is not Dickensian is not incorrect the bascule is a kind of an adverbial but it is not Dickensian.

the terpene is not entrepreneurial.

sent1: if the fact that the missal is indirect and it does corrupt is wrong then the terpene is non-adverbial. sent2: the bascule does not swoop cosmetic and is not a kind of a kishke if it is a weekend. sent3: if the missal is not Dickensian then the bascule is a kind of an adverbial. sent4: the fact that something is a kind of indirect thing that corrupts is not correct if that it is not ipsilateral is right. sent5: if the missal is not gastric it is not Dickensian. sent6: if that something is corrupt an adverbial is not true it is not adverbial. sent7: that something is ipsilateral and is a fight is wrong if that it is not a kind of a kishke is right. sent8: something is entrepreneurial if that it is gastric and/or it is not Dickensian does not hold. sent9: if something is not adverbial then that it is gastric or it is not Dickensian or both is false. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is both ipsilateral and indirect is false. sent11: if the bascule is a kind of adverbial thing that is not Dickensian the terpene is not entrepreneurial. sent12: something either does not recur or is not a canter or both. sent13: the bascule is a weekend if something does not recur or it is not a kind of a canter or both. sent14: the missal is not gastric. sent15: that that the missal does corrupt and it is a kind of an adverbial is not incorrect is wrong if it is not entrepreneurial. sent16: if that the missal is not Dickensian is not incorrect the bascule is a kind of an adverbial but it is not Dickensian.

¬{D}{c}

sent1: ¬({F}{a} & {E}{a}) -> ¬{C}{c} sent2: {K}{b} -> (¬{J}{b} & ¬{H}{b}) sent3: ¬{B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent4: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬({F}x & {E}x) sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: (x): ¬({E}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}x sent7: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬({G}x & {I}x) sent8: (x): ¬({A}x v ¬{B}x) -> {D}x sent9: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x v ¬{B}x) sent10: (Ex): ¬({G}x & {F}x) sent11: ({C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent12: (Ex): (¬{M}x v ¬{L}x) sent13: (x): (¬{M}x v ¬{L}x) -> {K}{b} sent14: ¬{A}{a} sent15: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬({E}{a} & {C}{a}) sent16: ¬{B}{a} -> ({C}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

PROVED

PROVED

the terpene is entrepreneurial.

{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the terpene is not entrepreneurial. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the missal is indirect and it does corrupt is wrong then the terpene is non-adverbial. sent2: the bascule does not swoop cosmetic and is not a kind of a kishke if it is a weekend. sent3: if the missal is not Dickensian then the bascule is a kind of an adverbial. sent4: the fact that something is a kind of indirect thing that corrupts is not correct if that it is not ipsilateral is right. sent5: if the missal is not gastric it is not Dickensian. sent6: if that something is corrupt an adverbial is not true it is not adverbial. sent7: that something is ipsilateral and is a fight is wrong if that it is not a kind of a kishke is right. sent8: something is entrepreneurial if that it is gastric and/or it is not Dickensian does not hold. sent9: if something is not adverbial then that it is gastric or it is not Dickensian or both is false. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is both ipsilateral and indirect is false. sent11: if the bascule is a kind of adverbial thing that is not Dickensian the terpene is not entrepreneurial. sent12: something either does not recur or is not a canter or both. sent13: the bascule is a weekend if something does not recur or it is not a kind of a canter or both. sent14: the missal is not gastric. sent15: that that the missal does corrupt and it is a kind of an adverbial is not incorrect is wrong if it is not entrepreneurial. sent16: if that the missal is not Dickensian is not incorrect the bascule is a kind of an adverbial but it is not Dickensian. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent14 -> int1: the missal is not Dickensian.; sent16 & int1 -> int2: the bascule is an adverbial but not Dickensian.; sent11 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the missal is not gastric it is not Dickensian.

It is not Dickensian if the missal is not gastric.

if the bascule is a kind of adverbial thing that is not Dickensian the terpene is not entrepreneurial.

the swooping Taiwanese does not occur and the swooping Balsaminaceae occurs.

sent1: that the swooping Balsaminaceae and the incidentalness happens is brought about by that the swooping Babesiidae does not occur. sent2: the unquietness occurs and/or the scallop occurs. sent3: if the internationalness does not occur then that the swooping Taiwanese does not occur and the swooping Balsaminaceae happens does not hold. sent4: if that the incidentalness and the non-eutrophicness happens is not true then the internationalness does not occur. sent5: if the recruiting Torquemada does not occur then the swooping woe happens and the isomericness does not occur. sent6: if the eutrophicness occurs then the swooping Taiwanese does not occur. sent7: the contralateralness occurs if the endermicness does not occur. sent8: the swooping Babesiidae does not occur. sent9: the swooping Taiwanese is prevented by the internationalness or the eutrophicness or both. sent10: the cold does not occur and the rationalization does not occur if the diabolatry occurs. sent11: the non-isomericness yields that the winnow happens and the swooping Babesiidae happens. sent12: the dodging cornered happens. sent13: the diadromousness happens. sent14: the carnifying and the tetragonalness happens if the dodging discernability does not occur. sent15: the speaking Zygocactus does not occur. sent16: the spanking does not occur and the torturing happens. sent17: that the expansion does not occur is correct. sent18: if the coldness does not occur then the recruiting Torquemada does not occur.

(¬{C} & {D})

sent1: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent2: ({GH} v {DA}) sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{C} & {D}) sent4: ¬({E} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{A} sent5: ¬{J} -> ({I} & ¬{H}) sent6: {B} -> ¬{C} sent7: ¬{JG} -> {IJ} sent8: ¬{F} sent9: ({A} v {B}) -> ¬{C} sent10: {M} -> (¬{K} & ¬{L}) sent11: ¬{H} -> ({G} & {F}) sent12: {HT} sent13: {BI} sent14: ¬{IH} -> ({JC} & {O}) sent15: ¬{EG} sent16: (¬{CI} & {DI}) sent17: ¬{GU} sent18: ¬{K} -> ¬{J}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that not the swooping Taiwanese but the swooping Balsaminaceae happens is not right.

¬(¬{C} & {D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the swooping Taiwanese does not occur and the swooping Balsaminaceae occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the swooping Balsaminaceae and the incidentalness happens is brought about by that the swooping Babesiidae does not occur. sent2: the unquietness occurs and/or the scallop occurs. sent3: if the internationalness does not occur then that the swooping Taiwanese does not occur and the swooping Balsaminaceae happens does not hold. sent4: if that the incidentalness and the non-eutrophicness happens is not true then the internationalness does not occur. sent5: if the recruiting Torquemada does not occur then the swooping woe happens and the isomericness does not occur. sent6: if the eutrophicness occurs then the swooping Taiwanese does not occur. sent7: the contralateralness occurs if the endermicness does not occur. sent8: the swooping Babesiidae does not occur. sent9: the swooping Taiwanese is prevented by the internationalness or the eutrophicness or both. sent10: the cold does not occur and the rationalization does not occur if the diabolatry occurs. sent11: the non-isomericness yields that the winnow happens and the swooping Babesiidae happens. sent12: the dodging cornered happens. sent13: the diadromousness happens. sent14: the carnifying and the tetragonalness happens if the dodging discernability does not occur. sent15: the speaking Zygocactus does not occur. sent16: the spanking does not occur and the torturing happens. sent17: that the expansion does not occur is correct. sent18: if the coldness does not occur then the recruiting Torquemada does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the swooping Balsaminaceae and the incidentalness happens is brought about by that the swooping Babesiidae does not occur.

that the swooping Balsaminaceae and the incidentalness happens is brought about by that the swooping Babesiidae does not occur.

the swooping Babesiidae does not occur.

either the H-bomb is agonal or it does not abuse Phoeniculus or both.

sent1: if something is not elastic then the fact that that it is agonal and/or does not abuse Phoeniculus is not wrong is incorrect. sent2: the H-bomb is agonal and/or it does not abuse Phoeniculus if the everyman does abuse Phoeniculus. sent3: either the everyman abuses Phoeniculus or it is not agonal or both. sent4: if the everyman abuses Phoeniculus then the H-bomb is not non-agonal and/or abuses Phoeniculus.

({C}{b} v ¬{A}{b})

sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({C}x v ¬{A}x) sent2: {A}{a} -> ({C}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) sent3: ({A}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent4: {A}{a} -> ({C}{b} v {A}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that either the H-bomb is agonal or it does not abuse Phoeniculus or both is false.

¬({C}{b} v ¬{A}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = either the H-bomb is agonal or it does not abuse Phoeniculus or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not elastic then the fact that that it is agonal and/or does not abuse Phoeniculus is not wrong is incorrect. sent2: the H-bomb is agonal and/or it does not abuse Phoeniculus if the everyman does abuse Phoeniculus. sent3: either the everyman abuses Phoeniculus or it is not agonal or both. sent4: if the everyman abuses Phoeniculus then the H-bomb is not non-agonal and/or abuses Phoeniculus. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

either the everyman abuses Phoeniculus or it is not agonal or both.

either the everyman abuses Phoeniculus or it is not agonal or both.

if the everyman abuses Phoeniculus then the H-bomb is not non-agonal and/or abuses Phoeniculus.

the getaway does not occur.

sent1: the pyrogallicness does not occur and the omission does not occur if the gelling bilocation does not occur. sent2: that the gelling bilocation does not occur is triggered by that the Malian but not the congregation occurs. sent3: the antitrade does not occur and the kneading does not occur. sent4: the virologicalness does not occur and the swoop does not occur. sent5: the suspending does not occur. sent6: if the abusing sika happens then the mass does not occur and the discouragement does not occur. sent7: the fermentableness does not occur and the abusing shrub does not occur. sent8: the two-dimensionalness does not occur and the aliyah does not occur. sent9: the affray does not occur and the quirking does not occur. sent10: the fact that the part does not occur hold. sent11: that that the proclamation does not occur and the abusing validation does not occur is not incorrect is caused by that the omission occurs. sent12: the intracellularness happens. sent13: if the scrabbling fleshiness occurs then the assertion does not occur and the scrabbling sherry does not occur. sent14: if the pyrogallicness does not occur and the gelling bilocation does not occur the omission happens. sent15: the abusing validation occurs.

¬{AB}

sent1: ¬{D} -> (¬{C} & ¬{B}) sent2: ({F} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{D} sent3: (¬{JH} & ¬{DU}) sent4: (¬{IC} & ¬{JG}) sent5: ¬{GJ} sent6: {BJ} -> (¬{HL} & ¬{EU}) sent7: (¬{IM} & ¬{IN}) sent8: (¬{AI} & ¬{FH}) sent9: (¬{FC} & ¬{DK}) sent10: ¬{DC} sent11: {B} -> (¬{FQ} & ¬{A}) sent12: {JC} sent13: {EE} -> (¬{IA} & ¬{AL}) sent14: (¬{C} & ¬{D}) -> {B} sent15: {A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the getaway happens.

{AB}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the getaway does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the pyrogallicness does not occur and the omission does not occur if the gelling bilocation does not occur. sent2: that the gelling bilocation does not occur is triggered by that the Malian but not the congregation occurs. sent3: the antitrade does not occur and the kneading does not occur. sent4: the virologicalness does not occur and the swoop does not occur. sent5: the suspending does not occur. sent6: if the abusing sika happens then the mass does not occur and the discouragement does not occur. sent7: the fermentableness does not occur and the abusing shrub does not occur. sent8: the two-dimensionalness does not occur and the aliyah does not occur. sent9: the affray does not occur and the quirking does not occur. sent10: the fact that the part does not occur hold. sent11: that that the proclamation does not occur and the abusing validation does not occur is not incorrect is caused by that the omission occurs. sent12: the intracellularness happens. sent13: if the scrabbling fleshiness occurs then the assertion does not occur and the scrabbling sherry does not occur. sent14: if the pyrogallicness does not occur and the gelling bilocation does not occur the omission happens. sent15: the abusing validation occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the abusing validation occurs.

the abusing validation occurs.

the pyrogallicness does not occur and the omission does not occur if the gelling bilocation does not occur.

the astrolabe is not a Pongo.

sent1: if something is not non-handmade but doctoral then it is not a Pongo. sent2: that the isoagglutinin is wheaten and is uncertain is wrong. sent3: the nuthatch does not abuse vent. sent4: the nuthatch tucks durance. sent5: that the astrolabe is uncertain thing that is a kind of a Pongo is incorrect. sent6: if something that does scrabble Cardiff does not abuse vent then it is not cross-sentential. sent7: if that the isoagglutinin is both wheaten and not uncertain is false the astrolabe is a Pongo. sent8: if the nuthatch is not cross-sentential then the isoagglutinin is polydactyl and not a jostle. sent9: if the fact that something is a cataleptic and it is a farce is false then it is not a farce. sent10: the fact that that the isoagglutinin is wheaten thing that is not uncertain is incorrect is true if it is not doctoral. sent11: the astrolabe is handmade if there exists something such that it is polydactyl and it is not a jostle. sent12: the astrolabe is doctoral thing that is a Khamti if the vivisectionist does not farce. sent13: the isoagglutinin is not doctoral. sent14: if the nuthatch tucks durance then it does scrabble Cardiff.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: (x): ({C}x & {A}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent3: ¬{G}{c} sent4: {L}{c} sent5: ¬({AB}{b} & {B}{b}) sent6: (x): ({H}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{F}x sent7: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent8: ¬{F}{c} -> ({D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬({K}x & {J}x) -> ¬{J}x sent10: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent11: (x): ({D}x & ¬{E}x) -> {C}{b} sent12: ¬{J}{d} -> ({A}{b} & {I}{b}) sent13: ¬{A}{a} sent14: {L}{c} -> {H}{c}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the astrolabe is not a Pongo.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the astrolabe is not a Pongo. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not non-handmade but doctoral then it is not a Pongo. sent2: that the isoagglutinin is wheaten and is uncertain is wrong. sent3: the nuthatch does not abuse vent. sent4: the nuthatch tucks durance. sent5: that the astrolabe is uncertain thing that is a kind of a Pongo is incorrect. sent6: if something that does scrabble Cardiff does not abuse vent then it is not cross-sentential. sent7: if that the isoagglutinin is both wheaten and not uncertain is false the astrolabe is a Pongo. sent8: if the nuthatch is not cross-sentential then the isoagglutinin is polydactyl and not a jostle. sent9: if the fact that something is a cataleptic and it is a farce is false then it is not a farce. sent10: the fact that that the isoagglutinin is wheaten thing that is not uncertain is incorrect is true if it is not doctoral. sent11: the astrolabe is handmade if there exists something such that it is polydactyl and it is not a jostle. sent12: the astrolabe is doctoral thing that is a Khamti if the vivisectionist does not farce. sent13: the isoagglutinin is not doctoral. sent14: if the nuthatch tucks durance then it does scrabble Cardiff. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent13 -> int1: that the isoagglutinin is wheaten but it is not uncertain does not hold.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that that the isoagglutinin is wheaten thing that is not uncertain is incorrect is true if it is not doctoral.

If it is not a PhD, the fact that isoagglutinin is wheaten is incorrect.

the isoagglutinin is not doctoral.

the astrolabe is not a Pongo.

sent1: if something is not non-handmade but doctoral then it is not a Pongo. sent2: that the isoagglutinin is wheaten and is uncertain is wrong. sent3: the nuthatch does not abuse vent. sent4: the nuthatch tucks durance. sent5: that the astrolabe is uncertain thing that is a kind of a Pongo is incorrect. sent6: if something that does scrabble Cardiff does not abuse vent then it is not cross-sentential. sent7: if that the isoagglutinin is both wheaten and not uncertain is false the astrolabe is a Pongo. sent8: if the nuthatch is not cross-sentential then the isoagglutinin is polydactyl and not a jostle. sent9: if the fact that something is a cataleptic and it is a farce is false then it is not a farce. sent10: the fact that that the isoagglutinin is wheaten thing that is not uncertain is incorrect is true if it is not doctoral. sent11: the astrolabe is handmade if there exists something such that it is polydactyl and it is not a jostle. sent12: the astrolabe is doctoral thing that is a Khamti if the vivisectionist does not farce. sent13: the isoagglutinin is not doctoral. sent14: if the nuthatch tucks durance then it does scrabble Cardiff.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: (x): ({C}x & {A}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent3: ¬{G}{c} sent4: {L}{c} sent5: ¬({AB}{b} & {B}{b}) sent6: (x): ({H}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{F}x sent7: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent8: ¬{F}{c} -> ({D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬({K}x & {J}x) -> ¬{J}x sent10: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent11: (x): ({D}x & ¬{E}x) -> {C}{b} sent12: ¬{J}{d} -> ({A}{b} & {I}{b}) sent13: ¬{A}{a} sent14: {L}{c} -> {H}{c}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the astrolabe is not a Pongo.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the astrolabe is not a Pongo. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not non-handmade but doctoral then it is not a Pongo. sent2: that the isoagglutinin is wheaten and is uncertain is wrong. sent3: the nuthatch does not abuse vent. sent4: the nuthatch tucks durance. sent5: that the astrolabe is uncertain thing that is a kind of a Pongo is incorrect. sent6: if something that does scrabble Cardiff does not abuse vent then it is not cross-sentential. sent7: if that the isoagglutinin is both wheaten and not uncertain is false the astrolabe is a Pongo. sent8: if the nuthatch is not cross-sentential then the isoagglutinin is polydactyl and not a jostle. sent9: if the fact that something is a cataleptic and it is a farce is false then it is not a farce. sent10: the fact that that the isoagglutinin is wheaten thing that is not uncertain is incorrect is true if it is not doctoral. sent11: the astrolabe is handmade if there exists something such that it is polydactyl and it is not a jostle. sent12: the astrolabe is doctoral thing that is a Khamti if the vivisectionist does not farce. sent13: the isoagglutinin is not doctoral. sent14: if the nuthatch tucks durance then it does scrabble Cardiff. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent13 -> int1: that the isoagglutinin is wheaten but it is not uncertain does not hold.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that that the isoagglutinin is wheaten thing that is not uncertain is incorrect is true if it is not doctoral.

The fact that the isoagglutinin is wheaten is incorrect if it is not a PhD.

if that the isoagglutinin is both wheaten and not uncertain is false the astrolabe is a Pongo.

the teasel is not a hydrolysate but it is a kind of a recombinant.

sent1: if that the teasel is not a inutility is true the fact that it is Afghani and is not a abvolt is false. sent2: that the flank is articulate thing that is a Benedictine is not false if it is not Erasmian. sent3: the flank is non-Erasmian. sent4: the fact that the fact that the brine is a kind of a maze but it is not a recombinant is correct is wrong if it is not ill. sent5: the deoxyadenosine is not dispensable. sent6: the entrecote is not subsurface. sent7: the teasel is a abvolt that does not tuck antiarrhythmic. sent8: the bondage is not a charge if it is not a strophe. sent9: the links is dispensable if that the folderal is not dispensable but it is not a kind of a epigone does not hold. sent10: if the links is dispensable then that the teasel is not a hydrolysate and is a recombinant is not true. sent11: the fact that the teasel is dispensable but it is not a kind of a epigone does not hold if it is not a Didion. sent12: the teasel is not a hydrolysate. sent13: the teasel is not a epigone. sent14: if there is something such that that that it is a Montespan but not a poise is not false is not true then the leech is not arteriosclerotic. sent15: if the flank is Benedictine then that the leech is not mecopterous is not incorrect. sent16: the raider is not a Didion if there is something such that it is not mecopterous and it is not arteriosclerotic. sent17: that something is a kind of a Montespan and is not a poise is false if it is not subsurface. sent18: that the teasel is not a Didion hold.

(¬{D}{a} & {C}{a})

sent1: ¬{CI}{a} -> ¬({EM}{a} & ¬{BO}{a}) sent2: ¬{M}{f} -> ({L}{f} & {H}{f}) sent3: ¬{M}{f} sent4: ¬{EJ}{iq} -> ¬({FH}{iq} & ¬{C}{iq}) sent5: ¬{A}{t} sent6: ¬{K}{g} sent7: ({BO}{a} & ¬{IM}{a}) sent8: ¬{EO}{de} -> ¬{CP}{de} sent9: ¬({A}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) -> {A}{b} sent10: {A}{b} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & {C}{a}) sent11: ¬{E}{a} -> ¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent12: ¬{D}{a} sent13: ¬{B}{a} sent14: (x): ¬({I}x & ¬{J}x) -> ¬{G}{e} sent15: {H}{f} -> ¬{F}{e} sent16: (x): (¬{F}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{E}{d} sent17: (x): ¬{K}x -> ¬({I}x & ¬{J}x) sent18: ¬{E}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the teasel is not a hydrolysate but recombinant is wrong.

¬(¬{D}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the teasel is not a hydrolysate but it is a kind of a recombinant. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the teasel is not a inutility is true the fact that it is Afghani and is not a abvolt is false. sent2: that the flank is articulate thing that is a Benedictine is not false if it is not Erasmian. sent3: the flank is non-Erasmian. sent4: the fact that the fact that the brine is a kind of a maze but it is not a recombinant is correct is wrong if it is not ill. sent5: the deoxyadenosine is not dispensable. sent6: the entrecote is not subsurface. sent7: the teasel is a abvolt that does not tuck antiarrhythmic. sent8: the bondage is not a charge if it is not a strophe. sent9: the links is dispensable if that the folderal is not dispensable but it is not a kind of a epigone does not hold. sent10: if the links is dispensable then that the teasel is not a hydrolysate and is a recombinant is not true. sent11: the fact that the teasel is dispensable but it is not a kind of a epigone does not hold if it is not a Didion. sent12: the teasel is not a hydrolysate. sent13: the teasel is not a epigone. sent14: if there is something such that that that it is a Montespan but not a poise is not false is not true then the leech is not arteriosclerotic. sent15: if the flank is Benedictine then that the leech is not mecopterous is not incorrect. sent16: the raider is not a Didion if there is something such that it is not mecopterous and it is not arteriosclerotic. sent17: that something is a kind of a Montespan and is not a poise is false if it is not subsurface. sent18: that the teasel is not a Didion hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the teasel is not a epigone.

The teasel isn't a epigone.

the fact that the teasel is dispensable but it is not a kind of a epigone does not hold if it is not a Didion.

the teasel is not a hydrolysate but it is a kind of a recombinant.

sent1: if that the teasel is not a inutility is true the fact that it is Afghani and is not a abvolt is false. sent2: that the flank is articulate thing that is a Benedictine is not false if it is not Erasmian. sent3: the flank is non-Erasmian. sent4: the fact that the fact that the brine is a kind of a maze but it is not a recombinant is correct is wrong if it is not ill. sent5: the deoxyadenosine is not dispensable. sent6: the entrecote is not subsurface. sent7: the teasel is a abvolt that does not tuck antiarrhythmic. sent8: the bondage is not a charge if it is not a strophe. sent9: the links is dispensable if that the folderal is not dispensable but it is not a kind of a epigone does not hold. sent10: if the links is dispensable then that the teasel is not a hydrolysate and is a recombinant is not true. sent11: the fact that the teasel is dispensable but it is not a kind of a epigone does not hold if it is not a Didion. sent12: the teasel is not a hydrolysate. sent13: the teasel is not a epigone. sent14: if there is something such that that that it is a Montespan but not a poise is not false is not true then the leech is not arteriosclerotic. sent15: if the flank is Benedictine then that the leech is not mecopterous is not incorrect. sent16: the raider is not a Didion if there is something such that it is not mecopterous and it is not arteriosclerotic. sent17: that something is a kind of a Montespan and is not a poise is false if it is not subsurface. sent18: that the teasel is not a Didion hold.

(¬{D}{a} & {C}{a})

sent1: ¬{CI}{a} -> ¬({EM}{a} & ¬{BO}{a}) sent2: ¬{M}{f} -> ({L}{f} & {H}{f}) sent3: ¬{M}{f} sent4: ¬{EJ}{iq} -> ¬({FH}{iq} & ¬{C}{iq}) sent5: ¬{A}{t} sent6: ¬{K}{g} sent7: ({BO}{a} & ¬{IM}{a}) sent8: ¬{EO}{de} -> ¬{CP}{de} sent9: ¬({A}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) -> {A}{b} sent10: {A}{b} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & {C}{a}) sent11: ¬{E}{a} -> ¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent12: ¬{D}{a} sent13: ¬{B}{a} sent14: (x): ¬({I}x & ¬{J}x) -> ¬{G}{e} sent15: {H}{f} -> ¬{F}{e} sent16: (x): (¬{F}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{E}{d} sent17: (x): ¬{K}x -> ¬({I}x & ¬{J}x) sent18: ¬{E}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the teasel is not a hydrolysate but recombinant is wrong.

¬(¬{D}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the teasel is not a hydrolysate but it is a kind of a recombinant. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the teasel is not a inutility is true the fact that it is Afghani and is not a abvolt is false. sent2: that the flank is articulate thing that is a Benedictine is not false if it is not Erasmian. sent3: the flank is non-Erasmian. sent4: the fact that the fact that the brine is a kind of a maze but it is not a recombinant is correct is wrong if it is not ill. sent5: the deoxyadenosine is not dispensable. sent6: the entrecote is not subsurface. sent7: the teasel is a abvolt that does not tuck antiarrhythmic. sent8: the bondage is not a charge if it is not a strophe. sent9: the links is dispensable if that the folderal is not dispensable but it is not a kind of a epigone does not hold. sent10: if the links is dispensable then that the teasel is not a hydrolysate and is a recombinant is not true. sent11: the fact that the teasel is dispensable but it is not a kind of a epigone does not hold if it is not a Didion. sent12: the teasel is not a hydrolysate. sent13: the teasel is not a epigone. sent14: if there is something such that that that it is a Montespan but not a poise is not false is not true then the leech is not arteriosclerotic. sent15: if the flank is Benedictine then that the leech is not mecopterous is not incorrect. sent16: the raider is not a Didion if there is something such that it is not mecopterous and it is not arteriosclerotic. sent17: that something is a kind of a Montespan and is not a poise is false if it is not subsurface. sent18: that the teasel is not a Didion hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the teasel is not a epigone.

The teasel isn't an Epigone.

that the teasel is not a Didion hold.

that the azotemicness does not occur is not wrong.

sent1: if that the papillariness does not occur and the gelling yttrium happens does not hold then the gelling yttrium does not occur. sent2: if the annelidness occurs then the intermezzo and the non-baryticness occurs. sent3: if that both the extinguishableness and the azotemicness happens is not right the Christian does not occur. sent4: that that the megadeath occurs and the demotion occurs is true is false if the catechismalness does not occur. sent5: that not the papillariness but the gelling yttrium occurs is false if the megadeath does not occur. sent6: if that both the cryocautery and the granulomatousness happens does not hold the cryocautery does not occur. sent7: the fact that the Land occurs but the papering does not occur is wrong if the Christianness does not occur. sent8: the megadeath does not occur if that both the megadeath and the demotion occurs is wrong. sent9: the occlusiveness does not occur if the intermezzo happens and the gelling yttrium does not occur. sent10: if the occlusiveness does not occur that that the extinguishableness and the azotemicness happens is incorrect is true. sent11: the fact that both the chuck and the non-maternalness occurs is not correct. sent12: if that the scrabbling graverobber happens but the abusing chance-medley does not occur is not right the returning does not occur. sent13: if that the perfumery happens but the interpolation does not occur is not correct then the scrabbling Laos does not occur. sent14: if the cryocautery does not occur then the annelid and the Catalanness happens. sent15: if that both the scrabbling uropathy and the non-dictyopteranness happens is not true that the Nestorianness does not occur is not false. sent16: if the fact that the deflationariness does not occur is right that the cryocautery occurs and the granulomatousness happens is wrong. sent17: if the fact that the chuck happens but the maternalness does not occur is false the azotemicness does not occur. sent18: if the maternalness happens the azotemicness does not occur. sent19: the non-deflationariness and the downspin occurs.

¬{B}

sent1: ¬(¬{H} & {F}) -> ¬{F} sent2: {I} -> ({E} & ¬{G}) sent3: ¬({C} & {B}) -> ¬{A} sent4: ¬{P} -> ¬({L} & {O}) sent5: ¬{L} -> ¬(¬{H} & {F}) sent6: ¬({K} & {M}) -> ¬{K} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({DT} & ¬{EM}) sent8: ¬({L} & {O}) -> ¬{L} sent9: ({E} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{D} sent10: ¬{D} -> ¬({C} & {B}) sent11: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent12: ¬({GF} & ¬{HR}) -> ¬{FU} sent13: ¬({GS} & ¬{CG}) -> ¬{BB} sent14: ¬{K} -> ({I} & {J}) sent15: ¬({CS} & ¬{CK}) -> ¬{EC} sent16: ¬{N} -> ¬({K} & {M}) sent17: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent18: {AB} -> ¬{B} sent19: (¬{N} & {R})

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the Land happens and the paper does not occur is false.

¬({DT} & ¬{EM})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the azotemicness does not occur is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the papillariness does not occur and the gelling yttrium happens does not hold then the gelling yttrium does not occur. sent2: if the annelidness occurs then the intermezzo and the non-baryticness occurs. sent3: if that both the extinguishableness and the azotemicness happens is not right the Christian does not occur. sent4: that that the megadeath occurs and the demotion occurs is true is false if the catechismalness does not occur. sent5: that not the papillariness but the gelling yttrium occurs is false if the megadeath does not occur. sent6: if that both the cryocautery and the granulomatousness happens does not hold the cryocautery does not occur. sent7: the fact that the Land occurs but the papering does not occur is wrong if the Christianness does not occur. sent8: the megadeath does not occur if that both the megadeath and the demotion occurs is wrong. sent9: the occlusiveness does not occur if the intermezzo happens and the gelling yttrium does not occur. sent10: if the occlusiveness does not occur that that the extinguishableness and the azotemicness happens is incorrect is true. sent11: the fact that both the chuck and the non-maternalness occurs is not correct. sent12: if that the scrabbling graverobber happens but the abusing chance-medley does not occur is not right the returning does not occur. sent13: if that the perfumery happens but the interpolation does not occur is not correct then the scrabbling Laos does not occur. sent14: if the cryocautery does not occur then the annelid and the Catalanness happens. sent15: if that both the scrabbling uropathy and the non-dictyopteranness happens is not true that the Nestorianness does not occur is not false. sent16: if the fact that the deflationariness does not occur is right that the cryocautery occurs and the granulomatousness happens is wrong. sent17: if the fact that the chuck happens but the maternalness does not occur is false the azotemicness does not occur. sent18: if the maternalness happens the azotemicness does not occur. sent19: the non-deflationariness and the downspin occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent17 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the chuck happens but the maternalness does not occur is false the azotemicness does not occur.

if the fact that the chuck happens but the maternalness does not occur is false the azotemicness does not occur.

the fact that both the chuck and the non-maternalness occurs is not correct.

the fact that the tsetse is not unactable and it does not scrabble consecration is incorrect.

sent1: if the fact that the haustorium is both not an ulcer and cybernetics does not hold then the mammy does scrabble consecration. sent2: the burrow is not non-clinker-built if there is something such that it is cybernetics and not tertian. sent3: if the haustorium is an ulcer then the mammy scrabbles consecration. sent4: the fact that the tsetse is unactable but it does not scrabble consecration does not hold if the mammy scrabble consecration. sent5: that the haustorium is fruitful but it is not unactable is not true. sent6: something is cybernetics thing that is not tertian if it is a kind of an ulcer. sent7: if that something is fruitful but it is not unactable does not hold it is unactable. sent8: the haustorium is tertian if the snuffle is cybernetics. sent9: that the haustorium is not an ulcer and is cybernetics is not correct if the snuffle is tertian. sent10: the fact that the snuffle is not clinker-built and does scrabble consecration is incorrect. sent11: the snuffle is clinker-built and is tertian.

¬(¬{F}{d} & ¬{E}{d})

sent1: ¬(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) -> {E}{c} sent2: (x): ({C}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}{br} sent3: {D}{b} -> {E}{c} sent4: {E}{c} -> ¬({F}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) sent5: ¬({H}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) sent6: (x): {D}x -> ({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent7: (x): ¬({H}x & ¬{F}x) -> {F}x sent8: {C}{a} -> {B}{b} sent9: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) sent10: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {E}{a}) sent11: ({A}{a} & {B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the burrow is clinker-built.

{A}{br}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the tsetse is not unactable and it does not scrabble consecration is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the haustorium is both not an ulcer and cybernetics does not hold then the mammy does scrabble consecration. sent2: the burrow is not non-clinker-built if there is something such that it is cybernetics and not tertian. sent3: if the haustorium is an ulcer then the mammy scrabbles consecration. sent4: the fact that the tsetse is unactable but it does not scrabble consecration does not hold if the mammy scrabble consecration. sent5: that the haustorium is fruitful but it is not unactable is not true. sent6: something is cybernetics thing that is not tertian if it is a kind of an ulcer. sent7: if that something is fruitful but it is not unactable does not hold it is unactable. sent8: the haustorium is tertian if the snuffle is cybernetics. sent9: that the haustorium is not an ulcer and is cybernetics is not correct if the snuffle is tertian. sent10: the fact that the snuffle is not clinker-built and does scrabble consecration is incorrect. sent11: the snuffle is clinker-built and is tertian. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the snuffle is clinker-built and is tertian.

The snuffle is made of tertian material.

that the haustorium is not an ulcer and is cybernetics is not correct if the snuffle is tertian.

the fact that the tsetse is not unactable and it does not scrabble consecration is incorrect.

sent1: if the fact that the haustorium is both not an ulcer and cybernetics does not hold then the mammy does scrabble consecration. sent2: the burrow is not non-clinker-built if there is something such that it is cybernetics and not tertian. sent3: if the haustorium is an ulcer then the mammy scrabbles consecration. sent4: the fact that the tsetse is unactable but it does not scrabble consecration does not hold if the mammy scrabble consecration. sent5: that the haustorium is fruitful but it is not unactable is not true. sent6: something is cybernetics thing that is not tertian if it is a kind of an ulcer. sent7: if that something is fruitful but it is not unactable does not hold it is unactable. sent8: the haustorium is tertian if the snuffle is cybernetics. sent9: that the haustorium is not an ulcer and is cybernetics is not correct if the snuffle is tertian. sent10: the fact that the snuffle is not clinker-built and does scrabble consecration is incorrect. sent11: the snuffle is clinker-built and is tertian.

¬(¬{F}{d} & ¬{E}{d})

sent1: ¬(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) -> {E}{c} sent2: (x): ({C}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}{br} sent3: {D}{b} -> {E}{c} sent4: {E}{c} -> ¬({F}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) sent5: ¬({H}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) sent6: (x): {D}x -> ({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent7: (x): ¬({H}x & ¬{F}x) -> {F}x sent8: {C}{a} -> {B}{b} sent9: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) sent10: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {E}{a}) sent11: ({A}{a} & {B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the burrow is clinker-built.

{A}{br}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the tsetse is not unactable and it does not scrabble consecration is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the haustorium is both not an ulcer and cybernetics does not hold then the mammy does scrabble consecration. sent2: the burrow is not non-clinker-built if there is something such that it is cybernetics and not tertian. sent3: if the haustorium is an ulcer then the mammy scrabbles consecration. sent4: the fact that the tsetse is unactable but it does not scrabble consecration does not hold if the mammy scrabble consecration. sent5: that the haustorium is fruitful but it is not unactable is not true. sent6: something is cybernetics thing that is not tertian if it is a kind of an ulcer. sent7: if that something is fruitful but it is not unactable does not hold it is unactable. sent8: the haustorium is tertian if the snuffle is cybernetics. sent9: that the haustorium is not an ulcer and is cybernetics is not correct if the snuffle is tertian. sent10: the fact that the snuffle is not clinker-built and does scrabble consecration is incorrect. sent11: the snuffle is clinker-built and is tertian. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the snuffle is clinker-built and is tertian.

The snuffle is made of tertian.

if the fact that the haustorium is both not an ulcer and cybernetics does not hold then the mammy does scrabble consecration.

that the leech does tailor and is not a Gadsden is incorrect.

sent1: that the mirasol is not purposeless is not incorrect. sent2: if the mirasol is non-purposeless the leech is not a bones and it does not intertwine. sent3: there is something such that that it is not geomorphologic and it does not untie is not right. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it is geomorphologic and does not untie does not hold. sent5: if there is something such that that it is a kind of non-geomorphologic thing that does not untie does not hold the aril is not offstage. sent6: the fact that the leech abuses irregularity and is not a kind of a bones is not true if it is purposeless. sent7: the leech is purposeless and it does absolve. sent8: if that the leech does abuse irregularity but it is not a kind of a bones is wrong the aril does bones. sent9: if the fact that something is a Gadsden is not false then the fact that it is a rutabaga and it is not offstage is not right. sent10: if that something is not a kind of a bones and it does not intertwine is right then it is not a kind of a Gadsden. sent11: there exists something such that that it is a kind of non-offstage thing that is a kind of a Gadsden is not right. sent12: something that does bone does not intertwine and tailors.

¬({C}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

sent1: ¬{F}{c} sent2: ¬{F}{c} -> (¬{E}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent3: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent6: {F}{b} -> ¬({G}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent7: ({F}{b} & {H}{b}) sent8: ¬({G}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) -> {E}{a} sent9: (x): {B}x -> ¬({BO}x & ¬{A}x) sent10: (x): (¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent11: (Ex): ¬(¬{A}x & {B}x) sent12: (x): {E}x -> (¬{D}x & {C}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN