Datasets:

hitachi-nlp

/

FLD.v2

like 11

Follow

Hitachi, Ltd. 16

DeductionInstance

the alexic is a grubstake but not surface-to-air.

({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})

sent1: if the cockroach is not animatistic then it is not a kind of an overlooked. sent2: if the retardation admits RNA it is a kind of surface-to-air thing that does not equate retardation. sent3: if the alexic does not grubstake the retardation is a naturopathy but it is not surface-to-air. sent4: the alexic grubstakes if the retardation is not a kind of a granddaughter. sent5: if the retardation is not a granddaughter then the alexic does grubstake and is not surface-to-air. sent6: the keyhole is not surface-to-air. sent7: the alexic does not shout. sent8: that something grubstakes but it is not surface-to-air is incorrect if it is not a kind of a naturopathy. sent9: the retardation is not a kind of a milligram if it is not a naturopathy. sent10: the retardation is not surface-to-air if the alexic is not a naturopathy. sent11: the retardation is not a Taraxacum. sent12: that the retardation does not admit Schopenhauer is not incorrect. sent13: if the fact that something is a kind of a grubstake and/or it is not a granddaughter does not hold then it is a naturopathy. sent14: the fact that the retardation is not a naturopathy is right. sent15: if something is not a milligram it is not a kind of a granddaughter. sent16: the alexic is a grubstake. sent17: the alexic is not a snooker. sent18: something that is a naturopathy is a milligram that is not proteolytic.

sent1: ¬{AC}{es} -> ¬{CH}{es} sent2: {G}{a} -> ({E}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) sent3: ¬{D}{b} -> ({A}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent4: ¬{C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent5: ¬{C}{a} -> ({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent6: ¬{E}{et} sent7: ¬{BR}{b} sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{E}x) sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent10: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{E}{a} sent11: ¬{GE}{a} sent12: ¬{HQ}{a} sent13: (x): ¬({D}x v ¬{C}x) -> {A}x sent14: ¬{A}{a} sent15: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x sent16: {D}{b} sent17: ¬{IB}{b} sent18: (x): {A}x -> ({B}x & ¬{HG}x)

the Kleenex is a milligram but it is not proteolytic.

({B}{aj} & ¬{HG}{aj})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the alexic is a grubstake but not surface-to-air. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cockroach is not animatistic then it is not a kind of an overlooked. sent2: if the retardation admits RNA it is a kind of surface-to-air thing that does not equate retardation. sent3: if the alexic does not grubstake the retardation is a naturopathy but it is not surface-to-air. sent4: the alexic grubstakes if the retardation is not a kind of a granddaughter. sent5: if the retardation is not a granddaughter then the alexic does grubstake and is not surface-to-air. sent6: the keyhole is not surface-to-air. sent7: the alexic does not shout. sent8: that something grubstakes but it is not surface-to-air is incorrect if it is not a kind of a naturopathy. sent9: the retardation is not a kind of a milligram if it is not a naturopathy. sent10: the retardation is not surface-to-air if the alexic is not a naturopathy. sent11: the retardation is not a Taraxacum. sent12: that the retardation does not admit Schopenhauer is not incorrect. sent13: if the fact that something is a kind of a grubstake and/or it is not a granddaughter does not hold then it is a naturopathy. sent14: the fact that the retardation is not a naturopathy is right. sent15: if something is not a milligram it is not a kind of a granddaughter. sent16: the alexic is a grubstake. sent17: the alexic is not a snooker. sent18: something that is a naturopathy is a milligram that is not proteolytic. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent14 -> int1: the retardation is not a kind of a milligram.; sent15 -> int2: the retardation is not a granddaughter if it is not a milligram.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the retardation is not a kind of a granddaughter is correct.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the wardress is not a Minden and it is not a kind of a Shintoist.

(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

sent1: the wardress is not a kind of a Shintoist. sent2: if the wardress is a Shintoist then the doxorubicin is impersonal. sent3: if the fact that the niche does not swab Thalictrum is correct then the doxorubicin is not impersonal. sent4: that the wardress is not a kind of a Minden and is a Shintoist is false. sent5: that the fact that the niche does swab Thalictrum and does equate crochet is false is not wrong. sent6: the fact that the doxorubicin is impersonal and a Shintoist does not hold. sent7: the doxorubicin is not impersonal if the fact that the fact that the niche does swab Thalictrum and it does equate crochet does not hold is correct. sent8: something that does not swab Thalictrum is both not a pepperwort and not antipyretic. sent9: that the doxorubicin is both personal and not a Minden is not right. sent10: if that the wardress is not a kind of a Minden and it is not a Shintoist does not hold the doxorubicin is not personal.

sent1: ¬{AB}{a} sent2: {AB}{a} -> {B}{b} sent3: ¬{A}{c} -> ¬{B}{b} sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent5: ¬({A}{c} & {C}{c}) sent6: ¬({B}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent7: ¬({A}{c} & {C}{c}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{FH}x & ¬{AL}x) sent9: ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{AA}{b}) sent10: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b}

the niche is not a kind of a pepperwort and it is not a antipyretic.

(¬{FH}{c} & ¬{AL}{c})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the wardress is not a Minden and it is not a kind of a Shintoist. ; $context$ = sent1: the wardress is not a kind of a Shintoist. sent2: if the wardress is a Shintoist then the doxorubicin is impersonal. sent3: if the fact that the niche does not swab Thalictrum is correct then the doxorubicin is not impersonal. sent4: that the wardress is not a kind of a Minden and is a Shintoist is false. sent5: that the fact that the niche does swab Thalictrum and does equate crochet is false is not wrong. sent6: the fact that the doxorubicin is impersonal and a Shintoist does not hold. sent7: the doxorubicin is not impersonal if the fact that the fact that the niche does swab Thalictrum and it does equate crochet does not hold is correct. sent8: something that does not swab Thalictrum is both not a pepperwort and not antipyretic. sent9: that the doxorubicin is both personal and not a Minden is not right. sent10: if that the wardress is not a kind of a Minden and it is not a Shintoist does not hold the doxorubicin is not personal. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the wardress is not a Minden and it is not a Shintoist does not hold.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: that the doxorubicin is impersonal is not false.; sent7 & sent5 -> int2: the doxorubicin is not impersonal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it is apomictic then it is not Zolaesque.

(Ex): {A}x -> ¬{C}x

sent1: there is something such that if the fact that it is a Sebastopol is not false it is not biogeographic. sent2: there exists something such that if it equates Stern it is a wittol. sent3: if the hierarch is a Fallot then it is not eutrophic. sent4: if something is a Amharic it is not altitudinal. sent5: there is something such that if it is apomictic it is Zolaesque. sent6: if the hierarch is apomictic it is not Zolaesque. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Sphaerocarpus then it is not a kind of a broth. sent8: there is something such that if it is logical then it is not nonenzymatic. sent9: if the hierarch is a Sphaerocarpus then the fact that it does rampage is true. sent10: there is something such that if it is a hindquarters then it is not a utilizer. sent11: the hierarch is Zolaesque if it is apomictic. sent12: something does not swab uplifted if that it is a kind of a boy is true.

sent1: (Ex): {CO}x -> ¬{E}x sent2: (Ex): {N}x -> {ED}x sent3: {AJ}{aa} -> ¬{CJ}{aa} sent4: (x): {BN}x -> ¬{AE}x sent5: (Ex): {A}x -> {C}x sent6: {A}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent7: (Ex): {ID}x -> ¬{GB}x sent8: (Ex): {BD}x -> ¬{IU}x sent9: {ID}{aa} -> {DO}{aa} sent10: (Ex): {FM}x -> ¬{CU}x sent11: {A}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent12: (x): {DS}x -> ¬{GM}x

there is something such that if it is a boy it does not swab uplifted.

(Ex): {DS}x -> ¬{GM}x

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is apomictic then it is not Zolaesque. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if the fact that it is a Sebastopol is not false it is not biogeographic. sent2: there exists something such that if it equates Stern it is a wittol. sent3: if the hierarch is a Fallot then it is not eutrophic. sent4: if something is a Amharic it is not altitudinal. sent5: there is something such that if it is apomictic it is Zolaesque. sent6: if the hierarch is apomictic it is not Zolaesque. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Sphaerocarpus then it is not a kind of a broth. sent8: there is something such that if it is logical then it is not nonenzymatic. sent9: if the hierarch is a Sphaerocarpus then the fact that it does rampage is true. sent10: there is something such that if it is a hindquarters then it is not a utilizer. sent11: the hierarch is Zolaesque if it is apomictic. sent12: something does not swab uplifted if that it is a kind of a boy is true. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the formulariness happens.

{D}

sent1: the non-formularyness is prevented by the meteoricness. sent2: the fork prevents that the meteoricness does not occur.

sent1: {C} -> {D} sent2: {A} -> {C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the formulariness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the non-formularyness is prevented by the meteoricness. sent2: the fork prevents that the meteoricness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it is not a Edda then it is not a prazosin.

(Ex): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x

sent1: something that is not a kind of a Edda is not a prazosin. sent2: there is something such that if it is a Edda then the fact that it is not a prazosin is correct. sent3: if something is not a IFC then that it does not grow is correct. sent4: that the hindshank does not admit migrant is not wrong if it is not a kind of a hindsight. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not parochial it is not a salter. sent6: there exists something such that if that it is not a Edda is not wrong then that it is a prazosin is correct. sent7: if something is not a Edda it is a prazosin. sent8: there is something such that if it is not a Solingen it is not a camcorder. sent9: something is not systematics if it does not simulate Kyyiv. sent10: if something is not arborical it is not a kind of a jet. sent11: if the sheriff is not a prazosin then it is not sacerdotal. sent12: the fact that something is not a cement hold if that it does not swab celioscopy is not wrong. sent13: something is not recombinant if it is not a lactogen. sent14: the sheriff is not a prazosin if it is a kind of a Edda. sent15: if something is not a kind of a hypertensive it is not a kind of a Melophagus. sent16: something is not a kind of a prazosin if it is a kind of a Edda. sent17: the sheriff is a prazosin if it is not a Edda. sent18: the sheriff is not a shelter if it is not sacerdotal.

sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x sent2: (Ex): {B}x -> ¬{C}x sent3: (x): ¬{IT}x -> ¬{CK}x sent4: ¬{BM}{k} -> ¬{BJ}{k} sent5: (Ex): ¬{G}x -> ¬{HS}x sent6: (Ex): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent7: (x): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent8: (Ex): ¬{BF}x -> ¬{FG}x sent9: (x): ¬{BL}x -> ¬{BE}x sent10: (x): ¬{HD}x -> ¬{AM}x sent11: ¬{C}{aa} -> ¬{JI}{aa} sent12: (x): ¬{Q}x -> ¬{DJ}x sent13: (x): ¬{GP}x -> ¬{HE}x sent14: {B}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent15: (x): ¬{EF}x -> ¬{JC}x sent16: (x): {B}x -> ¬{C}x sent17: ¬{B}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent18: ¬{JI}{aa} -> ¬{DD}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not a Edda then it is not a prazosin. ; $context$ = sent1: something that is not a kind of a Edda is not a prazosin. sent2: there is something such that if it is a Edda then the fact that it is not a prazosin is correct. sent3: if something is not a IFC then that it does not grow is correct. sent4: that the hindshank does not admit migrant is not wrong if it is not a kind of a hindsight. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not parochial it is not a salter. sent6: there exists something such that if that it is not a Edda is not wrong then that it is a prazosin is correct. sent7: if something is not a Edda it is a prazosin. sent8: there is something such that if it is not a Solingen it is not a camcorder. sent9: something is not systematics if it does not simulate Kyyiv. sent10: if something is not arborical it is not a kind of a jet. sent11: if the sheriff is not a prazosin then it is not sacerdotal. sent12: the fact that something is not a cement hold if that it does not swab celioscopy is not wrong. sent13: something is not recombinant if it is not a lactogen. sent14: the sheriff is not a prazosin if it is a kind of a Edda. sent15: if something is not a kind of a hypertensive it is not a kind of a Melophagus. sent16: something is not a kind of a prazosin if it is a kind of a Edda. sent17: the sheriff is a prazosin if it is not a Edda. sent18: the sheriff is not a shelter if it is not sacerdotal. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: if the sheriff is not a Edda it is not a kind of a prazosin.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the admitting absolution does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: the fact that the pity but not the equating crabbiness occurs does not hold if the asynchronousness does not occur. sent2: that not the diverging but the cross-culturalness happens yields that the detachment does not occur. sent3: the fact that the asynchronousness does not occur and the admitting absolution does not occur does not hold if the equating crabbiness does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the scrape happens is not wrong then the clickety-clack happens. sent5: that the equating crabbiness occurs hold if the fact that the asynchronousness happens is right. sent6: the admitting absolution happens and the scraping occurs if the detachment does not occur. sent7: the extravagance occurs. sent8: if that the pity but not the equating crabbiness occurs does not hold the pity does not occur. sent9: the hypnotism occurs. sent10: if the equating crabbiness and the clickety-clack occurs then the admitting absolution does not occur. sent11: the asynchronousness occurs. sent12: the bloviating occurs if the histocompatibility occurs. sent13: the scrape does not occur and the detachment does not occur if the cross-culturalness does not occur. sent14: that the non-cross-culturalness and the diverging occurs is triggered by that the anemography occurs.

sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬({DL} & ¬{B}) sent2: (¬{H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent3: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{D}) sent4: {E} -> {C} sent5: {A} -> {B} sent6: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent7: {IT} sent8: ¬({DL} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{DL} sent9: {FO} sent10: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent11: {A} sent12: {BA} -> {EO} sent13: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent14: {I} -> (¬{G} & {H})

the pity does not occur.

¬{DL}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the admitting absolution does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the pity but not the equating crabbiness occurs does not hold if the asynchronousness does not occur. sent2: that not the diverging but the cross-culturalness happens yields that the detachment does not occur. sent3: the fact that the asynchronousness does not occur and the admitting absolution does not occur does not hold if the equating crabbiness does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the scrape happens is not wrong then the clickety-clack happens. sent5: that the equating crabbiness occurs hold if the fact that the asynchronousness happens is right. sent6: the admitting absolution happens and the scraping occurs if the detachment does not occur. sent7: the extravagance occurs. sent8: if that the pity but not the equating crabbiness occurs does not hold the pity does not occur. sent9: the hypnotism occurs. sent10: if the equating crabbiness and the clickety-clack occurs then the admitting absolution does not occur. sent11: the asynchronousness occurs. sent12: the bloviating occurs if the histocompatibility occurs. sent13: the scrape does not occur and the detachment does not occur if the cross-culturalness does not occur. sent14: that the non-cross-culturalness and the diverging occurs is triggered by that the anemography occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent11 -> int1: the equating crabbiness occurs.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the panache is wheaten.

{C}{a}

sent1: the panache is a colloquialism and is a conjecture. sent2: something is an affairs if it does cuff. sent3: the panache is a kind of a colloquialism. sent4: the panache is petalous thing that is a bohemia. sent5: the viticulturist is a colloquialism.

sent1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent2: (x): {EL}x -> {CR}x sent3: {A}{a} sent4: ({EO}{a} & {IC}{a}) sent5: {A}{di}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the panache is wheaten. ; $context$ = sent1: the panache is a colloquialism and is a conjecture. sent2: something is an affairs if it does cuff. sent3: the panache is a kind of a colloquialism. sent4: the panache is petalous thing that is a bohemia. sent5: the viticulturist is a colloquialism. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the panache is a conjecture.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the pitprop is not periodic.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: the Alsatian is not periodic if the stent is not seductive and not periodic. sent2: the Alsatian unifies. sent3: the beta-adrenoceptor is a kind of a Carchariidae. sent4: if the beta-adrenoceptor does not simulate tael and is a Lauder then the pitprop is periodic. sent5: the stent is not a Friedman. sent6: if that the beta-adrenoceptor does not unify and is periodic is wrong the pitprop is not periodic. sent7: the beta-adrenoceptor does not simulate tael and is a Lauder if it is a Carchariidae.

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

the pitprop is not periodic.

¬{B}{b}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pitprop is not periodic. ; $context$ = sent1: the Alsatian is not periodic if the stent is not seductive and not periodic. sent2: the Alsatian unifies. sent3: the beta-adrenoceptor is a kind of a Carchariidae. sent4: if the beta-adrenoceptor does not simulate tael and is a Lauder then the pitprop is periodic. sent5: the stent is not a Friedman. sent6: if that the beta-adrenoceptor does not unify and is periodic is wrong the pitprop is not periodic. sent7: the beta-adrenoceptor does not simulate tael and is a Lauder if it is a Carchariidae. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the beta-adrenoceptor does not simulate tael and is a kind of a Lauder hold.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the drive-in does admit rape hold.

{C}{b}

sent1: if the spline does admit rape then the drive-in is not a kind of a time. sent2: the drive-in does not admit rape if the spline simulates Cordylus. sent3: if the spline is a time or it does simulate Cordylus or both then the drive-in does not admit rape. sent4: the drive-in does not simulate Cordylus if the spline does admit rape. sent5: the spline is a time. sent6: if something admits rape but it is not a time then it does simulate Cordylus.

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

the canoe does simulate Cordylus.

{B}{bk}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the drive-in does admit rape hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the spline does admit rape then the drive-in is not a kind of a time. sent2: the drive-in does not admit rape if the spline simulates Cordylus. sent3: if the spline is a time or it does simulate Cordylus or both then the drive-in does not admit rape. sent4: the drive-in does not simulate Cordylus if the spline does admit rape. sent5: the spline is a time. sent6: if something admits rape but it is not a time then it does simulate Cordylus. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the spline times and/or it simulates Cordylus.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if it is a kind of a Enki it is not a kind of a picture and it is not phlegmy.

(Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: the Shiite is not a picture and it is not phlegmy if it is a Enki. sent2: there exists something such that if it is rationalist then it is not a kind of a predetermination. sent3: something is not a blasphemy and does not swab adhocracy if that it is an accomplishment hold. sent4: if the Shiite is a kind of a Enki then it is not phlegmy. sent5: something is not attractive and not nautical if it does swab firkin. sent6: there is something such that if it is a kind of a taxonomy then it is not Ruritanian and does not admit outrider. sent7: if the Shiite is a Enki it is a picture and not phlegmy. sent8: the dandy is not maladroit if it does equate dandy.

sent1: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): {DH}x -> ¬{AS}x sent3: (x): {HU}x -> (¬{JH}x & ¬{FR}x) sent4: {A}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent5: (x): {BU}x -> (¬{AI}x & ¬{BS}x) sent6: (Ex): {FS}x -> (¬{DF}x & ¬{DL}x) sent7: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent8: {BO}{fi} -> ¬{HH}{fi}

there is something such that if it does swab firkin then it is not attractive but non-nautical.

(Ex): {BU}x -> (¬{AI}x & ¬{BS}x)

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is a kind of a Enki it is not a kind of a picture and it is not phlegmy. ; $context$ = sent1: the Shiite is not a picture and it is not phlegmy if it is a Enki. sent2: there exists something such that if it is rationalist then it is not a kind of a predetermination. sent3: something is not a blasphemy and does not swab adhocracy if that it is an accomplishment hold. sent4: if the Shiite is a kind of a Enki then it is not phlegmy. sent5: something is not attractive and not nautical if it does swab firkin. sent6: there is something such that if it is a kind of a taxonomy then it is not Ruritanian and does not admit outrider. sent7: if the Shiite is a Enki it is a picture and not phlegmy. sent8: the dandy is not maladroit if it does equate dandy. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the equating gloominess does not occur and the refusal occurs.

(¬{B} & {A})

sent1: if that the situation does not occur is true then that both the multiformness and the unlightedness happens is not true. sent2: the striping does not occur if the fact that the striping does not occur or the oral does not occur or both is not wrong. sent3: the refusal happens if that the admitting adit does not occur but the commute occurs hold. sent4: if the fact that the multiformness but not the lighted happens does not hold the multiformness does not occur. sent5: that the reflectiveness but not the sinking occurs causes that the equating gloominess does not occur. sent6: that the striping does not occur causes that the admitting adit does not occur and the commute does not occur. sent7: the reflectiveness occurs but the sinking does not occur. sent8: the fact that not the equating gloominess but the refusal happens is not right if that the commuting does not occur is not incorrect. sent9: if that the multiformness does not occur is not false the striping does not occur or the oralness does not occur or both.

sent1: ¬{I} -> ¬({F} & ¬{H}) sent2: (¬{E} v ¬{G}) -> ¬{E} sent3: (¬{D} & {C}) -> {A} sent4: ¬({F} & ¬{H}) -> ¬{F} sent5: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent6: ¬{E} -> (¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent7: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent8: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{B} & {A}) sent9: ¬{F} -> (¬{E} v ¬{G})

the fact that not the equating gloominess but the refusal occurs is not correct.

¬(¬{B} & {A})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the equating gloominess does not occur and the refusal occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the situation does not occur is true then that both the multiformness and the unlightedness happens is not true. sent2: the striping does not occur if the fact that the striping does not occur or the oral does not occur or both is not wrong. sent3: the refusal happens if that the admitting adit does not occur but the commute occurs hold. sent4: if the fact that the multiformness but not the lighted happens does not hold the multiformness does not occur. sent5: that the reflectiveness but not the sinking occurs causes that the equating gloominess does not occur. sent6: that the striping does not occur causes that the admitting adit does not occur and the commute does not occur. sent7: the reflectiveness occurs but the sinking does not occur. sent8: the fact that not the equating gloominess but the refusal happens is not right if that the commuting does not occur is not incorrect. sent9: if that the multiformness does not occur is not false the striping does not occur or the oralness does not occur or both. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent7 -> int1: the equating gloominess does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that either the signaler swabs textured or it does not admit Sakharov or both is false.

¬({D}{c} v ¬{A}{c})

sent1: the decoupage is not a Pasiphae. sent2: if the decoupage is journalistic that the baddeleyite is a huddle and/or not journalistic is not right. sent3: if that the decoupage is a Pasiphae and/or a huddle is false then it is not journalistic. sent4: the signaler does not swab textured if the baddeleyite does admit Sakharov. sent5: the fact that either the pichi is a litany or it is a kind of a Pasiphae or both does not hold. sent6: the signaler does not swab textured. sent7: the fact that either the decoupage is a Pasiphae or it is a huddle or both is wrong. sent8: the fact that the baddeleyite is a kind of journalistic thing that is an alternator is incorrect. sent9: the baddeleyite does admit Sakharov if that it is a kind of an alternator is not incorrect. sent10: if the decoupage is not journalistic that the baddeleyite is journalistic and is an alternator is not true. sent11: something admits Sakharov if it is an alternator. sent12: the decoupage is a Jeffersonian. sent13: something is not an alternator if that it is not symbolic and it is an alternator is not correct. sent14: something admits Sakharov if the fact that it is journalistic and not an alternator is not correct. sent15: the fact that the decoupage is not symbolic but it is an alternator is not correct if it is Jeffersonian. sent16: if the baddeleyite admits Sakharov that the signaler does swab textured or it does not admits Sakharov or both does not hold. sent17: that the fact that either the signaler is a phlebotomist or it does admit masking or both is not false is not correct. sent18: if that the decoupage is not non-journalistic and not a huddle is wrong it does admit Sakharov. sent19: if that the decoupage is a kind of a licentiate or it is zodiacal or both is not right then it is not a ritonavir.

sent1: ¬{AA}{a} sent2: {B}{a} -> ¬({AB}{b} v ¬{B}{b}) sent3: ¬({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent4: {A}{b} -> ¬{D}{c} sent5: ¬({IS}{hs} v {AA}{hs}) sent6: ¬{D}{c} sent7: ¬({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent8: ¬({B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent9: {C}{b} -> {A}{b} sent10: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent11: (x): {C}x -> {A}x sent12: {E}{a} sent13: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}x sent14: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {A}x sent15: {E}{a} -> ¬(¬{F}{a} & {C}{a}) sent16: {A}{b} -> ¬({D}{c} v ¬{A}{c}) sent17: ¬({JI}{c} v {GT}{c}) sent18: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {A}{a} sent19: ¬({FG}{a} v {O}{a}) -> ¬{IT}{a}

either the signaler does swab textured or it does not admit Sakharov or both.

({D}{c} v ¬{A}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that either the signaler swabs textured or it does not admit Sakharov or both is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the decoupage is not a Pasiphae. sent2: if the decoupage is journalistic that the baddeleyite is a huddle and/or not journalistic is not right. sent3: if that the decoupage is a Pasiphae and/or a huddle is false then it is not journalistic. sent4: the signaler does not swab textured if the baddeleyite does admit Sakharov. sent5: the fact that either the pichi is a litany or it is a kind of a Pasiphae or both does not hold. sent6: the signaler does not swab textured. sent7: the fact that either the decoupage is a Pasiphae or it is a huddle or both is wrong. sent8: the fact that the baddeleyite is a kind of journalistic thing that is an alternator is incorrect. sent9: the baddeleyite does admit Sakharov if that it is a kind of an alternator is not incorrect. sent10: if the decoupage is not journalistic that the baddeleyite is journalistic and is an alternator is not true. sent11: something admits Sakharov if it is an alternator. sent12: the decoupage is a Jeffersonian. sent13: something is not an alternator if that it is not symbolic and it is an alternator is not correct. sent14: something admits Sakharov if the fact that it is journalistic and not an alternator is not correct. sent15: the fact that the decoupage is not symbolic but it is an alternator is not correct if it is Jeffersonian. sent16: if the baddeleyite admits Sakharov that the signaler does swab textured or it does not admits Sakharov or both does not hold. sent17: that the fact that either the signaler is a phlebotomist or it does admit masking or both is not false is not correct. sent18: if that the decoupage is not non-journalistic and not a huddle is wrong it does admit Sakharov. sent19: if that the decoupage is a kind of a licentiate or it is zodiacal or both is not right then it is not a ritonavir. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent7 -> int1: the decoupage is not journalistic.; sent14 -> int2: the baddeleyite does admit Sakharov if the fact that the fact that it is both journalistic and not an alternator is not incorrect does not hold.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the anti-inflammatory does not divert but it does admit valgus.

(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b})

sent1: if something is not a discovery then the anti-inflammatory does not divert but it admits valgus. sent2: something admits valgus and it is a kind of a discovery. sent3: if the anti-inflammatory does not swab croft it is a Namur and bloody. sent4: if something is not a discovery the fact that it is crustaceous and it does not swab galena is not wrong. sent5: that something does not divert but it admits valgus is wrong if it does not swab galena. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it is a crack and it is a doped is not true then the anti-inflammatory is not a crack. sent7: something is not a kind of a discovery if it does not crack and it is a Namur. sent8: if the fact that something swabs galena and is crustaceous hold then the banteng is not a kind of a discovery. sent9: something swabs galena and it is crustaceous. sent10: there exists something such that the fact that it does crack and it is a doped is not true.

sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent2: (Ex): ({D}x & {C}x) sent3: ¬{I}{b} -> ({G}{b} & {H}{b}) sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) sent6: (x): ¬({F}x & {J}x) -> ¬{F}{b} sent7: (x): (¬{F}x & {G}x) -> ¬{C}x sent8: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent9: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent10: (Ex): ¬({F}x & {J}x)

the fact that that the anti-inflammatory does not divert but it does admit valgus is not right is right.

¬(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the anti-inflammatory does not divert but it does admit valgus. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a discovery then the anti-inflammatory does not divert but it admits valgus. sent2: something admits valgus and it is a kind of a discovery. sent3: if the anti-inflammatory does not swab croft it is a Namur and bloody. sent4: if something is not a discovery the fact that it is crustaceous and it does not swab galena is not wrong. sent5: that something does not divert but it admits valgus is wrong if it does not swab galena. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it is a crack and it is a doped is not true then the anti-inflammatory is not a crack. sent7: something is not a kind of a discovery if it does not crack and it is a Namur. sent8: if the fact that something swabs galena and is crustaceous hold then the banteng is not a kind of a discovery. sent9: something swabs galena and it is crustaceous. sent10: there exists something such that the fact that it does crack and it is a doped is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent8 -> int1: the fact that the banteng is not a discovery is not false.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it is not a discovery hold.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there is something such that if it swabs jointed then the fact that it either is not amoristic or equates polytheism or both is not right is wrong.

¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x))

sent1: that either something does not void or it is a buttercup or both is false if it is caprine. sent2: that the sarcenet does not admit filename or is amoristic or both does not hold if it is intradermal. sent3: the fact that there exists something such that if it swabs jointed it does not equate polytheism is true. sent4: the sarcenet does not equate polytheism if it does swab jointed. sent5: the fact that either the sarcenet does not swab jointed or it swabs bakery or both does not hold if it is a kind of a recruit. sent6: there exists something such that if it is passable that it does not shrivel and/or swabs biltong does not hold. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a Meniscium then the fact that it does not swab shipwreck and/or is a kind of a quartan is wrong. sent8: there exists something such that if it does swab jointed then the fact that it is amoristic and/or it does equate polytheism is false. sent9: the fact that either the sarcenet does not equate polytheism or it is traumatic or both is not true if it swabs weeder. sent10: there is something such that if it does parget that either it is not a kind of a chancellery or it is traumatic or both is not right. sent11: there exists something such that if it does swab jointed it is amoristic. sent12: if the sarcenet swabs jointed that either it is amoristic or it does equate polytheism or both is not correct. sent13: if the chuck-will's-widow does equate polytheism then it is not aerial or deploys or both. sent14: the fact that the sarcenet is not amoristic or it does equate polytheism or both is wrong if it swabs jointed. sent15: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a eosinophilia then the fact that it either is not indistinguishable or is a Egyptologist or both does not hold. sent16: there exists something such that if that it swabs jointed hold it is not amoristic and/or it equates polytheism. sent17: there exists something such that if the fact that it does equate chuck-will's-widow hold the fact that it is not a vulcanite or repetitive or both is not right. sent18: there exists something such that if it is a acupressure that it either is not a kind of a vulcanite or is admissible or both does not hold.

sent1: (x): {HS}x -> ¬(¬{O}x v {AT}x) sent2: {DI}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AU}{aa} v {AA}{aa}) sent3: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent4: {A}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent5: {L}{aa} -> ¬(¬{A}{aa} v {JB}{aa}) sent6: (Ex): {FJ}x -> ¬(¬{GR}x v {DB}x) sent7: (Ex): {FP}x -> ¬(¬{DL}x v {AS}x) sent8: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) sent9: {BG}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AB}{aa} v {JD}{aa}) sent10: (Ex): {BM}x -> ¬(¬{EF}x v {JD}x) sent11: (Ex): {A}x -> {AA}x sent12: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent13: {AB}{bm} -> (¬{IQ}{bm} v {FB}{bm}) sent14: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent15: (Ex): {CH}x -> ¬(¬{CL}x v {HT}x) sent16: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent17: (Ex): {EH}x -> ¬(¬{CO}x v {JC}x) sent18: (Ex): {BT}x -> ¬(¬{CO}x v {FG}x)

there is something such that if the fact that it is caprine hold that it does not void or it is a kind of a buttercup or both does not hold.

(Ex): {HS}x -> ¬(¬{O}x v {AT}x)

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it swabs jointed then the fact that it either is not amoristic or equates polytheism or both is not right is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: that either something does not void or it is a buttercup or both is false if it is caprine. sent2: that the sarcenet does not admit filename or is amoristic or both does not hold if it is intradermal. sent3: the fact that there exists something such that if it swabs jointed it does not equate polytheism is true. sent4: the sarcenet does not equate polytheism if it does swab jointed. sent5: the fact that either the sarcenet does not swab jointed or it swabs bakery or both does not hold if it is a kind of a recruit. sent6: there exists something such that if it is passable that it does not shrivel and/or swabs biltong does not hold. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a Meniscium then the fact that it does not swab shipwreck and/or is a kind of a quartan is wrong. sent8: there exists something such that if it does swab jointed then the fact that it is amoristic and/or it does equate polytheism is false. sent9: the fact that either the sarcenet does not equate polytheism or it is traumatic or both is not true if it swabs weeder. sent10: there is something such that if it does parget that either it is not a kind of a chancellery or it is traumatic or both is not right. sent11: there exists something such that if it does swab jointed it is amoristic. sent12: if the sarcenet swabs jointed that either it is amoristic or it does equate polytheism or both is not correct. sent13: if the chuck-will's-widow does equate polytheism then it is not aerial or deploys or both. sent14: the fact that the sarcenet is not amoristic or it does equate polytheism or both is wrong if it swabs jointed. sent15: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a eosinophilia then the fact that it either is not indistinguishable or is a Egyptologist or both does not hold. sent16: there exists something such that if that it swabs jointed hold it is not amoristic and/or it equates polytheism. sent17: there exists something such that if the fact that it does equate chuck-will's-widow hold the fact that it is not a vulcanite or repetitive or both is not right. sent18: there exists something such that if it is a acupressure that it either is not a kind of a vulcanite or is admissible or both does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if the fact that it does not equate Bogart is not incorrect it is a urethane and does not simulate Apidae.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: that the nondisjunction is a kind of a Skeat and is a nephropathy is not false if it does not simulate Apidae. sent2: if the nondisjunction equates Bogart then that it is a urethane and it does not simulate Apidae is not incorrect. sent3: if the nondisjunction does not equate Bogart it is a urethane that does not simulate Apidae. sent4: there exists something such that if it is not a stabile then it equates raising.

sent1: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ({AU}{aa} & {DJ}{aa}) sent2: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): ¬{AS}x -> {C}x

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if the fact that it does not equate Bogart is not incorrect it is a urethane and does not simulate Apidae. ; $context$ = sent1: that the nondisjunction is a kind of a Skeat and is a nephropathy is not false if it does not simulate Apidae. sent2: if the nondisjunction equates Bogart then that it is a urethane and it does not simulate Apidae is not incorrect. sent3: if the nondisjunction does not equate Bogart it is a urethane that does not simulate Apidae. sent4: there exists something such that if it is not a stabile then it equates raising. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the grunter does equate coupon.

{D}{b}

sent1: The Provo does not admit analeptic. sent2: the sawwort does not equate grunter if there is something such that it does not admit Provo. sent3: the sawwort does not equate grunter. sent4: the grunter does not equate coupon if the sawwort equate coupon and does not equate grunter. sent5: the sawwort does not equate grunter and does not equate coupon. sent6: the analeptic does not admit Provo. sent7: there exists something such that it does admit Provo. sent8: if the sawwort is not downmarket and it does not equate grunter then the grunter equates coupon. sent9: the grunter equates coupon if the sawwort is not downmarket and equates grunter.

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

the grunter does not equate coupon.

¬{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the grunter does equate coupon. ; $context$ = sent1: The Provo does not admit analeptic. sent2: the sawwort does not equate grunter if there is something such that it does not admit Provo. sent3: the sawwort does not equate grunter. sent4: the grunter does not equate coupon if the sawwort equate coupon and does not equate grunter. sent5: the sawwort does not equate grunter and does not equate coupon. sent6: the analeptic does not admit Provo. sent7: there exists something such that it does admit Provo. sent8: if the sawwort is not downmarket and it does not equate grunter then the grunter equates coupon. sent9: the grunter equates coupon if the sawwort is not downmarket and equates grunter. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: there is something such that it does not admit Provo.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the synagogue is a Larousse that swabs ruffianism.

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

sent1: something is not a kind of a Larousse. sent2: something is not unsatisfactory if that it does not equate Hyderabad and it is not an intermediate is not true. sent3: something does swab Tyne. sent4: the globalization does not swab ruffianism if there exists something such that it is not a Larousse. sent5: that the guest does not equate Hyderabad and it is not an intermediate is wrong if it is not a kind of a mound. sent6: if the guest is a Jacob but it is not a kind of a rounders then the globalization does not swab Tyne. sent7: the globalization organizes and admits Wednesday. sent8: there is something such that it does not swab ruffianism. sent9: if the purchase is Darwinian then it does admit guest. sent10: the synagogue is a brassard and it does swab Tyne. sent11: the domino is unsatisfactory thing that swabs Tyne. sent12: a non-unsatisfactory thing is both a Jacob and not a rounders. sent13: if the fact that the globalization is not a Larousse is right the synagogue is a Larousse that swabs ruffianism. sent14: the trifle equates agitator and it is a kind of a Larousse. sent15: there is something such that that it does not swab Tyne is true. sent16: the globalization is a Larousse and it does swab ruffianism if the synagogue is not a Larousse. sent17: that the synagogue is a Larousse that swabs ruffianism does not hold if the globalization does not swab Tyne. sent18: if the globalization is not a Larousse the synagogue is a Larousse. sent19: the fact that the synagogue swabs Tyne and does admit mackerel is right. sent20: the synagogue is a Larousse.

sent1: (Ex): ¬{B}x sent2: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & ¬{H}x) -> ¬{F}x sent3: (Ex): {A}x sent4: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}{a} sent5: ¬{I}{c} -> ¬(¬{G}{c} & ¬{H}{c}) sent6: ({D}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent7: ({P}{a} & {IE}{a}) sent8: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent9: {L}{d} -> {K}{d} sent10: ({N}{b} & {A}{b}) sent11: ({F}{fp} & {A}{fp}) sent12: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({D}x & ¬{E}x) sent13: ¬{B}{a} -> ({B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent14: ({CS}{bm} & {B}{bm}) sent15: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent16: ¬{B}{b} -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent17: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent18: ¬{B}{a} -> {B}{b} sent19: ({A}{b} & {AC}{b}) sent20: {B}{b}

the fact that the synagogue is a Larousse and it swabs ruffianism is not true.

¬({B}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the synagogue is a Larousse that swabs ruffianism. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a kind of a Larousse. sent2: something is not unsatisfactory if that it does not equate Hyderabad and it is not an intermediate is not true. sent3: something does swab Tyne. sent4: the globalization does not swab ruffianism if there exists something such that it is not a Larousse. sent5: that the guest does not equate Hyderabad and it is not an intermediate is wrong if it is not a kind of a mound. sent6: if the guest is a Jacob but it is not a kind of a rounders then the globalization does not swab Tyne. sent7: the globalization organizes and admits Wednesday. sent8: there is something such that it does not swab ruffianism. sent9: if the purchase is Darwinian then it does admit guest. sent10: the synagogue is a brassard and it does swab Tyne. sent11: the domino is unsatisfactory thing that swabs Tyne. sent12: a non-unsatisfactory thing is both a Jacob and not a rounders. sent13: if the fact that the globalization is not a Larousse is right the synagogue is a Larousse that swabs ruffianism. sent14: the trifle equates agitator and it is a kind of a Larousse. sent15: there is something such that that it does not swab Tyne is true. sent16: the globalization is a Larousse and it does swab ruffianism if the synagogue is not a Larousse. sent17: that the synagogue is a Larousse that swabs ruffianism does not hold if the globalization does not swab Tyne. sent18: if the globalization is not a Larousse the synagogue is a Larousse. sent19: the fact that the synagogue swabs Tyne and does admit mackerel is right. sent20: the synagogue is a Larousse. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the observatory is a kanamycin.

{B}{c}

sent1: the hooknose is not a kanamycin. sent2: the man-eater does not admit examiner if the hooknose is a ground. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a spam that is semiterrestrial does not hold. sent4: the fact that that the man-eater does admit examiner and does not grind hold is not correct if the hooknose does not admit examiner. sent5: the magnum is not a kind of a kanamycin. sent6: if there is something such that that it is a kind of a spam that is semiterrestrial does not hold that the hooknose does not admit examiner is not false. sent7: the man-eater is not a kind of a black. sent8: if there is something such that it does not admit examiner the man-eater is not a ground. sent9: the observatory does not admit examiner if the fact that the man-eater grinds and is not a kanamycin does not hold. sent10: the hooknose does not grind if there exists something such that the fact that it admits examiner and it is a kanamycin is incorrect. sent11: the observatory is not a placentation. sent12: there is something such that the fact that it is a ground and a kanamycin is not correct. sent13: if there is something such that that it is a kind of a kanamycin and is a kind of a ground does not hold the observatory does not admit examiner. sent14: if there exists something such that the fact that it does admit examiner and it is a kanamycin is incorrect then the man-eater does not grind. sent15: if the fact that the man-eater admits examiner but it is not a ground does not hold then the observatory is not a kind of a kanamycin. sent16: the fact that the hooknose admits examiner and it does grind is not correct if the man-eater does not admits examiner. sent17: the fact that the man-eater is a ground that admits examiner is wrong if the hooknose is not a ground.

sent1: ¬{B}{a} sent2: {C}{a} -> ¬{A}{b} sent3: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent5: ¬{B}{cc} sent6: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent7: ¬{AL}{b} sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{C}{b} sent9: ¬({C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{A}{c} sent10: (x): ¬({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent11: ¬{FR}{c} sent12: (Ex): ¬({C}x & {B}x) sent13: (x): ¬({B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{A}{c} sent14: (x): ¬({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{b} sent15: ¬({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent16: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({A}{a} & {C}{a}) sent17: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & {A}{b})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the observatory is a kanamycin. ; $context$ = sent1: the hooknose is not a kanamycin. sent2: the man-eater does not admit examiner if the hooknose is a ground. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a spam that is semiterrestrial does not hold. sent4: the fact that that the man-eater does admit examiner and does not grind hold is not correct if the hooknose does not admit examiner. sent5: the magnum is not a kind of a kanamycin. sent6: if there is something such that that it is a kind of a spam that is semiterrestrial does not hold that the hooknose does not admit examiner is not false. sent7: the man-eater is not a kind of a black. sent8: if there is something such that it does not admit examiner the man-eater is not a ground. sent9: the observatory does not admit examiner if the fact that the man-eater grinds and is not a kanamycin does not hold. sent10: the hooknose does not grind if there exists something such that the fact that it admits examiner and it is a kanamycin is incorrect. sent11: the observatory is not a placentation. sent12: there is something such that the fact that it is a ground and a kanamycin is not correct. sent13: if there is something such that that it is a kind of a kanamycin and is a kind of a ground does not hold the observatory does not admit examiner. sent14: if there exists something such that the fact that it does admit examiner and it is a kanamycin is incorrect then the man-eater does not grind. sent15: if the fact that the man-eater admits examiner but it is not a ground does not hold then the observatory is not a kind of a kanamycin. sent16: the fact that the hooknose admits examiner and it does grind is not correct if the man-eater does not admits examiner. sent17: the fact that the man-eater is a ground that admits examiner is wrong if the hooknose is not a ground. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent6 -> int1: the hooknose does not admit examiner.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: that the man-eater does admit examiner and is not a ground is false.; sent15 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there exists something such that if it is a kind of a brutalization the fact that it is not a dinar and/or it does not swab bacteriophage is not incorrect does not hold.

¬((Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x))

sent1: if the calumet is a brutalization it either is a dinar or does not swab bacteriophage or both. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a kind of a brutalization hold it is a kind of a dinar and/or does not swab bacteriophage. sent3: if the calumet is a brutalization then it is not a kind of a dinar and/or does not swab bacteriophage. sent4: if the calumet is a brutalization either it is not a dinar or it does swab bacteriophage or both.

sent1: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent3: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent4: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is a kind of a brutalization the fact that it is not a dinar and/or it does not swab bacteriophage is not incorrect does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the calumet is a brutalization it either is a dinar or does not swab bacteriophage or both. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a kind of a brutalization hold it is a kind of a dinar and/or does not swab bacteriophage. sent3: if the calumet is a brutalization then it is not a kind of a dinar and/or does not swab bacteriophage. sent4: if the calumet is a brutalization either it is not a dinar or it does swab bacteriophage or both. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the anaclinalness happens and the swabbing characteristic occurs.

({A} & {C})

sent1: the ascent occurs. sent2: if the swabbing Parr does not occur then that the blandishment and/or the swabbing characteristic occurs is not correct. sent3: the pedagogicalness and the Ephesians occurs. sent4: the fact that the emcee happens is not false. sent5: the swabbing Parr happens. sent6: if the fact that that the blandishment happens or the swabbing characteristic happens or both does not hold is not wrong then the anaclinalness does not occur. sent7: the operating happens and the excretoriness happens. sent8: that the navigation and the rhinotomy happens is caused by the non-anaclinalness. sent9: the numerating occurs. sent10: the swabbing Parr happens and the swabbing characteristic happens. sent11: the restitution occurs and the get happens. sent12: the fact that the swabbing Hyperoodon occurs is right. sent13: the re-establishment happens. sent14: the magneticness occurs. sent15: both the diffusing and the paraphrase happens. sent16: the admitting caution happens. sent17: both the blocking and the spasticness happens. sent18: both the anaclinalness and the blandishment happens. sent19: the blandishment happens. sent20: the occupationalness and the microeconomicsness occurs. sent21: both the equating shamefacedness and the navigation occurs. sent22: the swabbing Stuart occurs.

sent1: {FP} sent2: ¬{D} -> ¬({B} v {C}) sent3: ({ET} & {AF}) sent4: {GS} sent5: {D} sent6: ¬({B} v {C}) -> ¬{A} sent7: ({AN} & {N}) sent8: ¬{A} -> ({BG} & {EB}) sent9: {FB} sent10: ({D} & {C}) sent11: ({EL} & {AE}) sent12: {FH} sent13: {FN} sent14: {AL} sent15: ({AS} & {IB}) sent16: {BP} sent17: ({GT} & {FI}) sent18: ({A} & {B}) sent19: {B} sent20: ({GM} & {DG}) sent21: ({CJ} & {BG}) sent22: {IN}

the navigation and the rhinotomy occurs.

({BG} & {EB})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the anaclinalness happens and the swabbing characteristic occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the ascent occurs. sent2: if the swabbing Parr does not occur then that the blandishment and/or the swabbing characteristic occurs is not correct. sent3: the pedagogicalness and the Ephesians occurs. sent4: the fact that the emcee happens is not false. sent5: the swabbing Parr happens. sent6: if the fact that that the blandishment happens or the swabbing characteristic happens or both does not hold is not wrong then the anaclinalness does not occur. sent7: the operating happens and the excretoriness happens. sent8: that the navigation and the rhinotomy happens is caused by the non-anaclinalness. sent9: the numerating occurs. sent10: the swabbing Parr happens and the swabbing characteristic happens. sent11: the restitution occurs and the get happens. sent12: the fact that the swabbing Hyperoodon occurs is right. sent13: the re-establishment happens. sent14: the magneticness occurs. sent15: both the diffusing and the paraphrase happens. sent16: the admitting caution happens. sent17: both the blocking and the spasticness happens. sent18: both the anaclinalness and the blandishment happens. sent19: the blandishment happens. sent20: the occupationalness and the microeconomicsness occurs. sent21: both the equating shamefacedness and the navigation occurs. sent22: the swabbing Stuart occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent18 -> int1: the anaclinalness occurs.; sent10 -> int2: the swabbing characteristic happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there exists something such that if it models and it is not immature then the fact that it is not a kind of a hypothalamus is true is false.

¬((Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)

sent1: if the waterbuck is a model and not immature then it is a hypothalamus. sent2: the waterbuck is not a hypothalamus if it is both a model and immature. sent3: there exists something such that if it does equate screamer and it is not antistrophic that it is not a Trifolium is not false. sent4: there is something such that if it is a kind of a model that is not immature then it is a kind of a hypothalamus. sent5: if something is acidimetric thing that is not a Gongorism then it is not rejective. sent6: there is something such that if it is granulocytic and it is not carbocyclic then it does not swab conformist. sent7: there is something such that if it does model and is immature it is not a hypothalamus. sent8: if the waterbuck is a model and is not immature then the fact that it is not a kind of a hypothalamus is not false. sent9: if something is a saute that does not equate adit the fact that it is not polymorphic is right. sent10: there exists something such that if it equates adit and does dry the fact that it is not fenestral is true.

sent1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent2: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent3: (Ex): ({EC}x & ¬{GK}x) -> ¬{BO}x sent4: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: (x): ({FG}x & ¬{HT}x) -> ¬{AS}x sent6: (Ex): ({EA}x & ¬{I}x) -> ¬{BL}x sent7: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent8: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent9: (x): ({DB}x & ¬{AG}x) -> ¬{DT}x sent10: (Ex): ({AG}x & {CD}x) -> ¬{CN}x

the prince is not polymorphic if it does saute and it does not equate adit.

({DB}{gi} & ¬{AG}{gi}) -> ¬{DT}{gi}

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it models and it is not immature then the fact that it is not a kind of a hypothalamus is true is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the waterbuck is a model and not immature then it is a hypothalamus. sent2: the waterbuck is not a hypothalamus if it is both a model and immature. sent3: there exists something such that if it does equate screamer and it is not antistrophic that it is not a Trifolium is not false. sent4: there is something such that if it is a kind of a model that is not immature then it is a kind of a hypothalamus. sent5: if something is acidimetric thing that is not a Gongorism then it is not rejective. sent6: there is something such that if it is granulocytic and it is not carbocyclic then it does not swab conformist. sent7: there is something such that if it does model and is immature it is not a hypothalamus. sent8: if the waterbuck is a model and is not immature then the fact that it is not a kind of a hypothalamus is not false. sent9: if something is a saute that does not equate adit the fact that it is not polymorphic is right. sent10: there exists something such that if it equates adit and does dry the fact that it is not fenestral is true. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the striker is gastrointestinal and/or it is a allurement.

({C}{a} v {D}{a})

sent1: the striker is not a kind of an evergreen. sent2: something is gastrointestinal if it is vicennial and it is not a kind of an evergreen. sent3: the curd is vicennial. sent4: if the personal does even and does not protect it does equate certificate. sent5: the striker is an arbiter. sent6: if something that is gastrointestinal is not a allurement it is a kind of an evergreen. sent7: the striker is a valley. sent8: the striker is a kind of a Iranian and/or it is a allurement. sent9: the striker is not a kind of a hematocrit. sent10: the striker is not leonine. sent11: the strongman is a allurement. sent12: the armchair is not vicennial. sent13: the striker is diatomic but it is not insoluble. sent14: if something is a allurement and is not an evergreen it is vicennial.

sent1: ¬{B}{a} sent2: (x): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {C}x sent3: {A}{fa} sent4: ({BF}{gh} & ¬{FR}{gh}) -> {HR}{gh} sent5: {BO}{a} sent6: (x): ({C}x & ¬{D}x) -> {B}x sent7: {FJ}{a} sent8: ({DA}{a} v {D}{a}) sent9: ¬{JF}{a} sent10: ¬{JE}{a} sent11: {D}{cu} sent12: ¬{A}{cc} sent13: ({BP}{a} & ¬{II}{a}) sent14: (x): ({D}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the striker is gastrointestinal and/or it is a allurement. ; $context$ = sent1: the striker is not a kind of an evergreen. sent2: something is gastrointestinal if it is vicennial and it is not a kind of an evergreen. sent3: the curd is vicennial. sent4: if the personal does even and does not protect it does equate certificate. sent5: the striker is an arbiter. sent6: if something that is gastrointestinal is not a allurement it is a kind of an evergreen. sent7: the striker is a valley. sent8: the striker is a kind of a Iranian and/or it is a allurement. sent9: the striker is not a kind of a hematocrit. sent10: the striker is not leonine. sent11: the strongman is a allurement. sent12: the armchair is not vicennial. sent13: the striker is diatomic but it is not insoluble. sent14: if something is a allurement and is not an evergreen it is vicennial. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the fact that the striker is not gastrointestinal is not true if it is both vicennial and not evergreen.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the paralytic occurs.

{D}

sent1: the simulating sputter occurs and the molalness occurs. sent2: the salvificness happens. sent3: the melioration does not occur if both the subartesianness and the Ford occurs. sent4: the equating tediousness occurs and the unconditionalness occurs. sent5: that the admitting drag occurs and the retribution occurs is triggered by that the mitzvah does not occur. sent6: if the flat does not occur the blocking does not occur. sent7: if the swabbing ruled does not occur the swabbing headlight does not occur. sent8: the unicellularness happens. sent9: the salvificness does not occur and the simulating lock-gate does not occur if the admitting drag happens. sent10: if the sociopathicness occurs then the friendly does not occur and the equating idyll does not occur. sent11: the fact that the swabbing ruled occurs is true. sent12: that the sociopathicness happens is caused by either that the familiar does not occur or that the debuting does not occur or both. sent13: that both the simulating lock-gate and the salvificness happens leads to the non-paralyticness. sent14: the swabbing ruled occurs and the simulating lock-gate occurs. sent15: if the blocking does not occur the familiar does not occur and/or the debuting does not occur. sent16: if the simulating lock-gate does not occur both the paralyticness and the swabbing ruled happens. sent17: that the mitzvah does not occur and the equating Marcionism does not occur is triggered by the unfriendlyness. sent18: the erasing happens.

sent1: ({FN} & {CS}) sent2: {C} sent3: ({EP} & {CQ}) -> ¬{BF} sent4: ({ET} & {R}) sent5: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent6: ¬{O} -> ¬{N} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬{HI} sent8: {CO} sent9: {E} -> (¬{C} & ¬{B}) sent10: {K} -> (¬{I} & ¬{J}) sent11: {A} sent12: (¬{L} v ¬{M}) -> {K} sent13: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent14: ({A} & {B}) sent15: ¬{N} -> (¬{L} v ¬{M}) sent16: ¬{B} -> ({D} & {A}) sent17: ¬{I} -> (¬{G} & ¬{H}) sent18: {HK}

the paralytic happens.

{D}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the paralytic occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the simulating sputter occurs and the molalness occurs. sent2: the salvificness happens. sent3: the melioration does not occur if both the subartesianness and the Ford occurs. sent4: the equating tediousness occurs and the unconditionalness occurs. sent5: that the admitting drag occurs and the retribution occurs is triggered by that the mitzvah does not occur. sent6: if the flat does not occur the blocking does not occur. sent7: if the swabbing ruled does not occur the swabbing headlight does not occur. sent8: the unicellularness happens. sent9: the salvificness does not occur and the simulating lock-gate does not occur if the admitting drag happens. sent10: if the sociopathicness occurs then the friendly does not occur and the equating idyll does not occur. sent11: the fact that the swabbing ruled occurs is true. sent12: that the sociopathicness happens is caused by either that the familiar does not occur or that the debuting does not occur or both. sent13: that both the simulating lock-gate and the salvificness happens leads to the non-paralyticness. sent14: the swabbing ruled occurs and the simulating lock-gate occurs. sent15: if the blocking does not occur the familiar does not occur and/or the debuting does not occur. sent16: if the simulating lock-gate does not occur both the paralyticness and the swabbing ruled happens. sent17: that the mitzvah does not occur and the equating Marcionism does not occur is triggered by the unfriendlyness. sent18: the erasing happens. ; $proof$ =

sent14 -> int1: the simulating lock-gate occurs.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the simulating lock-gate and the salvificness occurs.; int2 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the oratory does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: the fact that the residing does not occur and the distemper happens is incorrect. sent2: that the reallocation and the rein occurs prevents that the oratory happens. sent3: if that the Nigerianness does not occur is right then the fact that the non-diffuseness and the swabbing Hodgkin occurs is false. sent4: the admitting vomiter and the uncriticalness happens. sent5: both the prudentness and the consideration occurs. sent6: the fact that the maxillomandibularness occurs or the oratory does not occur or both is not right if the contention does not occur. sent7: that the fact that the non-maxillomandibularness and the contention happens is incorrect hold. sent8: if that both the non-diffuseness and the swabbing Hodgkin happens is wrong then the contention does not occur. sent9: that the maxillomandibularness occurs yields the reining. sent10: if the fact that either the swabbing touchback does not occur or the rejection does not occur or both is not true then the Nigerianness does not occur. sent11: both the admitting runaway and the reflectiveness occurs. sent12: that both the reallocation and the equating phlogiston happens is true. sent13: the nuzzling happens and the alkaloidalness happens. sent14: the oratory happens and the reallocation happens if the equating phlogiston does not occur. sent15: if the equating phlogiston does not occur the systolicness happens and the reallocation happens. sent16: if the fact that the contention and the Nigerianness happens is wrong the contention does not occur. sent17: that both the maxillomandibularness and the reining occurs does not hold if that the contention does not occur is not false.

sent1: ¬(¬{HS} & {HG}) sent2: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent3: ¬{I} -> ¬(¬{G} & {H}) sent4: ({JK} & {HQ}) sent5: ({DE} & {GK}) sent6: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} v ¬{D}) sent7: ¬(¬{E} & {F}) sent8: ¬(¬{G} & {H}) -> ¬{F} sent9: {E} -> {C} sent10: ¬(¬{K} v ¬{J}) -> ¬{I} sent11: ({IM} & {IN}) sent12: ({A} & {B}) sent13: ({DR} & {BM}) sent14: ¬{B} -> ({D} & {A}) sent15: ¬{B} -> ({BT} & {A}) sent16: ¬({F} & {I}) -> ¬{F} sent17: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & {C})

the systolicness happens and the immediateness occurs.

({BT} & {AE})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the oratory does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the residing does not occur and the distemper happens is incorrect. sent2: that the reallocation and the rein occurs prevents that the oratory happens. sent3: if that the Nigerianness does not occur is right then the fact that the non-diffuseness and the swabbing Hodgkin occurs is false. sent4: the admitting vomiter and the uncriticalness happens. sent5: both the prudentness and the consideration occurs. sent6: the fact that the maxillomandibularness occurs or the oratory does not occur or both is not right if the contention does not occur. sent7: that the fact that the non-maxillomandibularness and the contention happens is incorrect hold. sent8: if that both the non-diffuseness and the swabbing Hodgkin happens is wrong then the contention does not occur. sent9: that the maxillomandibularness occurs yields the reining. sent10: if the fact that either the swabbing touchback does not occur or the rejection does not occur or both is not true then the Nigerianness does not occur. sent11: both the admitting runaway and the reflectiveness occurs. sent12: that both the reallocation and the equating phlogiston happens is true. sent13: the nuzzling happens and the alkaloidalness happens. sent14: the oratory happens and the reallocation happens if the equating phlogiston does not occur. sent15: if the equating phlogiston does not occur the systolicness happens and the reallocation happens. sent16: if the fact that the contention and the Nigerianness happens is wrong the contention does not occur. sent17: that both the maxillomandibularness and the reining occurs does not hold if that the contention does not occur is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent12 -> int1: the reallocation occurs.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that there exists something such that if it is not a tautog then it is both a distance and cowardly is not true.

¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x))

sent1: the Tyke is a tautog and it does peregrinate if it is not postmillennial. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a tautog it is a kind of a distance that is cowardly. sent3: if the groundberry is not a tautog then it is cowardly. sent4: if the ironwood is not dextral then it is both cowardly and an alabaster. sent5: if the groundberry is not a tautog it is a kind of a distance and it is cowardly. sent6: if that the groundberry is a tautog hold then it is both a distance and cowardly. sent7: there is something such that if that it does not swab scoop is right then it equates Monario and is a gayfeather. sent8: the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a tautog then it is cowardly is not incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a tautog then it is a distance. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not phylogenetic it is a kind of a absorbate and it is a mechanization. sent11: something is a fairway that is an overcast if it is not cowardly.

sent1: ¬{AC}{dc} -> ({A}{dc} & {JK}{dc}) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent4: ¬{HA}{ji} -> ({AB}{ji} & {CF}{ji}) sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent7: (Ex): ¬{BQ}x -> ({L}x & {HF}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x sent9: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AA}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{ID}x -> ({N}x & {CO}x) sent11: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ({IC}x & {HS}x)

if the sampler is not cowardly then it is a fairway and it is an overcast.

¬{AB}{io} -> ({IC}{io} & {HS}{io})

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is not a tautog then it is both a distance and cowardly is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the Tyke is a tautog and it does peregrinate if it is not postmillennial. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a tautog it is a kind of a distance that is cowardly. sent3: if the groundberry is not a tautog then it is cowardly. sent4: if the ironwood is not dextral then it is both cowardly and an alabaster. sent5: if the groundberry is not a tautog it is a kind of a distance and it is cowardly. sent6: if that the groundberry is a tautog hold then it is both a distance and cowardly. sent7: there is something such that if that it does not swab scoop is right then it equates Monario and is a gayfeather. sent8: the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a tautog then it is cowardly is not incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a tautog then it is a distance. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not phylogenetic it is a kind of a absorbate and it is a mechanization. sent11: something is a fairway that is an overcast if it is not cowardly. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a kind of a koan.

(Ex): {A}x

sent1: the epistemologist is jittery. sent2: if something is not a default and is a koan then the pipsissewa is unmilitary. sent3: something is not evolutionary. sent4: there is something such that it is jittery. sent5: if that that the Romans does not specialize and it does not equate celioscopy is not correct hold that it does equate celioscopy hold. sent6: if a non-noncrucial thing is a warship the epistemologist is a kind of a koan. sent7: the marbling crucifies. sent8: if something is not a kind of a koan then it is not a kind of a Galium and it is Demotic. sent9: something is not evolutionary but jittery. sent10: if there exists something such that that it does not simulate past and it is a tickle is correct then the inverter is jittery. sent11: if something does equate celioscopy that it withholds is not wrong. sent12: there exists something such that it is evolutionary and it is jittery. sent13: the chloroquine is not a burlesque. sent14: the fact that the epistemologist accrues is not incorrect. sent15: something is a kind of a Kassite. sent16: if that something either does withhold or is a dowered or both does not hold it is not a koan. sent17: if something withholds then it is not a dowered but a koan. sent18: if something does not equate celioscopy then that either it withholds or it is a dowered or both is incorrect. sent19: if something is not a dowered but it is a koan then the epistemologist is subsonic. sent20: the epistemologist is a koan if something is a kind of non-evolutionary thing that is jittery.

sent1: {AB}{a} sent2: (x): (¬{DQ}x & {A}x) -> {HA}{i} sent3: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent4: (Ex): {AB}x sent5: ¬(¬{G}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> {D}{b} sent6: (x): (¬{GB}x & {AF}x) -> {A}{a} sent7: {AM}{ap} sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{HL}x & {BB}x) sent9: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: (x): (¬{CR}x & {CM}x) -> {AB}{iu} sent11: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent12: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent13: ¬{E}{c} sent14: {IE}{a} sent15: (Ex): {DP}x sent16: (x): ¬({C}x v {B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent17: (x): {C}x -> (¬{B}x & {A}x) sent18: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({C}x v {B}x) sent19: (x): (¬{B}x & {A}x) -> {F}{a} sent20: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a}

there exists something such that it is subsonic.

(Ex): {F}x

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is a kind of a koan. ; $context$ = sent1: the epistemologist is jittery. sent2: if something is not a default and is a koan then the pipsissewa is unmilitary. sent3: something is not evolutionary. sent4: there is something such that it is jittery. sent5: if that that the Romans does not specialize and it does not equate celioscopy is not correct hold that it does equate celioscopy hold. sent6: if a non-noncrucial thing is a warship the epistemologist is a kind of a koan. sent7: the marbling crucifies. sent8: if something is not a kind of a koan then it is not a kind of a Galium and it is Demotic. sent9: something is not evolutionary but jittery. sent10: if there exists something such that that it does not simulate past and it is a tickle is correct then the inverter is jittery. sent11: if something does equate celioscopy that it withholds is not wrong. sent12: there exists something such that it is evolutionary and it is jittery. sent13: the chloroquine is not a burlesque. sent14: the fact that the epistemologist accrues is not incorrect. sent15: something is a kind of a Kassite. sent16: if that something either does withhold or is a dowered or both does not hold it is not a koan. sent17: if something withholds then it is not a dowered but a koan. sent18: if something does not equate celioscopy then that either it withholds or it is a dowered or both is incorrect. sent19: if something is not a dowered but it is a koan then the epistemologist is subsonic. sent20: the epistemologist is a koan if something is a kind of non-evolutionary thing that is jittery. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent20 -> int1: the fact that the epistemologist is a kind of a koan is right.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the swabbing suburbia does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: the fact that the mammariness does not occur is true. sent2: the fact that the incomparableness does not occur hold. sent3: the admitting pion happens. sent4: the depression happens. sent5: the devastating occurs. sent6: the admitting Oestridae occurs and the corporealness occurs. sent7: that the gone and the crucifixion occurs hold if the earlessness does not occur. sent8: if the libidinalness does not occur then the devastating occurs. sent9: both the swabbing suburbia and the devastating happens if the libidinalness does not occur. sent10: not the libidinalness but the admitting pion happens.

sent1: ¬{DO} sent2: ¬{FR} sent3: {B} sent4: {JG} sent5: {C} sent6: ({DL} & {GH}) sent7: ¬{F} -> ({HB} & {JH}) sent8: ¬{A} -> {C} sent9: ¬{A} -> ({D} & {C}) sent10: (¬{A} & {B})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the swabbing suburbia does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the mammariness does not occur is true. sent2: the fact that the incomparableness does not occur hold. sent3: the admitting pion happens. sent4: the depression happens. sent5: the devastating occurs. sent6: the admitting Oestridae occurs and the corporealness occurs. sent7: that the gone and the crucifixion occurs hold if the earlessness does not occur. sent8: if the libidinalness does not occur then the devastating occurs. sent9: both the swabbing suburbia and the devastating happens if the libidinalness does not occur. sent10: not the libidinalness but the admitting pion happens. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the libidinalness does not occur.; sent9 & int1 -> int2: both the swabbing suburbia and the devastating happens.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if the fact that it does not equate past and it is allowable is wrong then it is not coherent.

(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: there is something such that if the fact that it does not equate past and is allowable is not right then it is coherent. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it does equate past and it is allowable does not hold then it is not coherent. sent3: there is something such that if it does not equate past and it is allowable it is not coherent. sent4: there is something such that if that it is not stimulative and it is physiological is not correct then it is synovial. sent5: if the fact that the cleistothecium is redemptive and it equates past is incorrect that it is not a kind of a handicap is not false. sent6: the larkspur is not allowable if it does not admit disorganization. sent7: if the fact that something is not hypovolemic but a yottabyte is not correct it is not a spongefly. sent8: there exists something such that if it does equate past then it is not coherent. sent9: if the larkspur is not allowable it is not coherent. sent10: if that the jacksmelt equates Oestridae and is a syndactyly is incorrect it is not allowable. sent11: if that that the larkspur does not equate past but it is allowable is incorrect is right it is not coherent. sent12: the Berlin does not rekindle if the fact that it is not coherent and it is a Friedman does not hold. sent13: the larkspur is not coherent if the fact that it does equate past and is allowable is not true. sent14: there exists something such that if it is not omnidirectional it does not swab supertonic. sent15: if the larkspur does not equate past but it is allowable the fact that it is not coherent is not incorrect.

sent1: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent3: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{CM}x & {FG}x) -> {CA}x sent5: ¬({GN}{bb} & {AA}{bb}) -> ¬{DM}{bb} sent6: ¬{FC}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬(¬{FE}x & {FF}x) -> ¬{DP}x sent8: (Ex): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent9: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent10: ¬({IL}{bd} & {FO}{bd}) -> ¬{AB}{bd} sent11: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent12: ¬(¬{B}{ce} & {GM}{ce}) -> ¬{HH}{ce} sent13: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent14: (Ex): ¬{HK}x -> ¬{IK}x sent15: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}

there exists something such that if the fact that it is not hypovolemic but a yottabyte is false then it is not a kind of a spongefly.

(Ex): ¬(¬{FE}x & {FF}x) -> ¬{DP}x

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if the fact that it does not equate past and it is allowable is wrong then it is not coherent. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if the fact that it does not equate past and is allowable is not right then it is coherent. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it does equate past and it is allowable does not hold then it is not coherent. sent3: there is something such that if it does not equate past and it is allowable it is not coherent. sent4: there is something such that if that it is not stimulative and it is physiological is not correct then it is synovial. sent5: if the fact that the cleistothecium is redemptive and it equates past is incorrect that it is not a kind of a handicap is not false. sent6: the larkspur is not allowable if it does not admit disorganization. sent7: if the fact that something is not hypovolemic but a yottabyte is not correct it is not a spongefly. sent8: there exists something such that if it does equate past then it is not coherent. sent9: if the larkspur is not allowable it is not coherent. sent10: if that the jacksmelt equates Oestridae and is a syndactyly is incorrect it is not allowable. sent11: if that that the larkspur does not equate past but it is allowable is incorrect is right it is not coherent. sent12: the Berlin does not rekindle if the fact that it is not coherent and it is a Friedman does not hold. sent13: the larkspur is not coherent if the fact that it does equate past and is allowable is not true. sent14: there exists something such that if it is not omnidirectional it does not swab supertonic. sent15: if the larkspur does not equate past but it is allowable the fact that it is not coherent is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the livestock is antiquarian.

{C}{b}

sent1: the bitok swabs afropavo. sent2: the bitok does not equate mantissa if it does not admit dilution. sent3: if something does swab afropavo then it is antiquarian. sent4: something that equates mantissa is not a jar and does not swab afropavo. sent5: that something is antiquarian if it is a jar hold. sent6: the prospectus is antiquarian. sent7: the nirvana does swab afropavo. sent8: the bitok jars if the livestock swabs afropavo. sent9: the bitok is an accompanist. sent10: the fact that the bitok is antiquarian is true if the livestock does swab afropavo. sent11: if something is not a jar and does not swab afropavo it is not antiquarian. sent12: the bitok is antiquarian. sent13: The afropavo swabs bitok. sent14: the livestock jars if the bitok swabs afropavo. sent15: if something is blastemal then it is Yugoslavian.

sent1: {A}{a} sent2: ¬{E}{a} -> ¬{D}{a} sent3: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent4: (x): {D}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) sent5: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent6: {C}{ei} sent7: {A}{bh} sent8: {A}{b} -> {B}{a} sent9: {FQ}{a} sent10: {A}{b} -> {C}{a} sent11: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent12: {C}{a} sent13: {AA}{aa} sent14: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent15: (x): {BP}x -> {CM}x

the livestock is not antiquarian.

¬{C}{b}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the livestock is antiquarian. ; $context$ = sent1: the bitok swabs afropavo. sent2: the bitok does not equate mantissa if it does not admit dilution. sent3: if something does swab afropavo then it is antiquarian. sent4: something that equates mantissa is not a jar and does not swab afropavo. sent5: that something is antiquarian if it is a jar hold. sent6: the prospectus is antiquarian. sent7: the nirvana does swab afropavo. sent8: the bitok jars if the livestock swabs afropavo. sent9: the bitok is an accompanist. sent10: the fact that the bitok is antiquarian is true if the livestock does swab afropavo. sent11: if something is not a jar and does not swab afropavo it is not antiquarian. sent12: the bitok is antiquarian. sent13: The afropavo swabs bitok. sent14: the livestock jars if the bitok swabs afropavo. sent15: if something is blastemal then it is Yugoslavian. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent1 -> int1: the livestock is a kind of a jar.; sent5 -> int2: the livestock is antiquarian if it is a jar.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it is a Aethusa and is not syllabic the fact that it is not legato is false.

(Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x

sent1: if the sodalist is a kind of a Aethusa but it is not syllabic it is legato. sent2: the sodalist is incomprehensible if it is legato and does swab kvetch. sent3: if the sodalist is pilosebaceous and it is gastroesophageal it is a Aethusa. sent4: there exists something such that if the fact that it is virile and it does not simulate Oread is correct it is incomprehensible. sent5: the sodalist knits if it is a kind of a Aethusa and is a kind of a Mongol. sent6: if the reservoir does tree but it is not a retailer it is a kind of a Aethusa. sent7: the sodalist does like if it is syllabic and it is not a Quakerism.

sent1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent2: ({B}{aa} & {GM}{aa}) -> {IR}{aa} sent3: ({O}{aa} & {IU}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent4: (Ex): ({CE}x & ¬{DE}x) -> {IR}x sent5: ({AA}{aa} & {JA}{aa}) -> {DN}{aa} sent6: ({BG}{be} & ¬{AE}{be}) -> {AA}{be} sent7: ({AB}{aa} & ¬{IB}{aa}) -> {HK}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is a Aethusa and is not syllabic the fact that it is not legato is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sodalist is a kind of a Aethusa but it is not syllabic it is legato. sent2: the sodalist is incomprehensible if it is legato and does swab kvetch. sent3: if the sodalist is pilosebaceous and it is gastroesophageal it is a Aethusa. sent4: there exists something such that if the fact that it is virile and it does not simulate Oread is correct it is incomprehensible. sent5: the sodalist knits if it is a kind of a Aethusa and is a kind of a Mongol. sent6: if the reservoir does tree but it is not a retailer it is a kind of a Aethusa. sent7: the sodalist does like if it is syllabic and it is not a Quakerism. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the follicle is porphyritic and a feature is not true.

¬({D}{b} & {C}{b})

sent1: the follicle is porphyritic a feature if the spatterdock is not a kind of a rental. sent2: the follicle is porphyritic. sent3: the fact that the spatterdock is non-rental thing that is not a neuropil is not wrong.

sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ({D}{b} & {C}{b}) sent2: {D}{b} sent3: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the follicle is porphyritic and a feature is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the follicle is porphyritic a feature if the spatterdock is not a kind of a rental. sent2: the follicle is porphyritic. sent3: the fact that the spatterdock is non-rental thing that is not a neuropil is not wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the spatterdock is not a kind of a rental.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that that it is a etude and it does not swab pulverization is not true.

(Ex): ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x)

sent1: the argasid does not swab pulverization. sent2: the mandrill is non-full-time. sent3: if the pop-up is disreputable then the argasid is heedless and does not swab pulverization. sent4: the argasid is a limbed and does not swab pulverization. sent5: the fact that the argasid is a etude that does swab pulverization is not true. sent6: there is something such that it does equate omnipotence and is not a downhill.

sent1: ¬{B}{a} sent2: ¬{F}{c} sent3: {D}{b} -> ({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent4: ({FI}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent5: ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent6: (Ex): ({EL}x & ¬{DD}x)

that the backlog is unorthodox but it is not a kind of a etude is not right.

¬({EE}{fe} & ¬{A}{fe})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that that it is a etude and it does not swab pulverization is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the argasid does not swab pulverization. sent2: the mandrill is non-full-time. sent3: if the pop-up is disreputable then the argasid is heedless and does not swab pulverization. sent4: the argasid is a limbed and does not swab pulverization. sent5: the fact that the argasid is a etude that does swab pulverization is not true. sent6: there is something such that it does equate omnipotence and is not a downhill. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the argasid is a etude but it does not swab pulverization.; assump1 -> int1: the argasid is a etude.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the nativistness does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: if the volution happens and the admitting Meniscium does not occur the paleontologicalness occurs. sent2: that the incorporation does not occur is caused by the non-endogenicness. sent3: that the nativist does not occur is brought about by that the equating Verdicchio and the epigastricness occurs. sent4: that the literariness does not occur but the evisceration happens is brought about by the equating solicitor. sent5: if the manicure does not occur then not the epigastricness but the allylicness occurs. sent6: the equating Verdicchio happens. sent7: if the swabbing rate happens the fact that the preferment but not the kindling happens is not right. sent8: if the submissiveness occurs then the swabbing rate happens. sent9: the mull occurs. sent10: the fact that the equating comicality does not occur is not wrong. sent11: that the endogenicness happens is prevented by that the literariness does not occur and the evisceration happens. sent12: if the paleontologicalness happens the equating solicitor happens. sent13: that the fact that the cannibalisticness happens is wrong is correct. sent14: that the nativistness and the equating Verdicchio happens is not wrong if the epigastricness does not occur. sent15: that the submissiveness happens and the straying does not occur is triggered by that the incorporation does not occur. sent16: the actinomycetalness happens and the professorialness occurs. sent17: the epigastricness happens. sent18: if the fact that the preferment but not the kindling happens is not true the manicure does not occur.

sent1: ({R} & ¬{Q}) -> {P} sent2: ¬{L} -> ¬{K} sent3: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent4: {O} -> (¬{M} & {N}) sent5: ¬{E} -> (¬{B} & {D}) sent6: {A} sent7: {H} -> ¬({G} & ¬{F}) sent8: {I} -> {H} sent9: {EC} sent10: ¬{BA} sent11: (¬{M} & {N}) -> ¬{L} sent12: {P} -> {O} sent13: ¬{IT} sent14: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {A}) sent15: ¬{K} -> ({I} & ¬{J}) sent16: ({AQ} & {AO}) sent17: {B} sent18: ¬({G} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{E}

the nativistness happens.

{C}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nativistness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the volution happens and the admitting Meniscium does not occur the paleontologicalness occurs. sent2: that the incorporation does not occur is caused by the non-endogenicness. sent3: that the nativist does not occur is brought about by that the equating Verdicchio and the epigastricness occurs. sent4: that the literariness does not occur but the evisceration happens is brought about by the equating solicitor. sent5: if the manicure does not occur then not the epigastricness but the allylicness occurs. sent6: the equating Verdicchio happens. sent7: if the swabbing rate happens the fact that the preferment but not the kindling happens is not right. sent8: if the submissiveness occurs then the swabbing rate happens. sent9: the mull occurs. sent10: the fact that the equating comicality does not occur is not wrong. sent11: that the endogenicness happens is prevented by that the literariness does not occur and the evisceration happens. sent12: if the paleontologicalness happens the equating solicitor happens. sent13: that the fact that the cannibalisticness happens is wrong is correct. sent14: that the nativistness and the equating Verdicchio happens is not wrong if the epigastricness does not occur. sent15: that the submissiveness happens and the straying does not occur is triggered by that the incorporation does not occur. sent16: the actinomycetalness happens and the professorialness occurs. sent17: the epigastricness happens. sent18: if the fact that the preferment but not the kindling happens is not true the manicure does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent17 -> int1: the equating Verdicchio and the epigastricness occurs.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the pottle does not overhang and it is not a Rollerblade.

(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b})

sent1: if the fact that something is not a shiftlessness and is polymorphic is incorrect it is a kind of a shiftlessness. sent2: if the bar is not a kind of a Auvergne then it is not a fast and it is a kind of a footnote. sent3: the bar is not a Auvergne. sent4: if there is something such that it is a kind of non-fast a footnote the Sadducee admits rigging. sent5: if the monotheist is not a shiftlessness the pottle does not overhang. sent6: the pottle is not an overhang and is not a Rollerblade if the monotheist is not a shiftlessness. sent7: the core is exacta and it admits appetizer. sent8: if something admits rigging it is a probable. sent9: if that the monotheist does not swab Anethum hold the pottle is not a kind of a sir and it is not a kind of a Rollerblade. sent10: the monotheist is not a kind of a shiftlessness if it is a sir and does swab Anethum. sent11: the monotheist does swab Anethum. sent12: the monotheist is a kind of a sir that swabs Anethum. sent13: the pottle is not an overhang. sent14: the pottle is not a kind of a sir if it is an overhang that is a shiftlessness. sent15: if the conductress is a kind of a shiftlessness the monotheist is an overhang. sent16: if there exists something such that it is a probable that the conductress is both not a shiftlessness and polymorphic is false.

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {E}x) -> {B}x sent2: ¬{I}{e} -> (¬{H}{e} & {G}{e}) sent3: ¬{I}{e} sent4: (x): (¬{H}x & {G}x) -> {F}{d} sent5: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent6: ¬{B}{a} -> (¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent7: ({IN}{ik} & {DO}{ik}) sent8: (x): {F}x -> {D}x sent9: ¬{AB}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent10: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent11: {AB}{a} sent12: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent13: ¬{C}{b} sent14: ({C}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{AA}{b} sent15: {B}{c} -> {C}{a} sent16: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{B}{c} & {E}{c})

the fact that the pottle does not overhang and it is not a Rollerblade does not hold.

¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pottle does not overhang and it is not a Rollerblade. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is not a shiftlessness and is polymorphic is incorrect it is a kind of a shiftlessness. sent2: if the bar is not a kind of a Auvergne then it is not a fast and it is a kind of a footnote. sent3: the bar is not a Auvergne. sent4: if there is something such that it is a kind of non-fast a footnote the Sadducee admits rigging. sent5: if the monotheist is not a shiftlessness the pottle does not overhang. sent6: the pottle is not an overhang and is not a Rollerblade if the monotheist is not a shiftlessness. sent7: the core is exacta and it admits appetizer. sent8: if something admits rigging it is a probable. sent9: if that the monotheist does not swab Anethum hold the pottle is not a kind of a sir and it is not a kind of a Rollerblade. sent10: the monotheist is not a kind of a shiftlessness if it is a sir and does swab Anethum. sent11: the monotheist does swab Anethum. sent12: the monotheist is a kind of a sir that swabs Anethum. sent13: the pottle is not an overhang. sent14: the pottle is not a kind of a sir if it is an overhang that is a shiftlessness. sent15: if the conductress is a kind of a shiftlessness the monotheist is an overhang. sent16: if there exists something such that it is a probable that the conductress is both not a shiftlessness and polymorphic is false. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent12 -> int1: the monotheist is not a shiftlessness.; int1 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Ichyostega is crustaceous.

{A}{a}

sent1: the fact that the Viola is not a brooklet is correct. sent2: if that something does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark is incorrect then it is not fishy. sent3: something is not fishy if it is a kind of a meadowlark. sent4: the Ichyostega is crustaceous if the Viola is not fishy. sent5: that the Viola does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark is false if it is not a brooklet.

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the Ichyostega is crustaceous. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Viola is not a brooklet is correct. sent2: if that something does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark is incorrect then it is not fishy. sent3: something is not fishy if it is a kind of a meadowlark. sent4: the Ichyostega is crustaceous if the Viola is not fishy. sent5: that the Viola does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark is false if it is not a brooklet. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: if that the Viola does not admit crabbiness and it is not a kind of a meadowlark is incorrect then it is not fishy.; sent5 & sent1 -> int2: that the Viola does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Viola is not fishy.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the beading is a prescription but it is not diploid does not hold.

¬({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a})

sent1: that the beading is not nonprescription but it is not a diploid is not correct if that the Shakers is not diploid is right. sent2: the Shakers is not a diploid if the fact that it is a bohemia and it is a abecedarius is incorrect. sent3: there is nothing such that it is a bohemia and it is a abecedarius.

sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent2: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent3: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x)

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the beading is a prescription but it is not diploid does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the beading is not nonprescription but it is not a diploid is not correct if that the Shakers is not diploid is right. sent2: the Shakers is not a diploid if the fact that it is a bohemia and it is a abecedarius is incorrect. sent3: there is nothing such that it is a bohemia and it is a abecedarius. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: that the Shakers is a bohemia and it is a abecedarius is not right.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the Shakers is not a diploid.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there exists something such that if it is both not a griseofulvin and a Lenin then it does not equate physiologist is false.

¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)

sent1: the fact that there is something such that if it is both a doxycycline and aromatic it is not a kind of a Anarhichadidae is true. sent2: the fact that there exists something such that if it swabs highwater and equates fugu then it does not shrivel is not wrong. sent3: there is something such that if it does admit boiled and it is joyless then it is not a marsupial. sent4: there is something such that if it is both not diametric and a fractal then it is not a pettiness. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not a snuffer and it googles then it is an oxcart. sent6: if the conception does not admit Mansi and is a lightlessness then it is a kind of a Lenin. sent7: the conception does not admit Amman if it is not bibliographic and is noxious. sent8: if the conception admits adhocracy and is a kind of a knitter then it is not a kind of a Lenin. sent9: there is something such that if it is nonrepetitive thing that does swab artificiality then it is not a kind of a Pimlico. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not gyral and not non-parasitic it is a Lithodidae. sent11: there exists something such that if it is a kind of syntactic thing that does uproot then it is not a Wayland. sent12: there exists something such that if it is corrected a dimethylglyoxime it is not a kind of a dendrite. sent13: the conception does not simulate regular if it is anamorphic and equates physiologist. sent14: if the conception is not a kind of a griseofulvin but it is a Lenin that it does not equate physiologist is correct. sent15: there is something such that if it is not a tarragon and it is conscious then the fact that it is not unclean is true. sent16: if the conception is not epigastric but it googles it is syntactic. sent17: if the conception does not admit conception but it admits element then it is a Lenin. sent18: the fact that the element does not equate physiologist is not incorrect if it is Aberdonian and swabs highwater. sent19: there exists something such that if it does equate bonsai and it does equate Turner it does not admit boiled. sent20: there is something such that if it does not simulate laxative and equates synonym it is noxious. sent21: the conception does not equate bonsai if it is both Gothic and a Lenin.

sent1: (Ex): ({HL}x & {AN}x) -> ¬{EG}x sent2: (Ex): ({IR}x & {AH}x) -> ¬{EQ}x sent3: (Ex): ({DM}x & {BP}x) -> ¬{HS}x sent4: (Ex): (¬{JA}x & {J}x) -> ¬{CE}x sent5: (Ex): (¬{BA}x & {IL}x) -> {FK}x sent6: (¬{HJ}{aa} & {JC}{aa}) -> {AB}{aa} sent7: (¬{DU}{aa} & {IG}{aa}) -> ¬{EJ}{aa} sent8: ({AS}{aa} & {EL}{aa}) -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent9: (Ex): ({E}x & {JH}x) -> ¬{DE}x sent10: (Ex): (¬{HH}x & {CF}x) -> {GG}x sent11: (Ex): ({A}x & {BH}x) -> ¬{JD}x sent12: (Ex): ({BI}x & {AC}x) -> ¬{BE}x sent13: ({EK}{aa} & {B}{aa}) -> ¬{HU}{aa} sent14: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent15: (Ex): (¬{EA}x & {FD}x) -> ¬{GP}x sent16: (¬{ED}{aa} & {IL}{aa}) -> {A}{aa} sent17: (¬{FC}{aa} & {CG}{aa}) -> {AB}{aa} sent18: ({IH}{jb} & {IR}{jb}) -> ¬{B}{jb} sent19: (Ex): ({HA}x & {AO}x) -> ¬{DM}x sent20: (Ex): (¬{AR}x & {IM}x) -> {IG}x sent21: ({K}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{HA}{aa}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is both not a griseofulvin and a Lenin then it does not equate physiologist is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that there is something such that if it is both a doxycycline and aromatic it is not a kind of a Anarhichadidae is true. sent2: the fact that there exists something such that if it swabs highwater and equates fugu then it does not shrivel is not wrong. sent3: there is something such that if it does admit boiled and it is joyless then it is not a marsupial. sent4: there is something such that if it is both not diametric and a fractal then it is not a pettiness. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not a snuffer and it googles then it is an oxcart. sent6: if the conception does not admit Mansi and is a lightlessness then it is a kind of a Lenin. sent7: the conception does not admit Amman if it is not bibliographic and is noxious. sent8: if the conception admits adhocracy and is a kind of a knitter then it is not a kind of a Lenin. sent9: there is something such that if it is nonrepetitive thing that does swab artificiality then it is not a kind of a Pimlico. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not gyral and not non-parasitic it is a Lithodidae. sent11: there exists something such that if it is a kind of syntactic thing that does uproot then it is not a Wayland. sent12: there exists something such that if it is corrected a dimethylglyoxime it is not a kind of a dendrite. sent13: the conception does not simulate regular if it is anamorphic and equates physiologist. sent14: if the conception is not a kind of a griseofulvin but it is a Lenin that it does not equate physiologist is correct. sent15: there is something such that if it is not a tarragon and it is conscious then the fact that it is not unclean is true. sent16: if the conception is not epigastric but it googles it is syntactic. sent17: if the conception does not admit conception but it admits element then it is a Lenin. sent18: the fact that the element does not equate physiologist is not incorrect if it is Aberdonian and swabs highwater. sent19: there exists something such that if it does equate bonsai and it does equate Turner it does not admit boiled. sent20: there is something such that if it does not simulate laxative and equates synonym it is noxious. sent21: the conception does not equate bonsai if it is both Gothic and a Lenin. ; $proof$ =

sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if it is a kind of euphonic thing that is not a marginalization then it does admit congregation.

(Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x

sent1: if the sweatbox is a kind of a oxyphencyclimine but it is not a villager then it is a macaroon. sent2: if the sweatbox is a kind of euphonic thing that is not a marginalization then that it admits congregation is true. sent3: if something does admit congregation and is not a villager then it is an eleven. sent4: there is something such that if it is euphonic thing that is a kind of a marginalization then it does admit congregation. sent5: the sweatbox admits congregation if it is euphonic and is a marginalization. sent6: if the sweatbox does admit congregation and is nonsubmersible that it is a kind of a fencing is true. sent7: if the atorvastatin is a pound and does admit congregation then the fact that it is a kind of an inquisition is correct. sent8: there is something such that if it is a macaroon and equates supercargo it is undomestic. sent9: there exists something such that if it is cyclonic thing that is not provocative then it is astrocytic. sent10: there exists something such that if it is essential and is not a kind of a thermal then that it is nonsubmersible hold. sent11: something that is a splitworm and is not a neve is a limelight. sent12: the sweatbox is noncritical if it is a galax and a marginalization. sent13: the flight is a Swazi if it is a marginalization and it is not beakless.

sent1: ({HP}{aa} & ¬{AP}{aa}) -> {N}{aa} sent2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent3: (x): ({B}x & ¬{AP}x) -> {AT}x sent4: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent6: ({B}{aa} & {DQ}{aa}) -> {HC}{aa} sent7: ({BN}{da} & {B}{da}) -> {DO}{da} sent8: (Ex): ({N}x & {FI}x) -> {GD}x sent9: (Ex): ({M}x & ¬{JG}x) -> {Q}x sent10: (Ex): ({HS}x & ¬{BP}x) -> {DQ}x sent11: (x): ({E}x & ¬{IN}x) -> {AO}x sent12: ({CU}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {EI}{aa} sent13: ({AB}{je} & ¬{K}{je}) -> {DH}{je}

there exists something such that if it is a splitworm and not a neve then it is a limelight.

(Ex): ({E}x & ¬{IN}x) -> {AO}x

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is a kind of euphonic thing that is not a marginalization then it does admit congregation. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sweatbox is a kind of a oxyphencyclimine but it is not a villager then it is a macaroon. sent2: if the sweatbox is a kind of euphonic thing that is not a marginalization then that it admits congregation is true. sent3: if something does admit congregation and is not a villager then it is an eleven. sent4: there is something such that if it is euphonic thing that is a kind of a marginalization then it does admit congregation. sent5: the sweatbox admits congregation if it is euphonic and is a marginalization. sent6: if the sweatbox does admit congregation and is nonsubmersible that it is a kind of a fencing is true. sent7: if the atorvastatin is a pound and does admit congregation then the fact that it is a kind of an inquisition is correct. sent8: there is something such that if it is a macaroon and equates supercargo it is undomestic. sent9: there exists something such that if it is cyclonic thing that is not provocative then it is astrocytic. sent10: there exists something such that if it is essential and is not a kind of a thermal then that it is nonsubmersible hold. sent11: something that is a splitworm and is not a neve is a limelight. sent12: the sweatbox is noncritical if it is a galax and a marginalization. sent13: the flight is a Swazi if it is a marginalization and it is not beakless. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the literalness does not occur.

¬{E}

sent1: the equating prominence occurs and the polymericness happens. sent2: that the tolerantness happens is correct if the swabbing does not occur. sent3: the Atticness occurs and/or the swabbing does not occur. sent4: that the tolerantness and the polymericness occurs triggers the non-literalness.

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the literalness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the equating prominence occurs and the polymericness happens. sent2: that the tolerantness happens is correct if the swabbing does not occur. sent3: the Atticness occurs and/or the swabbing does not occur. sent4: that the tolerantness and the polymericness occurs triggers the non-literalness. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the polymericness occurs.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the pardoner is not a quiff but it is a tawse.

(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a})

sent1: the pardoner is not a rune. sent2: if the Guarnerius is not a rune then it is callithumpian and enjoys. sent3: the yanker is not a kind of a tawse if the fact that the lantana does heel but it is not palmar does not hold. sent4: the Guarnerius is not a kind of a tawse. sent5: that the Guarnerius is not a rune hold. sent6: the lantana swabs Guarnerius if it is not resistless. sent7: the pardoner is not part-time. sent8: the pardoner does not enjoy if it is both a rune and a tawse. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a tawse is not false then that the conservative does not swab spelter is not right. sent10: the pardoner is not a quiff. sent11: if a callithumpian thing does enjoy it is not a quiff. sent12: that something is not a quiff but a tawse is not true if it is a kind of a rune. sent13: that the antivenin is a tawse is not incorrect. sent14: the pardoner is palmar and it is a rune if the yanker is not a kind of a heel.

sent1: ¬{C}{a} sent2: ¬{C}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: ¬({E}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent4: ¬{A}{aa} sent5: ¬{C}{aa} sent6: ¬{H}{c} -> {G}{c} sent7: ¬{DK}{a} sent8: ({C}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{a} sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> {BC}{ds} sent10: ¬{B}{a} sent11: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent12: (x): {C}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & {A}x) sent13: {A}{il} sent14: ¬{E}{b} -> ({D}{a} & {C}{a})

that the pardoner is not a quiff but it is a tawse does not hold.

¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pardoner is not a quiff but it is a tawse. ; $context$ = sent1: the pardoner is not a rune. sent2: if the Guarnerius is not a rune then it is callithumpian and enjoys. sent3: the yanker is not a kind of a tawse if the fact that the lantana does heel but it is not palmar does not hold. sent4: the Guarnerius is not a kind of a tawse. sent5: that the Guarnerius is not a rune hold. sent6: the lantana swabs Guarnerius if it is not resistless. sent7: the pardoner is not part-time. sent8: the pardoner does not enjoy if it is both a rune and a tawse. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a tawse is not false then that the conservative does not swab spelter is not right. sent10: the pardoner is not a quiff. sent11: if a callithumpian thing does enjoy it is not a quiff. sent12: that something is not a quiff but a tawse is not true if it is a kind of a rune. sent13: that the antivenin is a tawse is not incorrect. sent14: the pardoner is palmar and it is a rune if the yanker is not a kind of a heel. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> int1: the Guarnerius is not a quiff if it is callithumpian and it does enjoy.; sent2 & sent5 -> int2: the Guarnerius is a kind of callithumpian thing that enjoys.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Guarnerius is not a kind of a quiff.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it does not admit Polystichum that it is a kind of a cruelty that is affixal is incorrect.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: there is something such that if it is not a guaiacum that it is a kind of augitic thing that equates county is not right. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of an emigration hold then that it is electoral and is mucopurulent is not true. sent3: the fact that something is lacustrine and it admits Polystichum is wrong if it is not a telegraphese. sent4: there exists something such that if it is frontal the fact that it is gallinaceous and it admits Antigone is incorrect. sent5: there exists something such that if it does not stride it does equate Verrazano and is resistive. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not augitic then that it is microeconomic thing that equates rote is not correct. sent7: the fact that the guest is a cruelty and is affixal is not right if it does not admit Polystichum.

sent1: (Ex): ¬{ES}x -> ¬({BM}x & {GP}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬{AN}x -> ¬({FK}x & {GT}x) sent3: (x): ¬{DQ}x -> ¬({IP}x & {A}x) sent4: (Ex): {CH}x -> ¬({FL}x & {HP}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬{EG}x -> ({GR}x & {AR}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬{BM}x -> ¬({FM}x & {M}x) sent7: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

that the fact that the guest is lacustrine and it does admit Polystichum is incorrect if the guest is not a telegraphese is not false.

¬{DQ}{aa} -> ¬({IP}{aa} & {A}{aa})

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it does not admit Polystichum that it is a kind of a cruelty that is affixal is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is not a guaiacum that it is a kind of augitic thing that equates county is not right. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of an emigration hold then that it is electoral and is mucopurulent is not true. sent3: the fact that something is lacustrine and it admits Polystichum is wrong if it is not a telegraphese. sent4: there exists something such that if it is frontal the fact that it is gallinaceous and it admits Antigone is incorrect. sent5: there exists something such that if it does not stride it does equate Verrazano and is resistive. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not augitic then that it is microeconomic thing that equates rote is not correct. sent7: the fact that the guest is a cruelty and is affixal is not right if it does not admit Polystichum. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the thermometer is octal.

{A}{a}

sent1: if something that transfers twinberry is not vulvar it is octal. sent2: the thermometer is octal if it does transfer twinberry and is not vulvar. sent3: the thermometer does not transfer twinberry. sent4: everything is not nonextant. sent5: the circumference is not vulvar. sent6: something is octal if it does not transfer twinberry and is not vulvar. sent7: if the thermometer does transfer twinberry then the boiling is nonextant. sent8: something is not octal and not nonextant if it is a coquille. sent9: the fact that the thermometer transfers twinberry but it is not vulvar does not hold. sent10: the boiling is not vulvar.

sent1: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}x sent2: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {A}{a} sent3: ¬{AA}{a} sent4: (x): ¬{B}x sent5: ¬{AB}{jg} sent6: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}x sent7: {AA}{a} -> {B}{b} sent8: (x): {C}x -> (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent9: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent10: ¬{AB}{b}

the thermometer is not octal.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the thermometer is octal. ; $context$ = sent1: if something that transfers twinberry is not vulvar it is octal. sent2: the thermometer is octal if it does transfer twinberry and is not vulvar. sent3: the thermometer does not transfer twinberry. sent4: everything is not nonextant. sent5: the circumference is not vulvar. sent6: something is octal if it does not transfer twinberry and is not vulvar. sent7: if the thermometer does transfer twinberry then the boiling is nonextant. sent8: something is not octal and not nonextant if it is a coquille. sent9: the fact that the thermometer transfers twinberry but it is not vulvar does not hold. sent10: the boiling is not vulvar. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the thermometer does not transfer twinberry and it is not vulvar does not hold.; sent4 -> int1: the boiling is not nonextant.; sent6 -> int2: that the thermometer is octal is right if it does not transfer twinberry and it is not vulvar.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the objectification does not occur and the beautification does not occur is false.

¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB})

sent1: the monte does not occur and the fruit does not occur. sent2: the non-gnosticness and the non-mesicness occurs. sent3: the branchiness does not occur and the exculpation does not occur. sent4: the violentness does not occur and the cephalometry does not occur. sent5: the nonvolatileness does not occur. sent6: the apetalousness does not occur and the transferring Bahrain does not occur. sent7: the rounded does not occur. sent8: the transferring percept does not occur. sent9: the objectification does not occur and the beautification does not occur. sent10: both the non-apetalousness and the indehiscentness occurs. sent11: the untraceableness does not occur and the progress does not occur. sent12: the biotiticness does not occur and the refunding does not occur. sent13: the instrumentation does not occur and the devoting surffish does not occur. sent14: that the asceticness occurs and the testamentariness happens is brought about by the non-disjunctiveness. sent15: that the immunotherapy does not occur and the cavilling does not occur is triggered by the asceticness. sent16: the higherness does not occur and the grudging arginine does not occur. sent17: the fact that the objectification does not occur and the beautification does not occur is false if the asceticness does not occur. sent18: the camping does not occur and the Gauguinesqueness does not occur. sent19: the culling knife-edge does not occur and the untraceableness does not occur.

sent1: (¬{CH} & ¬{AF}) sent2: (¬{FL} & ¬{N}) sent3: (¬{ET} & ¬{HL}) sent4: (¬{FO} & ¬{L}) sent5: ¬{EO} sent6: (¬{BE} & ¬{JD}) sent7: ¬{AO} sent8: ¬{BH} sent9: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent10: (¬{BE} & ¬{DG}) sent11: (¬{CF} & ¬{HH}) sent12: (¬{FF} & ¬{H}) sent13: (¬{JH} & ¬{DC}) sent14: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent15: {A} -> (¬{K} & ¬{FC}) sent16: (¬{JF} & ¬{DS}) sent17: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent18: (¬{GE} & ¬{GG}) sent19: (¬{GF} & ¬{CF})

the immunotherapy does not occur and the cavilling does not occur.

(¬{K} & ¬{FC})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the objectification does not occur and the beautification does not occur is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the monte does not occur and the fruit does not occur. sent2: the non-gnosticness and the non-mesicness occurs. sent3: the branchiness does not occur and the exculpation does not occur. sent4: the violentness does not occur and the cephalometry does not occur. sent5: the nonvolatileness does not occur. sent6: the apetalousness does not occur and the transferring Bahrain does not occur. sent7: the rounded does not occur. sent8: the transferring percept does not occur. sent9: the objectification does not occur and the beautification does not occur. sent10: both the non-apetalousness and the indehiscentness occurs. sent11: the untraceableness does not occur and the progress does not occur. sent12: the biotiticness does not occur and the refunding does not occur. sent13: the instrumentation does not occur and the devoting surffish does not occur. sent14: that the asceticness occurs and the testamentariness happens is brought about by the non-disjunctiveness. sent15: that the immunotherapy does not occur and the cavilling does not occur is triggered by the asceticness. sent16: the higherness does not occur and the grudging arginine does not occur. sent17: the fact that the objectification does not occur and the beautification does not occur is false if the asceticness does not occur. sent18: the camping does not occur and the Gauguinesqueness does not occur. sent19: the culling knife-edge does not occur and the untraceableness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the ignition is not a kind of a electroencephalograph.

¬{A}{aa}

sent1: if there exists something such that it does transfer terebinth then the fact that the terebinth is not ecclesiastical is not false. sent2: everything is a electroencephalograph. sent3: if something is not ecclesiastical it is frail and a sailing. sent4: that the cankerworm does transfer histone but it is not a kind of a electroencephalograph is false if the terebinth is a milldam. sent5: something that is frail is a milldam. sent6: the histone does transfer terebinth.

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

the Jenny is a electroencephalograph.

{A}{ee}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the ignition is not a kind of a electroencephalograph. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it does transfer terebinth then the fact that the terebinth is not ecclesiastical is not false. sent2: everything is a electroencephalograph. sent3: if something is not ecclesiastical it is frail and a sailing. sent4: that the cankerworm does transfer histone but it is not a kind of a electroencephalograph is false if the terebinth is a milldam. sent5: something that is frail is a milldam. sent6: the histone does transfer terebinth. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Victorian occurs.

{C}

sent1: the grudging meed occurs if the transferring interposition but not the whist happens. sent2: the diametricness or the traditionalism or both occurs. sent3: if either the transferring interposition or the whist or both happens the Victorianness does not occur. sent4: the whist happens. sent5: the affliction and/or the bonanza occurs. sent6: the spruce does not occur. sent7: that the retrieval and the Victorian occurs is caused by that the tabulation does not occur. sent8: either the illiterateness happens or the oppression occurs or both. sent9: the Victorian does not occur if the transferring interposition happens.

sent1: ({A} & ¬{B}) -> {ER} sent2: ({DO} v {AA}) sent3: ({A} v {B}) -> ¬{C} sent4: {B} sent5: ({CE} v {DT}) sent6: ¬{JC} sent7: ¬{E} -> ({D} & {C}) sent8: ({GS} v {IF}) sent9: {A} -> ¬{C}

the grudging meed occurs.

{ER}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Victorian occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the grudging meed occurs if the transferring interposition but not the whist happens. sent2: the diametricness or the traditionalism or both occurs. sent3: if either the transferring interposition or the whist or both happens the Victorianness does not occur. sent4: the whist happens. sent5: the affliction and/or the bonanza occurs. sent6: the spruce does not occur. sent7: that the retrieval and the Victorian occurs is caused by that the tabulation does not occur. sent8: either the illiterateness happens or the oppression occurs or both. sent9: the Victorian does not occur if the transferring interposition happens. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: the transferring interposition and/or the whist happens.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if it does not cull tenoroon and is a kind of a Mastigophora it does not restore.

(Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: if the archerfish is not a kind of a thysanuron but it is a plastered it is not a Mastigophora. sent2: there exists something such that if it is non-urethral thing that is antiadrenergic then the fact that it is not a praetorium is not incorrect. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not improbable and it is a gastroscope then it is not a partial. sent4: the fact that if something does not cull tenoroon and is a Mastigophora then it does restore is right. sent5: if something does cull tenoroon and it is a kind of a Mastigophora it does not restore. sent6: there exists something such that if it does cull tenoroon and it is a Mastigophora then it does not restore. sent7: there exists something such that if it is not a splinter and it is a Plavix then that it is not a kind of a Boyne is not incorrect. sent8: the brocade does not transfer orology if it is not a Adiantum and it restores. sent9: the LAN does not restore if it is not antiadrenergic and is a humanness. sent10: there exists something such that if it does not cull brocade and it is existent then it is not a kind of a mobile. sent11: there exists something such that if it is both not a fiance and eusporangiate it does not cull ecclesiology. sent12: if the LAN is not a Toulon but it does cull tenoroon it is not malignant. sent13: the fact that the pachycephalosaur is not exoergic is right if it does not transfer LAN and is a Mastigophora. sent14: if the LAN does not cull tenoroon but it is a Mastigophora it does restore. sent15: if the LAN culls tenoroon and it is a kind of a Mastigophora it does not restore. sent16: that there is something such that if that it does not grudge silicate and it is not non-alternating hold then it does not hunger is correct. sent17: there is something such that if it does not cull tenoroon and it is a Mastigophora it restores.

sent1: (¬{JK}{ar} & {EI}{ar}) -> ¬{AB}{ar} sent2: (Ex): (¬{HR}x & {FD}x) -> ¬{ES}x sent3: (Ex): (¬{F}x & {IH}x) -> ¬{FC}x sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent6: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: (Ex): (¬{CN}x & {CK}x) -> ¬{GO}x sent8: (¬{GL}{am} & {B}{am}) -> ¬{IF}{am} sent9: (¬{FD}{aa} & {JE}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent10: (Ex): (¬{FG}x & {BU}x) -> ¬{CC}x sent11: (Ex): (¬{EP}x & {AM}x) -> ¬{HM}x sent12: (¬{EE}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) -> ¬{GF}{aa} sent13: (¬{EO}{gm} & {AB}{gm}) -> ¬{DM}{gm} sent14: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent15: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent16: (Ex): (¬{DG}x & {CS}x) -> ¬{AL}x sent17: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not cull tenoroon and is a kind of a Mastigophora it does not restore. ; $context$ = sent1: if the archerfish is not a kind of a thysanuron but it is a plastered it is not a Mastigophora. sent2: there exists something such that if it is non-urethral thing that is antiadrenergic then the fact that it is not a praetorium is not incorrect. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not improbable and it is a gastroscope then it is not a partial. sent4: the fact that if something does not cull tenoroon and is a Mastigophora then it does restore is right. sent5: if something does cull tenoroon and it is a kind of a Mastigophora it does not restore. sent6: there exists something such that if it does cull tenoroon and it is a Mastigophora then it does not restore. sent7: there exists something such that if it is not a splinter and it is a Plavix then that it is not a kind of a Boyne is not incorrect. sent8: the brocade does not transfer orology if it is not a Adiantum and it restores. sent9: the LAN does not restore if it is not antiadrenergic and is a humanness. sent10: there exists something such that if it does not cull brocade and it is existent then it is not a kind of a mobile. sent11: there exists something such that if it is both not a fiance and eusporangiate it does not cull ecclesiology. sent12: if the LAN is not a Toulon but it does cull tenoroon it is not malignant. sent13: the fact that the pachycephalosaur is not exoergic is right if it does not transfer LAN and is a Mastigophora. sent14: if the LAN does not cull tenoroon but it is a Mastigophora it does restore. sent15: if the LAN culls tenoroon and it is a kind of a Mastigophora it does not restore. sent16: that there is something such that if that it does not grudge silicate and it is not non-alternating hold then it does not hunger is correct. sent17: there is something such that if it does not cull tenoroon and it is a Mastigophora it restores. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if that it grudges depolarization and it is a OMB is not true the fact that it is not cathectic is true.

(Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: that the depolarization is cathectic hold if the fact that it grudges depolarization and is a OMB is incorrect. sent2: if that the depolarization does grudge depolarization and it is a kind of a OMB is not correct it is not cathectic. sent3: if the depolarization is not a OMB it is not cathectic. sent4: the depolarization is not cathectic if it does grudge depolarization and is a kind of a OMB.

sent1: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent2: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent3: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent4: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if that it grudges depolarization and it is a OMB is not true the fact that it is not cathectic is true. ; $context$ = sent1: that the depolarization is cathectic hold if the fact that it grudges depolarization and is a OMB is incorrect. sent2: if that the depolarization does grudge depolarization and it is a kind of a OMB is not correct it is not cathectic. sent3: if the depolarization is not a OMB it is not cathectic. sent4: the depolarization is not cathectic if it does grudge depolarization and is a kind of a OMB. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the luge is a tattler.

{E}{b}

sent1: if the ramp does cull Papio then the coiner does transfer roughleg. sent2: if something is not nonphotosynthetic the knee is not a decile. sent3: if the fact that the knee is a kind of a Austronesian and/or it is a oilskin does not hold the luge is not a kind of a tattler. sent4: if something is not nonphotosynthetic then that it does cull coiner and/or it is a oilskin is incorrect. sent5: if the abattoir does not transfer lateen-rig then that the tuck is not a tattler and is a confusion is not right. sent6: if something does transfer roughleg it does not transfer lateen-rig. sent7: if the coiner does not transfer lateen-rig the abattoir does not transfer lateen-rig. sent8: there is something such that it is not nonphotosynthetic. sent9: that the knee is a decile but it is not nonphotosynthetic is not right if the luge is not a Austronesian. sent10: if the knee is not a decile then the fact that it is Austronesian and/or it is a oilskin is not right.

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

the fact that the mastocyte does cull coiner or it is a oilskin or both does not hold.

¬({HU}{bi} v {C}{bi})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the luge is a tattler. ; $context$ = sent1: if the ramp does cull Papio then the coiner does transfer roughleg. sent2: if something is not nonphotosynthetic the knee is not a decile. sent3: if the fact that the knee is a kind of a Austronesian and/or it is a oilskin does not hold the luge is not a kind of a tattler. sent4: if something is not nonphotosynthetic then that it does cull coiner and/or it is a oilskin is incorrect. sent5: if the abattoir does not transfer lateen-rig then that the tuck is not a tattler and is a confusion is not right. sent6: if something does transfer roughleg it does not transfer lateen-rig. sent7: if the coiner does not transfer lateen-rig the abattoir does not transfer lateen-rig. sent8: there is something such that it is not nonphotosynthetic. sent9: that the knee is a decile but it is not nonphotosynthetic is not right if the luge is not a Austronesian. sent10: if the knee is not a decile then the fact that it is Austronesian and/or it is a oilskin is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent2 -> int1: the knee is not a decile.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: that the knee is a Austronesian or it is a oilskin or both does not hold.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the path pelts hold.

{B}{b}

sent1: something is not a Iroquoian and it is not a beep if it does not recriminate. sent2: the predator culls Boehmenism and is not a dustcloth. sent3: that the path does not pelt and it is not smaller is false if it is not a kind of a water. sent4: that the path is a kind of non-smaller thing that does not pelt is not right. sent5: the fact that the path does not recriminate and does not pelt is wrong. sent6: something transfers histone and is not a kind of a particularism if it is not a beep. sent7: the path does pelt if that the tulip is not a Tanzanian and it is not a water is not right. sent8: the fact that the titterer is a crag that does not cull Boehmenism is incorrect if there exists something such that the fact that it cull Boehmenism is not incorrect. sent9: if the jilt is not cathectic then the palette is not cathectic. sent10: if something does not grudge do-si-do and transfers verbolatry the Chardonnay does not recriminate. sent11: if the Chardonnay is not a Iroquoian and not a beep then the jilt does not beep. sent12: that the tulip does not water and does not pelt is not correct. sent13: if the histone is a kind of a crag then the priestess does not grudge do-si-do but it does transfer verbolatry. sent14: if that the tulip does not pelt and is not anal is false then the path does not pelt. sent15: if something does transfer histone and is not a particularism then it is not cathectic. sent16: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a stonecrop then the hub is anal and smaller. sent17: the tulip pelts if the path is Tanzanian. sent18: the path waters. sent19: the histone is a crag if the fact that the titterer is a crag but it does not cull Boehmenism is incorrect. sent20: if that the palette is cathectic is not wrong that it is a kind of a stonecrop is correct. sent21: the tulip is not smaller.

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

that the path does not pelt is true.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the path pelts hold. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a Iroquoian and it is not a beep if it does not recriminate. sent2: the predator culls Boehmenism and is not a dustcloth. sent3: that the path does not pelt and it is not smaller is false if it is not a kind of a water. sent4: that the path is a kind of non-smaller thing that does not pelt is not right. sent5: the fact that the path does not recriminate and does not pelt is wrong. sent6: something transfers histone and is not a kind of a particularism if it is not a beep. sent7: the path does pelt if that the tulip is not a Tanzanian and it is not a water is not right. sent8: the fact that the titterer is a crag that does not cull Boehmenism is incorrect if there exists something such that the fact that it cull Boehmenism is not incorrect. sent9: if the jilt is not cathectic then the palette is not cathectic. sent10: if something does not grudge do-si-do and transfers verbolatry the Chardonnay does not recriminate. sent11: if the Chardonnay is not a Iroquoian and not a beep then the jilt does not beep. sent12: that the tulip does not water and does not pelt is not correct. sent13: if the histone is a kind of a crag then the priestess does not grudge do-si-do but it does transfer verbolatry. sent14: if that the tulip does not pelt and is not anal is false then the path does not pelt. sent15: if something does transfer histone and is not a particularism then it is not cathectic. sent16: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a stonecrop then the hub is anal and smaller. sent17: the tulip pelts if the path is Tanzanian. sent18: the path waters. sent19: the histone is a crag if the fact that the titterer is a crag but it does not cull Boehmenism is incorrect. sent20: if that the palette is cathectic is not wrong that it is a kind of a stonecrop is correct. sent21: the tulip is not smaller. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it is a kind of an impressionist then the fact that it does not transfer impression and it is strange is wrong.

(Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: that the gangrene is not a kind of a carnosaur but it is a Nubian is false if it culls fleshiness. sent2: there is something such that if it is impressionist then that it does transfer impression and is strange is not true. sent3: the fact that if the gangrene is the impressionist then that the gangrene does not transfer impression and is strange is incorrect is true. sent4: the gangrene does not transfer impression but it is strange if it is an impressionist. sent5: there is something such that if it does devote charlotte the fact that it is not a kind of an abrasive and it is casuistic is not true. sent6: there exists something such that if it is a verification that it is a kind of non-messianic thing that is a kind of a hyrax does not hold. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a black the fact that it is not a Polyangium but a Lorre is not true. sent8: the fact that the fact that the gangrene does transfer impression and it is strange is not wrong does not hold if it is an impressionist. sent9: the fact that the gangrene is not strange and does cull teaspoon does not hold if it is an altarpiece. sent10: that something is not an autoclave but it is a kind of a immunohistochemistry is not correct if that it is a grit is right. sent11: there exists something such that if it is a Anadenanthera that it is not a Service and it is phrenological is wrong. sent12: there is something such that if it is not non-impressionist then it does not transfer impression and it is strange. sent13: there exists something such that if it is useful then the fact that it is not a confabulation and does transfer potato is false. sent14: the fact that the gangrene is both not a speechwriter and a Isere is not correct if it is strange.

sent1: {HJ}{aa} -> ¬(¬{JC}{aa} & {AN}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent5: (Ex): {CO}x -> ¬(¬{EG}x & {EJ}x) sent6: (Ex): {IP}x -> ¬(¬{CL}x & {D}x) sent7: (Ex): {BJ}x -> ¬(¬{R}x & {GH}x) sent8: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: {O}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AB}{aa} & {FN}{aa}) sent10: (x): {Q}x -> ¬(¬{DT}x & {HB}x) sent11: (Ex): {BI}x -> ¬(¬{BN}x & {AF}x) sent12: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent13: (Ex): {HO}x -> ¬(¬{BA}x & {DU}x) sent14: {AB}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AH}{aa} & {FQ}{aa})

there is something such that if it is a grit then the fact that it is not an autoclave but a immunohistochemistry is incorrect.

(Ex): {Q}x -> ¬(¬{DT}x & {HB}x)

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is a kind of an impressionist then the fact that it does not transfer impression and it is strange is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: that the gangrene is not a kind of a carnosaur but it is a Nubian is false if it culls fleshiness. sent2: there is something such that if it is impressionist then that it does transfer impression and is strange is not true. sent3: the fact that if the gangrene is the impressionist then that the gangrene does not transfer impression and is strange is incorrect is true. sent4: the gangrene does not transfer impression but it is strange if it is an impressionist. sent5: there is something such that if it does devote charlotte the fact that it is not a kind of an abrasive and it is casuistic is not true. sent6: there exists something such that if it is a verification that it is a kind of non-messianic thing that is a kind of a hyrax does not hold. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a black the fact that it is not a Polyangium but a Lorre is not true. sent8: the fact that the fact that the gangrene does transfer impression and it is strange is not wrong does not hold if it is an impressionist. sent9: the fact that the gangrene is not strange and does cull teaspoon does not hold if it is an altarpiece. sent10: that something is not an autoclave but it is a kind of a immunohistochemistry is not correct if that it is a grit is right. sent11: there exists something such that if it is a Anadenanthera that it is not a Service and it is phrenological is wrong. sent12: there is something such that if it is not non-impressionist then it does not transfer impression and it is strange. sent13: there exists something such that if it is useful then the fact that it is not a confabulation and does transfer potato is false. sent14: the fact that the gangrene is both not a speechwriter and a Isere is not correct if it is strange. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the grudging cocker does not occur.

¬{B}

sent1: that the outreach does not occur or the mastoidectomy occurs or both does not hold. sent2: the grudging cocker occurs if that either the outreach does not occur or the mastoidectomy occurs or both is not true. sent3: that the slurping does not occur but the transferring carcinoid occurs is caused by the academicianship. sent4: the fact that that the transferring carcinoid happens leads to that the grudging Bosporus or the non-losslessness or both happens hold. sent5: the thrombectomy and the suctorialness occurs if the bellylessness does not occur. sent6: if the suctorialness does not occur then that the grudging cocker does not occur and/or the thrombectomy happens is incorrect. sent7: that the bellylessness occurs is prevented by that the grudging Bosporus happens and/or that the losslessness does not occur. sent8: the odyssey does not occur. sent9: that the iconolatry does not occur or the transferring penalty occurs or both does not hold if the odyssey happens. sent10: the grudging cocker is prevented by that not the odyssey but the thrombectomy occurs.

sent1: ¬(¬{AA} v {AB}) sent2: ¬(¬{AA} v {AB}) -> {B} sent3: {J} -> (¬{I} & {H}) sent4: {H} -> ({F} v ¬{G}) sent5: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {D}) sent6: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{B} v {C}) sent7: ({F} v ¬{G}) -> ¬{E} sent8: ¬{A} sent9: {A} -> ¬(¬{AR} v {CB}) sent10: (¬{A} & {C}) -> ¬{B}

that either the iconolatry does not occur or the transferring penalty happens or both is not correct.

¬(¬{AR} v {CB})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the grudging cocker does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the outreach does not occur or the mastoidectomy occurs or both does not hold. sent2: the grudging cocker occurs if that either the outreach does not occur or the mastoidectomy occurs or both is not true. sent3: that the slurping does not occur but the transferring carcinoid occurs is caused by the academicianship. sent4: the fact that that the transferring carcinoid happens leads to that the grudging Bosporus or the non-losslessness or both happens hold. sent5: the thrombectomy and the suctorialness occurs if the bellylessness does not occur. sent6: if the suctorialness does not occur then that the grudging cocker does not occur and/or the thrombectomy happens is incorrect. sent7: that the bellylessness occurs is prevented by that the grudging Bosporus happens and/or that the losslessness does not occur. sent8: the odyssey does not occur. sent9: that the iconolatry does not occur or the transferring penalty occurs or both does not hold if the odyssey happens. sent10: the grudging cocker is prevented by that not the odyssey but the thrombectomy occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the breechcloth is a tichodrome and is a kind of a collagenase.

({A}{c} & {C}{c})

sent1: the regent scrapes and it is a mange. sent2: if that the regent is a collagenase and noncritical is incorrect then the rush is not a kind of a tichodrome. sent3: if something is not noncritical then the fact that the breechcloth is a kind of a tichodrome and it is a collagenase is not correct. sent4: the testudo is not noncritical if the fact that the regent scrapes and is a mange is true. sent5: if the testudo is not a dustcloth that the regent is a collagenase and it is noncritical is wrong. sent6: if that that something is not a tichodrome and is a dustcloth is right is not correct it is a tichodrome.

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

the breechcloth is both a tichodrome and a collagenase.

({A}{c} & {C}{c})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the breechcloth is a tichodrome and is a kind of a collagenase. ; $context$ = sent1: the regent scrapes and it is a mange. sent2: if that the regent is a collagenase and noncritical is incorrect then the rush is not a kind of a tichodrome. sent3: if something is not noncritical then the fact that the breechcloth is a kind of a tichodrome and it is a collagenase is not correct. sent4: the testudo is not noncritical if the fact that the regent scrapes and is a mange is true. sent5: if the testudo is not a dustcloth that the regent is a collagenase and it is noncritical is wrong. sent6: if that that something is not a tichodrome and is a dustcloth is right is not correct it is a tichodrome. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent1 -> int1: the testudo is not noncritical.; int1 -> int2: there are critical things.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a kind of a still that is cubital.

(Ex): ({B}x & {C}x)

sent1: there is something such that that it culls fugacity is right. sent2: if the megestrol is not a quoin and it is not cubital the dhak does transfer Gesner. sent3: the dhak is a argil if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a argil and it does not transfer caffeinism is wrong. sent4: there exists something such that that it does not transfer awfulness and it does cull ecclesiology does not hold. sent5: there is something such that that it is not cubital and it is not a kind of a saguaro is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the dhak is not a fortune and is not a kind of a still is false if there is something such that the fact that it is not a Vidua is right. sent7: if the T-network is a saguaro then the megestrol is not a kind of a quoin and it is not cubital. sent8: if that the delft is a kleptomaniac and it is a Vidua is incorrect the cavalryman is not a Vidua. sent9: if there is something such that it does not grudge bookmark then the delft is a tang and/or not a ancestress. sent10: the dhak is a kind of a quoin if there is something such that it is an embrace. sent11: if something is a tang or it is not a ancestress or both it is not a ancestress. sent12: something is a kind of a fortune if that it is not a fortune and not a still is incorrect. sent13: if something is not a ancestress then that it is both a kleptomaniac and a Vidua is false. sent14: there is something such that that it is not vascular and it does embrace is incorrect. sent15: something is a kind of non-vascular thing that is not a kind of an embrace. sent16: if there is something such that the fact that it is not cubital and it is not a saguaro is false then the dhak is cubital. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it is not subsonic and does grudge wolffish is not right. sent18: that something that is a quoin is a kind of a still is correct. sent19: the gamma-interferon does cull cavalryman. sent20: there exists something such that it does not grudge bookmark. sent21: there exists something such that that it is not vascular and it does not embrace is not true.

sent1: (Ex): {BJ}x sent2: (¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> {DL}{a} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{FS}x & ¬{IM}x) -> {FS}{a} sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{HO}x & {IL}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{E}x) sent6: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{HK}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent7: {E}{d} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent8: ¬({G}{e} & {D}{e}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent9: (x): ¬{J}x -> ({I}{e} v ¬{F}{e}) sent10: (x): {AB}x -> {A}{a} sent11: (x): ({I}x v ¬{F}x) -> ¬{F}x sent12: (x): ¬(¬{HK}x & ¬{B}x) -> {HK}x sent13: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({G}x & {D}x) sent14: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent15: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent16: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{E}x) -> {C}{a} sent17: (Ex): ¬(¬{CK}x & {BB}x) sent18: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent19: {FQ}{bd} sent20: (Ex): ¬{J}x sent21: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

the dhak is a fortune and it transfers Gesner.

({HK}{a} & {DL}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is a kind of a still that is cubital. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that that it culls fugacity is right. sent2: if the megestrol is not a quoin and it is not cubital the dhak does transfer Gesner. sent3: the dhak is a argil if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a argil and it does not transfer caffeinism is wrong. sent4: there exists something such that that it does not transfer awfulness and it does cull ecclesiology does not hold. sent5: there is something such that that it is not cubital and it is not a kind of a saguaro is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the dhak is not a fortune and is not a kind of a still is false if there is something such that the fact that it is not a Vidua is right. sent7: if the T-network is a saguaro then the megestrol is not a kind of a quoin and it is not cubital. sent8: if that the delft is a kleptomaniac and it is a Vidua is incorrect the cavalryman is not a Vidua. sent9: if there is something such that it does not grudge bookmark then the delft is a tang and/or not a ancestress. sent10: the dhak is a kind of a quoin if there is something such that it is an embrace. sent11: if something is a tang or it is not a ancestress or both it is not a ancestress. sent12: something is a kind of a fortune if that it is not a fortune and not a still is incorrect. sent13: if something is not a ancestress then that it is both a kleptomaniac and a Vidua is false. sent14: there is something such that that it is not vascular and it does embrace is incorrect. sent15: something is a kind of non-vascular thing that is not a kind of an embrace. sent16: if there is something such that the fact that it is not cubital and it is not a saguaro is false then the dhak is cubital. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it is not subsonic and does grudge wolffish is not right. sent18: that something that is a quoin is a kind of a still is correct. sent19: the gamma-interferon does cull cavalryman. sent20: there exists something such that it does not grudge bookmark. sent21: there exists something such that that it is not vascular and it does not embrace is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent18 -> int1: the dhak stills if it is a quoin.; sent5 & sent16 -> int2: the dhak is cubital.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the graverobber is not a whydah but it grudges caparisoned is wrong if it is not a torchlight.

¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

sent1: if the graverobber is not a remit that it is not a unpalatability and it is a torchlight is correct. sent2: if something is not umbellate the fact that it is not a sophisticate and it is pelvic is incorrect. sent3: the fact that the graverobber does not grudge caparisoned but it is a sidesplitter is not correct if it is not arthrosporic. sent4: if something is not a kind of a torchlight that it is not a kind of a whydah and it does grudge caparisoned is false.

sent1: ¬{HC}{aa} -> (¬{EU}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent2: (x): ¬{GJ}x -> ¬(¬{DN}x & {HP}x) sent3: ¬{IN}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AB}{aa} & {DK}{aa}) sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the graverobber is not a whydah but it grudges caparisoned is wrong if it is not a torchlight. ; $context$ = sent1: if the graverobber is not a remit that it is not a unpalatability and it is a torchlight is correct. sent2: if something is not umbellate the fact that it is not a sophisticate and it is pelvic is incorrect. sent3: the fact that the graverobber does not grudge caparisoned but it is a sidesplitter is not correct if it is not arthrosporic. sent4: if something is not a kind of a torchlight that it is not a kind of a whydah and it does grudge caparisoned is false. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the hewer is a brassiere that is a Ruptiliocarpon.

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

sent1: everything does not cull nasion. sent2: the fact that the nasion grudges Galician is not incorrect. sent3: the hewer is a kind of a brassiere if the nasion grudges Galician. sent4: that something does not grudge Galician and transfers wolffish is not right if it does not transfer barnburner. sent5: if the fact that the nasion does not grudge Galician but it transfers wolffish does not hold the hewer does not grudge Galician. sent6: if the fact that there is something such that that it does correlate and it does transfer gorge is wrong is right the frump is not a myringotomy. sent7: if something does not cull nasion the fact that it is a correlate and transfers gorge does not hold. sent8: The fact that the Galician grudges nasion is not incorrect. sent9: the hewer does transfer barnburner and is a Ruptiliocarpon. sent10: the nasion does not transfer barnburner if there is something such that it is not a myringotomy.

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

that the hewer is a brassiere and is a Ruptiliocarpon is incorrect.

¬({B}{b} & {C}{b})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hewer is a brassiere that is a Ruptiliocarpon. ; $context$ = sent1: everything does not cull nasion. sent2: the fact that the nasion grudges Galician is not incorrect. sent3: the hewer is a kind of a brassiere if the nasion grudges Galician. sent4: that something does not grudge Galician and transfers wolffish is not right if it does not transfer barnburner. sent5: if the fact that the nasion does not grudge Galician but it transfers wolffish does not hold the hewer does not grudge Galician. sent6: if the fact that there is something such that that it does correlate and it does transfer gorge is wrong is right the frump is not a myringotomy. sent7: if something does not cull nasion the fact that it is a correlate and transfers gorge does not hold. sent8: The fact that the Galician grudges nasion is not incorrect. sent9: the hewer does transfer barnburner and is a Ruptiliocarpon. sent10: the nasion does not transfer barnburner if there is something such that it is not a myringotomy. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent2 -> int1: the hewer is a brassiere.; sent9 -> int2: the hewer is a Ruptiliocarpon.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the riddle is not acetylenic but it is suborbital.

(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b})

sent1: something is an inflow. sent2: if the Philippians is not anticlimactic the fact that the riddle is acetylenic thing that is suborbital does not hold. sent3: the Philippians transfers lodgment if there exists something such that it is an inflow. sent4: if the photograph is prognathous that it is a lockup is correct. sent5: if the warhorse is not an inflow then the fact that the Philippians is not an inflow is not false. sent6: the riddle is not acetylenic and is suborbital if the Philippians is not an inflow. sent7: the Philippians does transfer lodgment. sent8: that the riddle is acetylenic thing that is suborbital is not right. sent9: if there exists something such that it is an inflow the Philippians transfers lodgment and is not anticlimactic. sent10: if the Philippians is not anticlimactic that the riddle is both not acetylenic and suborbital is not right. sent11: if that something is acetylenic but it is not a lockup is wrong it is not non-anticlimactic.

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

the Philippians is not suborbital.

¬{D}{a}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the riddle is not acetylenic but it is suborbital. ; $context$ = sent1: something is an inflow. sent2: if the Philippians is not anticlimactic the fact that the riddle is acetylenic thing that is suborbital does not hold. sent3: the Philippians transfers lodgment if there exists something such that it is an inflow. sent4: if the photograph is prognathous that it is a lockup is correct. sent5: if the warhorse is not an inflow then the fact that the Philippians is not an inflow is not false. sent6: the riddle is not acetylenic and is suborbital if the Philippians is not an inflow. sent7: the Philippians does transfer lodgment. sent8: that the riddle is acetylenic thing that is suborbital is not right. sent9: if there exists something such that it is an inflow the Philippians transfers lodgment and is not anticlimactic. sent10: if the Philippians is not anticlimactic that the riddle is both not acetylenic and suborbital is not right. sent11: if that something is acetylenic but it is not a lockup is wrong it is not non-anticlimactic. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent9 -> int1: the Philippians transfers lodgment but it is not anticlimactic.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the Philippians is non-anticlimactic is not wrong.; sent10 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there exists something such that if it does stroll and it is not azido then the fact that it is not a paraphysis is not wrong is not correct.

¬((Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)

sent1: if the Freudian does stroll and it is azido it is not a paraphysis. sent2: the Freudian is not a propylene if it is tabular and it is not azido. sent3: there is something such that if it fosters and is not a duality it is not tabular. sent4: if the absolver is weak but it does not stroll it does not widow. sent5: there is something such that if it is a Malaysian and it is not Kafkaesque then it is not a recklessness. sent6: there exists something such that if it is a milliwatt but not a capitulum it is not a recklessness. sent7: the canal is not a kind of a dimple if it does cull Chianti and it does not stroll. sent8: there exists something such that if it is electromagnetic and it is not a horizon then it is non-heterozygous. sent9: there is something such that if it is carbocyclic and it does not breeze it is not an usher. sent10: the Freudian is not a paraphysis if it strolls and is not azido. sent11: there is something such that if it strolls and is not azido then that it is a paraphysis is not false. sent12: if something is a gravy but it is not a variability then it is not returnable. sent13: the fact that the Kleenex does not traffic is not false if it strolls and is not a expectoration. sent14: there exists something such that if it strolls and it is azido then it is not a paraphysis. sent15: there exists something such that if it is a snow and it is not a propylene it does not devote baritone. sent16: there is something such that if it is a kind of a canister and it is not a expectoration then the fact that it is not meningeal is correct. sent17: if the Freudian strolls and is not azido it is a paraphysis. sent18: the Freudian is not reciprocal if it is azido and does not transfer acetophenetidin. sent19: there is something such that if it is a kind of a duality and is not a kind of a maxi then it does not grudge lightweight.

sent1: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent2: ({N}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{EA}{aa} sent3: (Ex): ({L}x & ¬{FL}x) -> ¬{N}x sent4: ({BK}{b} & ¬{AA}{b}) -> ¬{DQ}{b} sent5: (Ex): ({GF}x & ¬{FE}x) -> ¬{FC}x sent6: (Ex): ({IA}x & ¬{AK}x) -> ¬{FC}x sent7: ({S}{bj} & ¬{AA}{bj}) -> ¬{IO}{bj} sent8: (Ex): ({HG}x & ¬{BA}x) -> ¬{AS}x sent9: (Ex): ({GP}x & ¬{EJ}x) -> ¬{HL}x sent10: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent11: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent12: (x): ({HQ}x & ¬{GD}x) -> ¬{DF}x sent13: ({AA}{fb} & ¬{BI}{fb}) -> ¬{GT}{fb} sent14: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent15: (Ex): ({CD}x & ¬{EA}x) -> ¬{FJ}x sent16: (Ex): ({FQ}x & ¬{BI}x) -> ¬{AU}x sent17: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent18: ({AB}{aa} & ¬{DP}{aa}) -> ¬{FM}{aa} sent19: (Ex): ({FL}x & ¬{CE}x) -> ¬{JH}x

there exists something such that if it is a kind of a gravy and it is not a variability it is not returnable.

(Ex): ({HQ}x & ¬{GD}x) -> ¬{DF}x

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it does stroll and it is not azido then the fact that it is not a paraphysis is not wrong is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Freudian does stroll and it is azido it is not a paraphysis. sent2: the Freudian is not a propylene if it is tabular and it is not azido. sent3: there is something such that if it fosters and is not a duality it is not tabular. sent4: if the absolver is weak but it does not stroll it does not widow. sent5: there is something such that if it is a Malaysian and it is not Kafkaesque then it is not a recklessness. sent6: there exists something such that if it is a milliwatt but not a capitulum it is not a recklessness. sent7: the canal is not a kind of a dimple if it does cull Chianti and it does not stroll. sent8: there exists something such that if it is electromagnetic and it is not a horizon then it is non-heterozygous. sent9: there is something such that if it is carbocyclic and it does not breeze it is not an usher. sent10: the Freudian is not a paraphysis if it strolls and is not azido. sent11: there is something such that if it strolls and is not azido then that it is a paraphysis is not false. sent12: if something is a gravy but it is not a variability then it is not returnable. sent13: the fact that the Kleenex does not traffic is not false if it strolls and is not a expectoration. sent14: there exists something such that if it strolls and it is azido then it is not a paraphysis. sent15: there exists something such that if it is a snow and it is not a propylene it does not devote baritone. sent16: there is something such that if it is a kind of a canister and it is not a expectoration then the fact that it is not meningeal is correct. sent17: if the Freudian strolls and is not azido it is a paraphysis. sent18: the Freudian is not reciprocal if it is azido and does not transfer acetophenetidin. sent19: there is something such that if it is a kind of a duality and is not a kind of a maxi then it does not grudge lightweight. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the webbing happens is not incorrect.

{D}

sent1: if the fact that the electrochemicalness does not occur is correct the fact that the phocineness and the chasteness occurs is not true. sent2: that the web does not occur is triggered by that not the swish but the transferring Musophagidae happens. sent3: if that both the phocineness and the chasteness occurs is not correct the phocineness does not occur. sent4: the basketry does not occur if the fact that both the basketry and the satiateness occurs is wrong. sent5: if the swish occurs then the transferring bearer occurs. sent6: the transferring Musophagidae occurs. sent7: if the transferring bearer does not occur then either the transferring Musophagidae occurs or the swish occurs or both. sent8: that the basketry does not occur brings about that the electrochemicalness happens and the canalicularness occurs. sent9: the peregrination does not occur and the amminoness happens if the fact that the grudging response does not occur hold. sent10: that the chasteness does not occur is prevented by that the electrochemicalness happens. sent11: if the amminoness happens not the web but the peregrination occurs. sent12: if the web does not occur but the peregrination happens then the transferring bearer does not occur. sent13: if the phocineness does not occur that the amminoness happens and the grudging response occurs is not false. sent14: the canalicularness happens but the electrochemicalness does not occur if the basketry does not occur. sent15: the swish and the transferring Musophagidae occurs. sent16: if the transferring bearer happens then the webbing happens. sent17: if the peregrination does not occur but the amminoness happens then the transferring bearer does not occur.

sent1: ¬{J} -> ¬({H} & {I}) sent2: (¬{A} & {B}) -> ¬{D} sent3: ¬({H} & {I}) -> ¬{H} sent4: ¬({L} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{L} sent5: {A} -> {C} sent6: {B} sent7: ¬{C} -> ({B} v {A}) sent8: ¬{L} -> ({J} & {K}) sent9: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & {F}) sent10: {J} -> {I} sent11: {F} -> (¬{D} & {E}) sent12: (¬{D} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent13: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent14: ¬{L} -> ({K} & ¬{J}) sent15: ({A} & {B}) sent16: {C} -> {D} sent17: (¬{E} & {F}) -> ¬{C}

the reorganizing happens.

{P}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the webbing happens is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the electrochemicalness does not occur is correct the fact that the phocineness and the chasteness occurs is not true. sent2: that the web does not occur is triggered by that not the swish but the transferring Musophagidae happens. sent3: if that both the phocineness and the chasteness occurs is not correct the phocineness does not occur. sent4: the basketry does not occur if the fact that both the basketry and the satiateness occurs is wrong. sent5: if the swish occurs then the transferring bearer occurs. sent6: the transferring Musophagidae occurs. sent7: if the transferring bearer does not occur then either the transferring Musophagidae occurs or the swish occurs or both. sent8: that the basketry does not occur brings about that the electrochemicalness happens and the canalicularness occurs. sent9: the peregrination does not occur and the amminoness happens if the fact that the grudging response does not occur hold. sent10: that the chasteness does not occur is prevented by that the electrochemicalness happens. sent11: if the amminoness happens not the web but the peregrination occurs. sent12: if the web does not occur but the peregrination happens then the transferring bearer does not occur. sent13: if the phocineness does not occur that the amminoness happens and the grudging response occurs is not false. sent14: the canalicularness happens but the electrochemicalness does not occur if the basketry does not occur. sent15: the swish and the transferring Musophagidae occurs. sent16: if the transferring bearer happens then the webbing happens. sent17: if the peregrination does not occur but the amminoness happens then the transferring bearer does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent15 -> int1: the swish occurs.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the transferring bearer occurs is right.; sent16 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the pietisticness does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: if the paganizing and the enslavement occurs then the pietisticness does not occur. sent2: if the pietisticness happens that the enslavement occurs and the hymning does not occur is wrong. sent3: that the road does not occur but the dissuasion occurs is caused by that the benediction does not occur. sent4: that the e-commerce occurs is not incorrect. sent5: the scorcher happens. sent6: that the grudging taurine does not occur brings about that both the transferring craft and the connoting happens. sent7: if the hymn does not occur the pietisticness occurs and the paganizing occurs. sent8: if the fact that the fact that the enslavement but not the hymn happens is false is not wrong the budget occurs. sent9: that not the Wittgensteinianness but the preciseness occurs is caused by the scorcher. sent10: the fact that that the culling slub does not occur and the autoradiographicness does not occur hold does not hold. sent11: both the paganizing and the hymn occurs. sent12: the transferring tubed happens. sent13: if the connoting occurs then that the transferring tubed does not occur is not right. sent14: that the minusness does not occur is triggered by that not the road but the dissuasion happens. sent15: the possession happens if that the high happens hold. sent16: that the benediction occurs is prevented by that the preciseness happens and the possession happens. sent17: if the fact that the culling slub does not occur and the autoradiographicness does not occur is incorrect the fact that the grudging taurine does not occur is correct. sent18: that both the explaining and the pietisticness happens is brought about by that the minusness does not occur. sent19: the hymning occurs.

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

the pietisticness happens.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pietisticness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the paganizing and the enslavement occurs then the pietisticness does not occur. sent2: if the pietisticness happens that the enslavement occurs and the hymning does not occur is wrong. sent3: that the road does not occur but the dissuasion occurs is caused by that the benediction does not occur. sent4: that the e-commerce occurs is not incorrect. sent5: the scorcher happens. sent6: that the grudging taurine does not occur brings about that both the transferring craft and the connoting happens. sent7: if the hymn does not occur the pietisticness occurs and the paganizing occurs. sent8: if the fact that the fact that the enslavement but not the hymn happens is false is not wrong the budget occurs. sent9: that not the Wittgensteinianness but the preciseness occurs is caused by the scorcher. sent10: the fact that that the culling slub does not occur and the autoradiographicness does not occur hold does not hold. sent11: both the paganizing and the hymn occurs. sent12: the transferring tubed happens. sent13: if the connoting occurs then that the transferring tubed does not occur is not right. sent14: that the minusness does not occur is triggered by that not the road but the dissuasion happens. sent15: the possession happens if that the high happens hold. sent16: that the benediction occurs is prevented by that the preciseness happens and the possession happens. sent17: if the fact that the culling slub does not occur and the autoradiographicness does not occur is incorrect the fact that the grudging taurine does not occur is correct. sent18: that both the explaining and the pietisticness happens is brought about by that the minusness does not occur. sent19: the hymning occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> int1: the paganizing happens.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the congressman is a kind of a anticlimax.

{B}{a}

sent1: if that the congressman is not a dika and it is not elastic is not correct it is not a anticlimax. sent2: if something is not a Phocoena it is not a Turfan and does wrong. sent3: the congressman does not channelize if it is onymous. sent4: that the congressman is both not a lordship and not cytoplasmic is false. sent5: if the fact that the congressman is not a lordship and not cytoplasmic is false it is not a anticlimax. sent6: the track is not a anticlimax. sent7: the congressman is not a kind of a anticlimax if it is a methyl. sent8: the leg is not a Alaskan if that it is both not a anticlimax and not tectonic does not hold. sent9: the congressman is not geostrategic if the fact that it is not a venison and it is not a lordship does not hold.

sent1: ¬(¬{AO}{a} & ¬{IT}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{A}x & {C}x) sent3: {EB}{a} -> ¬{JB}{a} sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: ¬{B}{bh} sent7: {AI}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent8: ¬(¬{B}{af} & ¬{HU}{af}) -> ¬{FC}{af} sent9: ¬(¬{FS}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) -> ¬{HQ}{a}

the congressman is a anticlimax.

{B}{a}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the congressman is a kind of a anticlimax. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the congressman is not a dika and it is not elastic is not correct it is not a anticlimax. sent2: if something is not a Phocoena it is not a Turfan and does wrong. sent3: the congressman does not channelize if it is onymous. sent4: that the congressman is both not a lordship and not cytoplasmic is false. sent5: if the fact that the congressman is not a lordship and not cytoplasmic is false it is not a anticlimax. sent6: the track is not a anticlimax. sent7: the congressman is not a kind of a anticlimax if it is a methyl. sent8: the leg is not a Alaskan if that it is both not a anticlimax and not tectonic does not hold. sent9: the congressman is not geostrategic if the fact that it is not a venison and it is not a lordship does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the cabaret is a trove but it is not Paleozoic is wrong.

¬({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})

sent1: something is esoteric if it is Baltic. sent2: the cabaret is not a Baltic. sent3: something does not phrase if it is not esoteric. sent4: that the cabaret is both Paleozoic and not esoteric is not correct if the whiner is not a phrasing. sent5: if something is disrespectful it is pyroelectric. sent6: the whiner is esoteric. sent7: if the whiner is not a kind of a phrasing then that the cabaret is a kind of a trove and it is a Paleozoic is not correct. sent8: if the cabaret is esoteric then it is a kind of a trove and it is not a kind of a Paleozoic. sent9: if the sunray is pyroelectric then the whiner is not a kind of a poilu and/or it does phrase. sent10: the whiner is a Baltic. sent11: the whiner does not phrase if that it is not esoteric is right. sent12: if that something is esoteric but it is not a kind of a Baltic is not correct then it does not phrase. sent13: that the cabaret is a trove and it is a kind of a Paleozoic is false. sent14: the cloisonne is non-Paleozoic if the fact that the whiner is not a non-Paleozoic and is not a Baltic does not hold. sent15: the whiner is not Paleozoic.

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

that the cloisonne is not a Paleozoic hold.

¬{E}{gi}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the cabaret is a trove but it is not Paleozoic is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: something is esoteric if it is Baltic. sent2: the cabaret is not a Baltic. sent3: something does not phrase if it is not esoteric. sent4: that the cabaret is both Paleozoic and not esoteric is not correct if the whiner is not a phrasing. sent5: if something is disrespectful it is pyroelectric. sent6: the whiner is esoteric. sent7: if the whiner is not a kind of a phrasing then that the cabaret is a kind of a trove and it is a Paleozoic is not correct. sent8: if the cabaret is esoteric then it is a kind of a trove and it is not a kind of a Paleozoic. sent9: if the sunray is pyroelectric then the whiner is not a kind of a poilu and/or it does phrase. sent10: the whiner is a Baltic. sent11: the whiner does not phrase if that it is not esoteric is right. sent12: if that something is esoteric but it is not a kind of a Baltic is not correct then it does not phrase. sent13: that the cabaret is a trove and it is a kind of a Paleozoic is false. sent14: the cloisonne is non-Paleozoic if the fact that the whiner is not a non-Paleozoic and is not a Baltic does not hold. sent15: the whiner is not Paleozoic. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the whiner is esoteric but it is not Baltic.; assump1 -> int1: the whiner is not a Baltic.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the whiner is esoteric but not Baltic is not right.; sent12 -> int4: if that the whiner is esoteric but it is not a Baltic does not hold it is not a phrasing.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the whiner is not a phrasing.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the proposition happens.

{A}

sent1: the opening occurs if the sway happens. sent2: the fact that the Russianness does not occur and the algebraicness occurs is not right. sent3: that the sulcateness happens but the culling betrayal does not occur is false if the updating does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the openness occurs is not incorrect the updating does not occur. sent5: the approval does not occur. sent6: both the non-Russianness and the non-algebraicness happens. sent7: the fact that the culling LGV does not occur is right. sent8: if the soloing does not occur then the chancing does not occur but the proposition occurs. sent9: the inquiry occurs and the propositioning does not occur if the chancing occurs. sent10: if the sinkableness does not occur both the chance and the soloing happens. sent11: if the proposition occurs then that both the non-Russianness and the non-algebraicness happens is not right. sent12: if that the sulcateness but not the culling betrayal occurs does not hold then that the sinkableness does not occur is not incorrect.

sent1: {I} -> {H} sent2: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent3: ¬{G} -> ¬({E} & ¬{F}) sent4: {H} -> ¬{G} sent5: ¬{GP} sent6: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent7: ¬{FR} sent8: ¬{C} -> (¬{B} & {A}) sent9: {B} -> ({HU} & ¬{A}) sent10: ¬{D} -> ({B} & {C}) sent11: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent12: ¬({E} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{D}

the propositioning happens.

{A}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the proposition happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the opening occurs if the sway happens. sent2: the fact that the Russianness does not occur and the algebraicness occurs is not right. sent3: that the sulcateness happens but the culling betrayal does not occur is false if the updating does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the openness occurs is not incorrect the updating does not occur. sent5: the approval does not occur. sent6: both the non-Russianness and the non-algebraicness happens. sent7: the fact that the culling LGV does not occur is right. sent8: if the soloing does not occur then the chancing does not occur but the proposition occurs. sent9: the inquiry occurs and the propositioning does not occur if the chancing occurs. sent10: if the sinkableness does not occur both the chance and the soloing happens. sent11: if the proposition occurs then that both the non-Russianness and the non-algebraicness happens is not right. sent12: if that the sulcateness but not the culling betrayal occurs does not hold then that the sinkableness does not occur is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the proposition happens.; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the non-Russianness and the non-algebraicness happens is incorrect.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the transferring frump does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: the adventitialness does not occur and/or the obscurantism does not occur. sent2: if that the fact that the mounting and the devoting thylacine occurs hold does not hold then the mounting does not occur. sent3: if the gothicness does not occur then both the obscurantism and the lamplight happens. sent4: if the adventitialness occurs then the transferring frump occurs. sent5: if that both the devoting mending and the witching happens is false the witching does not occur. sent6: if the gothicness does not occur then the non-adventitialness and the lamplight occurs. sent7: if the witching does not occur that both the mounting and the devoting thylacine happens does not hold. sent8: that the gothicness and the acting happens is incorrect if the mounting does not occur. sent9: that the devoting mending occurs and the witching occurs is wrong if the conductiveness does not occur. sent10: the lamplight happens if the obscurantism does not occur. sent11: the culling track is prevented by that not the adventitialness but the obscurantism occurs. sent12: the transferring eraser happens. sent13: the comfort occurs if the bonfire does not occur. sent14: if the adventitialness does not occur the fact that the lamplight occurs is correct. sent15: the jihad does not occur. sent16: if that both the gothicness and the acting happens is wrong then the gothicness does not occur.

sent1: (¬{A} v ¬{B}) sent2: ¬({F} & {H}) -> ¬{F} sent3: ¬{E} -> ({B} & {C}) sent4: {A} -> {D} sent5: ¬({J} & {I}) -> ¬{I} sent6: ¬{E} -> (¬{A} & {C}) sent7: ¬{I} -> ¬({F} & {H}) sent8: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & {G}) sent9: ¬{K} -> ¬({J} & {I}) sent10: ¬{B} -> {C} sent11: (¬{A} & {B}) -> ¬{FK} sent12: {GA} sent13: ¬{IM} -> {HJ} sent14: ¬{A} -> {C} sent15: ¬{FT} sent16: ¬({E} & {G}) -> ¬{E}

the transferring frump happens.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the transferring frump does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the adventitialness does not occur and/or the obscurantism does not occur. sent2: if that the fact that the mounting and the devoting thylacine occurs hold does not hold then the mounting does not occur. sent3: if the gothicness does not occur then both the obscurantism and the lamplight happens. sent4: if the adventitialness occurs then the transferring frump occurs. sent5: if that both the devoting mending and the witching happens is false the witching does not occur. sent6: if the gothicness does not occur then the non-adventitialness and the lamplight occurs. sent7: if the witching does not occur that both the mounting and the devoting thylacine happens does not hold. sent8: that the gothicness and the acting happens is incorrect if the mounting does not occur. sent9: that the devoting mending occurs and the witching occurs is wrong if the conductiveness does not occur. sent10: the lamplight happens if the obscurantism does not occur. sent11: the culling track is prevented by that not the adventitialness but the obscurantism occurs. sent12: the transferring eraser happens. sent13: the comfort occurs if the bonfire does not occur. sent14: if the adventitialness does not occur the fact that the lamplight occurs is correct. sent15: the jihad does not occur. sent16: if that both the gothicness and the acting happens is wrong then the gothicness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent14 & sent10 -> int1: the lamplight occurs.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the hazard is not non-bulimic.

{A}{a}

sent1: the frump is a kind of an onion if there is something such that it is a prompter and unconscientious. sent2: the fact that if that something is both a cargo and a crush is not true it is not a cargo is right. sent3: if something is an onion it does unfasten. sent4: if that something is non-Wordsworthian a barter is not right then it is not a barter. sent5: if something unfastens it is a kind of a bulimic. sent6: the fact that the bruin is both a cargo and a crush is incorrect if the tarsal is not a kind of a barter. sent7: the fact that something is not Wordsworthian but it is a kind of a barter does not hold if it is not a kind of a probable. sent8: the hazard is a bulimic. sent9: if the bruin is not a cargo then the hazard is a prompter and it is unconscientious. sent10: the fact that the tarsal does puff but it is not a circular is wrong. sent11: the tarsal is not a probable if that it does puff and is not a circular is not right.

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

the frump is a bulimic.

{A}{hg}

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the hazard is not non-bulimic. ; $context$ = sent1: the frump is a kind of an onion if there is something such that it is a prompter and unconscientious. sent2: the fact that if that something is both a cargo and a crush is not true it is not a cargo is right. sent3: if something is an onion it does unfasten. sent4: if that something is non-Wordsworthian a barter is not right then it is not a barter. sent5: if something unfastens it is a kind of a bulimic. sent6: the fact that the bruin is both a cargo and a crush is incorrect if the tarsal is not a kind of a barter. sent7: the fact that something is not Wordsworthian but it is a kind of a barter does not hold if it is not a kind of a probable. sent8: the hazard is a bulimic. sent9: if the bruin is not a cargo then the hazard is a prompter and it is unconscientious. sent10: the fact that the tarsal does puff but it is not a circular is wrong. sent11: the tarsal is not a probable if that it does puff and is not a circular is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the remise does not occur is true.

¬{C}

sent1: the sternalness happens. sent2: the fact that the transferring glycoprotein does not occur and the logisticsness occurs is not true. sent3: that the remise happens is prevented by that the transferring Linotype happens and the acquittal occurs. sent4: the fact that the birth does not occur and the devoting immersion does not occur is false. sent5: that the transferring glycoprotein does not occur and the logisticsness does not occur does not hold. sent6: if the gymnospermousness occurs then that that the emasculation does not occur but the institution happens is not correct is right. sent7: the transferring Linotype happens if the logisticsness occurs. sent8: the acquittal happens and the remise happens if the transferring Linotype does not occur. sent9: the transferring dithyramb does not occur if that the fact that the transferring Linotype happens and/or the acquittal does not occur is not wrong does not hold. sent10: the omega does not occur if the fact that not the emasculation but the institution happens is wrong. sent11: both the acquittal and the sternalness occurs. sent12: if the fact that the omega does not occur is not false the fact that not the sternalness but the culling Crick happens does not hold.

sent1: {D} sent2: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent3: ({B} & {A}) -> ¬{C} sent4: ¬(¬{CK} & ¬{EN}) sent5: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent6: {I} -> ¬(¬{H} & {G}) sent7: {AB} -> {B} sent8: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {C}) sent9: ¬({B} v ¬{A}) -> ¬{BF} sent10: ¬(¬{H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent11: ({A} & {D}) sent12: ¬{F} -> ¬(¬{D} & {E})

the remise happens.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the remise does not occur is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the sternalness happens. sent2: the fact that the transferring glycoprotein does not occur and the logisticsness occurs is not true. sent3: that the remise happens is prevented by that the transferring Linotype happens and the acquittal occurs. sent4: the fact that the birth does not occur and the devoting immersion does not occur is false. sent5: that the transferring glycoprotein does not occur and the logisticsness does not occur does not hold. sent6: if the gymnospermousness occurs then that that the emasculation does not occur but the institution happens is not correct is right. sent7: the transferring Linotype happens if the logisticsness occurs. sent8: the acquittal happens and the remise happens if the transferring Linotype does not occur. sent9: the transferring dithyramb does not occur if that the fact that the transferring Linotype happens and/or the acquittal does not occur is not wrong does not hold. sent10: the omega does not occur if the fact that not the emasculation but the institution happens is wrong. sent11: both the acquittal and the sternalness occurs. sent12: if the fact that the omega does not occur is not false the fact that not the sternalness but the culling Crick happens does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> int1: the acquittal occurs.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the chimericalness occurs.

{D}

sent1: if the decomposition does not occur then the Booleanness happens and the grudging shanghaier occurs. sent2: the fact that the betrothal occurs and the encephalography does not occur does not hold. sent3: if the fact that the betrothal occurs but the encephalography does not occur is not true then the fact that the Booleanness does not occur is not wrong. sent4: if the grudging shanghaier happens the chimericalness occurs.

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

the chimericalness does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the chimericalness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the decomposition does not occur then the Booleanness happens and the grudging shanghaier occurs. sent2: the fact that the betrothal occurs and the encephalography does not occur does not hold. sent3: if the fact that the betrothal occurs but the encephalography does not occur is not true then the fact that the Booleanness does not occur is not wrong. sent4: if the grudging shanghaier happens the chimericalness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent2 -> int1: the Booleanness does not occur.; int1 -> int2: either the squared does not occur or the Booleanness does not occur or both.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that that there is something such that if that it is not a kind of a stabling or does test or both does not hold it is not shallow hold is false.

¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)

sent1: there exists something such that if the fact that it either is not a kind of a Algonquian or does bray or both is not right then it culls rummage. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a stabling or it tests or both does not hold it is shallow. sent3: the earner does shallow if the fact that it is not a kind of a stabling and/or does test is wrong. sent4: if that either something is non-stabling or it is a test or both is not right it shallows. sent5: the earner is a Nazarene if that it is either not stabling or teratogenic or both does not hold. sent6: there is something such that if it is not short or it is indehiscent or both it does not grudge telephotograph. sent7: something is not shallow if that it is non-stabling and/or a test is not true. sent8: something does not transfer sliding if that it is not a kind of a turtler or shallows or both is incorrect. sent9: something that does not stable or is a kind of a test or both is not shallow. sent10: if either the earner is not a stabling or it is a test or both it does not shallow. sent11: if the fact that the earner is a kind of a stabling or it does test or both does not hold it does not shallow. sent12: there is something such that if it does not stable and/or it is a test it does not shallow. sent13: that there is something such that if the fact that either it dishes or it is psychotherapeutic or both is incorrect it is not a remark is not false. sent14: something does not shallow if the fact that it is a stabling and/or it is a kind of a test is incorrect. sent15: there is something such that if the fact that either it is a stabling or it is a kind of a test or both does not hold then it is non-shallow.

sent1: (Ex): ¬(¬{IL}x v {R}x) -> {DH}x sent2: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {CQ}{aa}) -> {AM}{aa} sent6: (Ex): (¬{EB}x v {DT}x) -> ¬{IN}x sent7: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent8: (x): ¬(¬{FG}x v {B}x) -> ¬{J}x sent9: (x): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent10: (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent11: ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent12: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent13: (Ex): ¬({ID}x v {HR}x) -> ¬{CP}x sent14: (x): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent15: (Ex): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

if that the bank is not a turtler or it does shallow or both is false it does not transfer sliding.

¬(¬{FG}{fg} v {B}{fg}) -> ¬{J}{fg}

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that that there is something such that if that it is not a kind of a stabling or does test or both does not hold it is not shallow hold is false. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if the fact that it either is not a kind of a Algonquian or does bray or both is not right then it culls rummage. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a stabling or it tests or both does not hold it is shallow. sent3: the earner does shallow if the fact that it is not a kind of a stabling and/or does test is wrong. sent4: if that either something is non-stabling or it is a test or both is not right it shallows. sent5: the earner is a Nazarene if that it is either not stabling or teratogenic or both does not hold. sent6: there is something such that if it is not short or it is indehiscent or both it does not grudge telephotograph. sent7: something is not shallow if that it is non-stabling and/or a test is not true. sent8: something does not transfer sliding if that it is not a kind of a turtler or shallows or both is incorrect. sent9: something that does not stable or is a kind of a test or both is not shallow. sent10: if either the earner is not a stabling or it is a test or both it does not shallow. sent11: if the fact that the earner is a kind of a stabling or it does test or both does not hold it does not shallow. sent12: there is something such that if it does not stable and/or it is a test it does not shallow. sent13: that there is something such that if the fact that either it dishes or it is psychotherapeutic or both is incorrect it is not a remark is not false. sent14: something does not shallow if the fact that it is a stabling and/or it is a kind of a test is incorrect. sent15: there is something such that if the fact that either it is a stabling or it is a kind of a test or both does not hold then it is non-shallow. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: if that either the earner is not a kind of a stabling or it is a test or both does not hold then it does not shallow.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Vinylite is not a autotelism.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: the thorium is not a autotelism. sent2: the thorium is not zoic but it does hydrolyze. sent3: the Vinylite is a kind of a foot-pound but it does not hydrolyze if the endoskeleton is not zoic. sent4: the package is a autotelism. sent5: if something is a kind of a foot-pound but it does not hydrolyze it is not a autotelism. sent6: the thorium does flex if it is not a foot-pound. sent7: the Vinylite is not a kind of a foot-pound. sent8: if the thorium is not zoic but it hydrolyzes then it is not a kind of a foot-pound. sent9: the fact that either something is a kind of an adoption or it is not a hypanthium or both is wrong if the fact that it is not a foot-pound is not wrong. sent10: something hydrolyzes if it is not a foot-pound. sent11: if the fact that the Vinylite is a hypanthium or it hydrolyzes or both is incorrect then the thorium is a kind of a autotelism. sent12: the Vinylite is a autotelism if that the thorium is either an adoption or not a hypanthium or both is incorrect. sent13: the thorium is not a kind of an adoption. sent14: the thorium is bicylindrical. sent15: the endoskeleton is not zoic if the pyromancer is zoic.

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

the Vinylite is not a autotelism.

¬{B}{a}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Vinylite is not a autotelism. ; $context$ = sent1: the thorium is not a autotelism. sent2: the thorium is not zoic but it does hydrolyze. sent3: the Vinylite is a kind of a foot-pound but it does not hydrolyze if the endoskeleton is not zoic. sent4: the package is a autotelism. sent5: if something is a kind of a foot-pound but it does not hydrolyze it is not a autotelism. sent6: the thorium does flex if it is not a foot-pound. sent7: the Vinylite is not a kind of a foot-pound. sent8: if the thorium is not zoic but it hydrolyzes then it is not a kind of a foot-pound. sent9: the fact that either something is a kind of an adoption or it is not a hypanthium or both is wrong if the fact that it is not a foot-pound is not wrong. sent10: something hydrolyzes if it is not a foot-pound. sent11: if the fact that the Vinylite is a hypanthium or it hydrolyzes or both is incorrect then the thorium is a kind of a autotelism. sent12: the Vinylite is a autotelism if that the thorium is either an adoption or not a hypanthium or both is incorrect. sent13: the thorium is not a kind of an adoption. sent14: the thorium is bicylindrical. sent15: the endoskeleton is not zoic if the pyromancer is zoic. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> int1: if the thorium is not a foot-pound then the fact that that either it is a kind of an adoption or it is not a hypanthium or both is not wrong is not right.; sent8 & sent2 -> int2: the thorium is not a foot-pound.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the thorium is an adoption and/or it is not a hypanthium is not right.; int3 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the newsreader is not a calcium-cyanamide.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: if something is not a calcium-cyanamide then it is not postnuptial. sent2: if something is a kind of a calcium-cyanamide that is a boondoggle then it does not cull pug. sent3: if something is Kurdish it does cull pug. sent4: the fact that there exists nothing such that it is a Bassariscidae and it is not a Kurdish hold. sent5: the newsreader does boondoggle.

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

the newsreader is a calcium-cyanamide.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the newsreader is not a calcium-cyanamide. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a calcium-cyanamide then it is not postnuptial. sent2: if something is a kind of a calcium-cyanamide that is a boondoggle then it does not cull pug. sent3: if something is Kurdish it does cull pug. sent4: the fact that there exists nothing such that it is a Bassariscidae and it is not a Kurdish hold. sent5: the newsreader does boondoggle. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the newsreader is a calcium-cyanamide.; assump1 & sent5 -> int1: the newsreader is a kind of a calcium-cyanamide and it is a boondoggle.; sent2 -> int2: the newsreader does not cull pug if it is a kind of a calcium-cyanamide and it is a boondoggle.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the newsreader does not cull pug.; sent3 -> int4: the newsreader does cull pug if that it is a kind of a Kurdish is not incorrect.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the superior is not mediatory.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: there exists something such that that it is communicative but not an amount is not correct. sent2: the superior does not amount. sent3: if something conditions then it is mediatory. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is not a interoperability and does transfer hryvnia is not correct. sent5: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not communicative and it is not a stanza does not hold then the pyromancer does not transfer Japan. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that the fact that it is not communicative and it does not amount is not wrong does not hold the superior is not mediatory. sent7: if something is not mediatory then that it does not grudge superior and is not migratory is not right. sent8: there is something such that that it culls impenitence and it is not arteriosclerotic is not right. sent9: if something is communicative the superior is not a pigtail. sent10: there exists something such that that it is greater thing that is not a concerned is false. sent11: there is something such that that it is not communicative and it does not amount is not true. sent12: there is something such that that it is a kind of a Deere that is not a kind of an eagerness is false.

sent1: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: ¬{AB}{a} sent3: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{EI}x & {GG}x) sent5: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{HI}x) -> ¬{AR}{eq} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{FQ}x & ¬{JI}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬({GO}x & ¬{N}x) sent9: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{IL}{a} sent10: (Ex): ¬({CP}x & ¬{IC}x) sent11: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent12: (Ex): ¬({IT}x & ¬{EE}x)

the superior is mediatory.

{A}{a}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the superior is not mediatory. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that that it is communicative but not an amount is not correct. sent2: the superior does not amount. sent3: if something conditions then it is mediatory. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is not a interoperability and does transfer hryvnia is not correct. sent5: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not communicative and it is not a stanza does not hold then the pyromancer does not transfer Japan. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that the fact that it is not communicative and it does not amount is not wrong does not hold the superior is not mediatory. sent7: if something is not mediatory then that it does not grudge superior and is not migratory is not right. sent8: there is something such that that it culls impenitence and it is not arteriosclerotic is not right. sent9: if something is communicative the superior is not a pigtail. sent10: there exists something such that that it is greater thing that is not a concerned is false. sent11: there is something such that that it is not communicative and it does not amount is not true. sent12: there is something such that that it is a kind of a Deere that is not a kind of an eagerness is false. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the crackpot is not a kind of a episome.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: the cougar does grudge impression and is a pug if that the pruner does not polish hold. sent2: if something is subtractive then the crackpot is a kind of a episome. sent3: that the flatcar is a Picus if there exists something such that the fact that it is a proctoplasty and it is not a Africander does not hold is correct. sent4: if the fact that something is a kind of a episome and it does grudge pruner is wrong then it is not a episome. sent5: the gunite is not non-Gabonese if something transfers fluorescence. sent6: if the crackpot does not grudge impression it does not grudge pruner and it is biblical. sent7: the crackpot is a kind of a Gabonese. sent8: if something does grudge impression then that it does not grudge pruner and it is not biblical is incorrect. sent9: something is Gabonese but it is not subtractive. sent10: there is something such that that it is a Gabonese that is subtractive is wrong. sent11: if the pruner is both binomial and not unidentifiable it does not polish. sent12: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of Gabonese thing that is not subtractive is not true. sent13: the crackpot is a Oregon if something does cull pyxis. sent14: the fact that something is a face but it is not tricentenary is not correct if it is not a episome. sent15: if something is not biblical that it is a episome and does grudge pruner does not hold. sent16: if there is something such that that it is a kind of a Gabonese and it is not subtractive is wrong then the crackpot is a episome. sent17: the crackpot is a Turkish.

sent1: ¬{F}{c} -> ({D}{b} & {E}{b}) sent2: (x): {AB}x -> {A}{a} sent3: (x): ¬({HF}x & ¬{HT}x) -> {CP}{ap} sent4: (x): ¬({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent5: (x): {HP}x -> {AA}{fn} sent6: ¬{D}{a} -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent7: {AA}{a} sent8: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) sent9: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent10: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent11: ({H}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent12: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent13: (x): {AJ}x -> {BI}{a} sent14: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({BA}x & ¬{Q}x) sent15: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent16: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent17: {BR}{a}

there exists something such that the fact that it does face and it is not tricentenary is not correct.

(Ex): ¬({BA}x & ¬{Q}x)

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the crackpot is not a kind of a episome. ; $context$ = sent1: the cougar does grudge impression and is a pug if that the pruner does not polish hold. sent2: if something is subtractive then the crackpot is a kind of a episome. sent3: that the flatcar is a Picus if there exists something such that the fact that it is a proctoplasty and it is not a Africander does not hold is correct. sent4: if the fact that something is a kind of a episome and it does grudge pruner is wrong then it is not a episome. sent5: the gunite is not non-Gabonese if something transfers fluorescence. sent6: if the crackpot does not grudge impression it does not grudge pruner and it is biblical. sent7: the crackpot is a kind of a Gabonese. sent8: if something does grudge impression then that it does not grudge pruner and it is not biblical is incorrect. sent9: something is Gabonese but it is not subtractive. sent10: there is something such that that it is a Gabonese that is subtractive is wrong. sent11: if the pruner is both binomial and not unidentifiable it does not polish. sent12: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of Gabonese thing that is not subtractive is not true. sent13: the crackpot is a Oregon if something does cull pyxis. sent14: the fact that something is a face but it is not tricentenary is not correct if it is not a episome. sent15: if something is not biblical that it is a episome and does grudge pruner does not hold. sent16: if there is something such that that it is a kind of a Gabonese and it is not subtractive is wrong then the crackpot is a episome. sent17: the crackpot is a Turkish. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent16 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there is something such that if it does transfer Septobasidiaceae the fact that it is a kind of a bidding that is not Somalian does not hold does not hold.

¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x))

sent1: there exists something such that if it transfers Septobasidiaceae then it is a bidding and it is not a kind of a Somalian. sent2: if something is a nasality that it is irreconcilable and it is not unshapely is not correct. sent3: if that the morganite transfers Septobasidiaceae is not incorrect then the fact that it is a bidding and it is a Somalian is not true. sent4: the morganite bids but it is not a Somalian if it transfers Septobasidiaceae. sent5: there exists something such that if it does transfer Septobasidiaceae the fact that it bids and is a Somalian is false. sent6: the fact that there is something such that if that it is a langoustine is not wrong then the fact that it is a voluntary that is not a thriftshop does not hold is right. sent7: that something is both a bidding and not a Somalian is false if it does transfer Septobasidiaceae. sent8: that the fact that something is biflagellate but it is not a native is incorrect if it crouches hold. sent9: the fact that the world does grudge Spinus and is not a float does not hold if the fact that it is anoxic is true. sent10: if something is a thoroughfare the fact that it transfers morganite and it is not natriuretic is not correct. sent11: the fact that something is a bidding that is a kind of a Somalian is false if it transfers Septobasidiaceae. sent12: if something transfers Septobasidiaceae then it is a bidding and it is not Somalian. sent13: there exists something such that if it is a millinery then that it is a kind of a ackee that is not a synonymist does not hold. sent14: if the fact that the morganite does grudge CPU is true that it does transfer taurine and is not a allergology does not hold. sent15: that there is something such that if it is a Plavix then that it is baric and it is impressionist does not hold is correct.

sent1: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: (x): {GA}x -> ¬({GO}x & ¬{CN}x) sent3: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent5: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent6: (Ex): {GI}x -> ¬({GN}x & ¬{JI}x) sent7: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: (x): {DQ}x -> ¬({ED}x & ¬{DN}x) sent9: {IK}{ik} -> ¬({EG}{ik} & ¬{AG}{ik}) sent10: (x): {CA}x -> ¬({IO}x & ¬{GH}x) sent11: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent12: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent13: (Ex): {BC}x -> ¬({GT}x & ¬{GK}x) sent14: {FT}{aa} -> ¬({O}{aa} & ¬{DK}{aa}) sent15: (Ex): {DB}x -> ¬({AQ}x & {CK}x)

there is something such that if it is a crouch then the fact that it is biflagellate but not a native is not right.

(Ex): {DQ}x -> ¬({ED}x & ¬{DN}x)

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it does transfer Septobasidiaceae the fact that it is a kind of a bidding that is not Somalian does not hold does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it transfers Septobasidiaceae then it is a bidding and it is not a kind of a Somalian. sent2: if something is a nasality that it is irreconcilable and it is not unshapely is not correct. sent3: if that the morganite transfers Septobasidiaceae is not incorrect then the fact that it is a bidding and it is a Somalian is not true. sent4: the morganite bids but it is not a Somalian if it transfers Septobasidiaceae. sent5: there exists something such that if it does transfer Septobasidiaceae the fact that it bids and is a Somalian is false. sent6: the fact that there is something such that if that it is a langoustine is not wrong then the fact that it is a voluntary that is not a thriftshop does not hold is right. sent7: that something is both a bidding and not a Somalian is false if it does transfer Septobasidiaceae. sent8: that the fact that something is biflagellate but it is not a native is incorrect if it crouches hold. sent9: the fact that the world does grudge Spinus and is not a float does not hold if the fact that it is anoxic is true. sent10: if something is a thoroughfare the fact that it transfers morganite and it is not natriuretic is not correct. sent11: the fact that something is a bidding that is a kind of a Somalian is false if it transfers Septobasidiaceae. sent12: if something transfers Septobasidiaceae then it is a bidding and it is not Somalian. sent13: there exists something such that if it is a millinery then that it is a kind of a ackee that is not a synonymist does not hold. sent14: if the fact that the morganite does grudge CPU is true that it does transfer taurine and is not a allergology does not hold. sent15: that there is something such that if it is a Plavix then that it is baric and it is impressionist does not hold is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: the fact that the morganite is a bidding but it is not a Somalian does not hold if it transfers Septobasidiaceae.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the grudging bull-snake does not occur.

¬{B}

sent1: that the flattering does not occur leads to that not the shoring but the judicialness occurs. sent2: the grudging bull-snake does not occur if the codification does not occur. sent3: if the shoring occurs the imperialisticness does not occur. sent4: if not the transferring murderee but the devoting hurl occurs the pacification does not occur. sent5: the grudging bull-snake happens if the fact that the physicochemicalness occurs is not incorrect. sent6: that the flattering does not occur yields that the shoring and the judicialness happens. sent7: the estivating happens or the transferring murderee occurs or both if the autoimmuneness does not occur. sent8: the full-timeness does not occur. sent9: the biblessness does not occur and the transferring murderee does not occur. sent10: that the grudging bull-snake does not occur and/or that the full-timeness does not occur results in that the culling rhodolite does not occur. sent11: if the imperialisticness does not occur the grudging bull-snake does not occur and/or the full-timeness does not occur. sent12: the flattering does not occur if the fact that both the vehicularness and the flattering occurs is not true. sent13: if the imperialisticness does not occur then the full-timeness occurs and the grudging bull-snake occurs. sent14: if the eventuality happens then the biblessness does not occur. sent15: if the unstoppableness does not occur then that the vehicularness happens and the flattering happens is wrong. sent16: if the estivating happens the vehicularness occurs. sent17: that the imperialisticness does not occur is correct if not the shoring but the judicialness happens. sent18: that the autoimmuneness does not occur is true. sent19: that the full-timeness does not occur leads to that either the physicochemicalness or that the codification does not occur or both is not wrong. sent20: that the vehicularness but not the unstoppableness happens leads to that the flattering does not occur. sent21: the non-unstoppableness and the clayeiness occurs if the pacification does not occur. sent22: if the transferring murderee occurs then the fact that the vehicularness occurs is true.

sent1: ¬{F} -> (¬{D} & {E}) sent2: ¬{AB} -> ¬{B} sent3: {D} -> ¬{C} sent4: (¬{L} & {K}) -> ¬{J} sent5: {AA} -> {B} sent6: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent7: ¬{N} -> ({M} v {L}) sent8: ¬{A} sent9: (¬{O} & ¬{L}) sent10: (¬{B} v ¬{A}) -> ¬{DD} sent11: ¬{C} -> (¬{B} v ¬{A}) sent12: ¬({G} & {F}) -> ¬{F} sent13: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent14: {P} -> ¬{O} sent15: ¬{H} -> ¬({G} & {F}) sent16: {M} -> {G} sent17: (¬{D} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent18: ¬{N} sent19: ¬{A} -> ({AA} v ¬{AB}) sent20: ({G} & ¬{H}) -> ¬{F} sent21: ¬{J} -> (¬{H} & {I}) sent22: {L} -> {G}

the culling rhodolite does not occur.

¬{DD}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the grudging bull-snake does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the flattering does not occur leads to that not the shoring but the judicialness occurs. sent2: the grudging bull-snake does not occur if the codification does not occur. sent3: if the shoring occurs the imperialisticness does not occur. sent4: if not the transferring murderee but the devoting hurl occurs the pacification does not occur. sent5: the grudging bull-snake happens if the fact that the physicochemicalness occurs is not incorrect. sent6: that the flattering does not occur yields that the shoring and the judicialness happens. sent7: the estivating happens or the transferring murderee occurs or both if the autoimmuneness does not occur. sent8: the full-timeness does not occur. sent9: the biblessness does not occur and the transferring murderee does not occur. sent10: that the grudging bull-snake does not occur and/or that the full-timeness does not occur results in that the culling rhodolite does not occur. sent11: if the imperialisticness does not occur the grudging bull-snake does not occur and/or the full-timeness does not occur. sent12: the flattering does not occur if the fact that both the vehicularness and the flattering occurs is not true. sent13: if the imperialisticness does not occur then the full-timeness occurs and the grudging bull-snake occurs. sent14: if the eventuality happens then the biblessness does not occur. sent15: if the unstoppableness does not occur then that the vehicularness happens and the flattering happens is wrong. sent16: if the estivating happens the vehicularness occurs. sent17: that the imperialisticness does not occur is correct if not the shoring but the judicialness happens. sent18: that the autoimmuneness does not occur is true. sent19: that the full-timeness does not occur leads to that either the physicochemicalness or that the codification does not occur or both is not wrong. sent20: that the vehicularness but not the unstoppableness happens leads to that the flattering does not occur. sent21: the non-unstoppableness and the clayeiness occurs if the pacification does not occur. sent22: if the transferring murderee occurs then the fact that the vehicularness occurs is true. ; $proof$ =

sent19 & sent8 -> int1: either the physicochemicalness occurs or the codification does not occur or both.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the canoe does cull stanza and/or it is partitive does not hold.

¬({D}{a} v {C}{a})

sent1: the fact that the canoe is not a ascomycete is right. sent2: something that is not a ascomycete and/or is a Mull is partitive.

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the canoe does cull stanza and/or it is partitive does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the canoe is not a ascomycete is right. sent2: something that is not a ascomycete and/or is a Mull is partitive. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the canoe is not a ascomycete and/or it is a Mull.; sent2 -> int2: if the canoe is not a ascomycete and/or it is a Mull that it is partitive is not false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the canoe is a partitive.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the cubeb is diurnal.

{C}{b}

sent1: if that something is not an impression and does not grudge fluorescence is not right then it is not diurnal. sent2: the tagasaste is non-subsonic thing that is scalene. sent3: the tagasaste is not subsonic. sent4: the Tanzanian is diurnal. sent5: the cubeb culls surd if it is extrasensory. sent6: that that the tagasaste grudges fluorescence is not incorrect if the tagasaste is subsonic and it is scalene is not incorrect. sent7: the tagasaste grudges fluorescence if it is a kind of non-subsonic thing that is scalene. sent8: the fact that if that that the tagasaste is not a kind of an impression and/or does grudge fluorescence is not true hold the lugsail is diurnal is true. sent9: the lidar is not an impression but it is cytological. sent10: the cubeb is diurnal if the tagasaste is an impression. sent11: something is an impression if it grudges fluorescence. sent12: if the cubeb is scalene then it is diurnal.

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent2: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent3: ¬{AA}{a} sent4: {C}{gb} sent5: {CM}{b} -> {DT}{b} sent6: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent7: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent8: ¬(¬{A}{a} v {B}{a}) -> {C}{bh} sent9: (¬{A}{bt} & {GJ}{bt}) sent10: {A}{a} -> {C}{b} sent11: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent12: {AB}{b} -> {C}{b}

the lugsail is diurnal.

{C}{bh}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the cubeb is diurnal. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is not an impression and does not grudge fluorescence is not right then it is not diurnal. sent2: the tagasaste is non-subsonic thing that is scalene. sent3: the tagasaste is not subsonic. sent4: the Tanzanian is diurnal. sent5: the cubeb culls surd if it is extrasensory. sent6: that that the tagasaste grudges fluorescence is not incorrect if the tagasaste is subsonic and it is scalene is not incorrect. sent7: the tagasaste grudges fluorescence if it is a kind of non-subsonic thing that is scalene. sent8: the fact that if that that the tagasaste is not a kind of an impression and/or does grudge fluorescence is not true hold the lugsail is diurnal is true. sent9: the lidar is not an impression but it is cytological. sent10: the cubeb is diurnal if the tagasaste is an impression. sent11: something is an impression if it grudges fluorescence. sent12: if the cubeb is scalene then it is diurnal. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the tagasaste does grudge fluorescence.; sent11 -> int2: if the tagasaste does grudge fluorescence it is an impression.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the tagasaste is a kind of an impression.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it does not transfer monotreme and does not devote Italian.

(Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: the kerchief does not devote Italian. sent2: there exists something such that it is numeral thing that does not grudge reggae. sent3: there exists something such that it does not devote Italian. sent4: the chiffonier is a toner if the grill is not comatose. sent5: the kerchief does not transfer monotreme and it does not devote Italian. sent6: something that is a toner is not an avail and not a tremolo. sent7: there exists something such that it is both not a newsworthiness and a given.

sent1: ¬{AB}{aa} sent2: (Ex): ({P}x & ¬{IC}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent4: ¬{B}{b} -> {A}{a} sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: (x): {A}x -> (¬{HS}x & ¬{FK}x) sent7: (Ex): (¬{BR}x & {CB}x)

something is not a kind of an avail and it is not a tremolo.

(Ex): (¬{HS}x & ¬{FK}x)

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it does not transfer monotreme and does not devote Italian. ; $context$ = sent1: the kerchief does not devote Italian. sent2: there exists something such that it is numeral thing that does not grudge reggae. sent3: there exists something such that it does not devote Italian. sent4: the chiffonier is a toner if the grill is not comatose. sent5: the kerchief does not transfer monotreme and it does not devote Italian. sent6: something that is a toner is not an avail and not a tremolo. sent7: there exists something such that it is both not a newsworthiness and a given. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the gasometer culls Italian.

{C}{b}

sent1: the phase culls Italian. sent2: that the gasometer is a Krupp is not false. sent3: the gasometer culls Italian if the takeaway is a Krupp. sent4: the takeaway does not cull Italian. sent5: the attache does not grudge Kerouac. sent6: the whitewash does not cull Italian but it is a kind of a uropygium. sent7: something does not grudge Belsen but it culls enophile if it is not transeunt. sent8: something is a Krupp if that it does not grudge Belsen and it does not cull Italian does not hold. sent9: the ianfu is a kind of non-renewable thing that is a kind of a Krupp. sent10: that the takeaway does not cull Italian but it does cull Cardiospermum is true. sent11: the fact that the GP does sit is right. sent12: that something does not grudge Belsen and does not cull Italian is incorrect if it does not cull enophile. sent13: the gasometer is not a neostigmine. sent14: the takeaway does not grudge Kerouac. sent15: if something is not a Krupp it does not cull Italian and does sit. sent16: that either the takeaway does not transfer lightweight or it is transeunt or both does not hold if the gasometer is not a neostigmine. sent17: the sugarberry is not proud but a Krupp. sent18: the Anglican culls Italian.

sent1: {C}{f} sent2: {B}{b} sent3: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent4: ¬{C}{a} sent5: ¬{I}{bs} sent6: (¬{C}{id} & {EE}{id}) sent7: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{D}x & {E}x) sent8: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) -> {B}x sent9: (¬{JB}{hf} & {B}{hf}) sent10: (¬{C}{a} & {DE}{a}) sent11: {A}{bd} sent12: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) sent13: ¬{H}{b} sent14: ¬{I}{a} sent15: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{C}x & {A}x) sent16: ¬{H}{b} -> ¬(¬{G}{a} v {F}{a}) sent17: (¬{EF}{gk} & {B}{gk}) sent18: {C}{bh}

the gasometer does not cull Italian.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the gasometer culls Italian. ; $context$ = sent1: the phase culls Italian. sent2: that the gasometer is a Krupp is not false. sent3: the gasometer culls Italian if the takeaway is a Krupp. sent4: the takeaway does not cull Italian. sent5: the attache does not grudge Kerouac. sent6: the whitewash does not cull Italian but it is a kind of a uropygium. sent7: something does not grudge Belsen but it culls enophile if it is not transeunt. sent8: something is a Krupp if that it does not grudge Belsen and it does not cull Italian does not hold. sent9: the ianfu is a kind of non-renewable thing that is a kind of a Krupp. sent10: that the takeaway does not cull Italian but it does cull Cardiospermum is true. sent11: the fact that the GP does sit is right. sent12: that something does not grudge Belsen and does not cull Italian is incorrect if it does not cull enophile. sent13: the gasometer is not a neostigmine. sent14: the takeaway does not grudge Kerouac. sent15: if something is not a Krupp it does not cull Italian and does sit. sent16: that either the takeaway does not transfer lightweight or it is transeunt or both does not hold if the gasometer is not a neostigmine. sent17: the sugarberry is not proud but a Krupp. sent18: the Anglican culls Italian. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the wirehair does grudge divarication.

{B}{a}

sent1: if something is not non-sericultural it grudges divarication. sent2: something does not organize but it does typeset if it does not transfer grub. sent3: the nonpartisan does not transfer grub if there is something such that it is not a kind of a hydrosphere and/or does not transfer grub. sent4: the smoothbark is Andalusian a tallness if the badger is not a consultation. sent5: the badger is not a consultation if the nonpartisan does not organize and does typeset. sent6: the wirehair is sericultural if there exists something such that the fact that it is non-ambulacral thing that does not regale is not right. sent7: either the gemfibrozil is not a kind of a hydrosphere or it does not transfer grub or both.

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

the wirehair does not grudge divarication.

¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the wirehair does grudge divarication. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not non-sericultural it grudges divarication. sent2: something does not organize but it does typeset if it does not transfer grub. sent3: the nonpartisan does not transfer grub if there is something such that it is not a kind of a hydrosphere and/or does not transfer grub. sent4: the smoothbark is Andalusian a tallness if the badger is not a consultation. sent5: the badger is not a consultation if the nonpartisan does not organize and does typeset. sent6: the wirehair is sericultural if there exists something such that the fact that it is non-ambulacral thing that does not regale is not right. sent7: either the gemfibrozil is not a kind of a hydrosphere or it does not transfer grub or both. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the wirehair grudges divarication if it is sericultural.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the pug is not nominalistic and it does not uphold.

(¬{B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa})

sent1: if the fact that something does not uphold but it is an exponential does not hold it is not a leeward. sent2: the fact that the pug is not nominalistic and does not uphold does not hold if it is not a student. sent3: that the fact that the pug is both not a leeward and a Salvador does not hold is not incorrect if there is something such that it is a kind of a student. sent4: something does not transfer pragmatic. sent5: if the pug is a kind of a leeward it is not nominalistic. sent6: the salter does not uphold or it is not an exponential or both if something does not transfer pragmatic. sent7: the salter upholds or it is not an exponential or both. sent8: if the salter does not uphold and/or it is not an exponential then the pug does not uphold. sent9: something is a student. sent10: if that something is not a leeward but a Salvador does not hold then it is not nominalistic.

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

that the pug is non-nominalistic thing that does not uphold is not correct.

¬(¬{B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pug is not nominalistic and it does not uphold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something does not uphold but it is an exponential does not hold it is not a leeward. sent2: the fact that the pug is not nominalistic and does not uphold does not hold if it is not a student. sent3: that the fact that the pug is both not a leeward and a Salvador does not hold is not incorrect if there is something such that it is a kind of a student. sent4: something does not transfer pragmatic. sent5: if the pug is a kind of a leeward it is not nominalistic. sent6: the salter does not uphold or it is not an exponential or both if something does not transfer pragmatic. sent7: the salter upholds or it is not an exponential or both. sent8: if the salter does not uphold and/or it is not an exponential then the pug does not uphold. sent9: something is a student. sent10: if that something is not a leeward but a Salvador does not hold then it is not nominalistic. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the pug is not nominalistic if that it is not leeward and it is a Salvador is incorrect.; sent9 & sent3 -> int2: that the pug is a kind of non-leeward a Salvador is false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pug is non-nominalistic.; sent4 & sent6 -> int4: the salter does not uphold and/or is not an exponential.; sent8 & int4 -> int5: the pug does not uphold.; int3 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the barbell is a drawing that grudges viscometry.

({C}{a} & {B}{a})

sent1: the tabard demises and is a potoroo if it is not nebulous. sent2: the watercress demises and it is nonarboreal. sent3: the barbell is not nebulous. sent4: if the collards is not an autoclave then it is Achaean and nonarboreal. sent5: the barbell grudges viscometry if the fact that the watercress does not transfer windmill or it is electromagnetic or both is false. sent6: the collards is a kind of a Achaean if something is either not an autoclave or a agglutinin or both. sent7: if something is not nebulous then it is a kind of a potoroo. sent8: something either does not demise or does not grudge viscometry or both if it draws. sent9: if there exists something such that it is nebulous then the tabard is a kind of a drawing that is a kind of a potoroo. sent10: there is something such that it either does not autoclave or is a agglutinin or both. sent11: the watercress does transfer windmill if it does demise. sent12: the collards does not autoclave. sent13: the watercress is nonarboreal. sent14: if the barbell is not nebulous then it is a potoroo. sent15: that the watercress transfers windmill is not false. sent16: if the barbell does not demise that the cue does not grudge Leontopodium or is electromagnetic or both is not correct. sent17: the fact that something does not transfer windmill or is electromagnetic or both is not true if it demises. sent18: if the collards is nonarboreal then it is nebulous. sent19: the barbell is a potoroo. sent20: if something does demise then that it does transfer windmill is correct.

sent1: ¬{E}{b} -> ({A}{b} & {D}{b}) sent2: ({A}{aa} & {F}{aa}) sent3: ¬{E}{a} sent4: ¬{H}{c} -> ({G}{c} & {F}{c}) sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{a} sent6: (x): (¬{H}x v {I}x) -> {G}{c} sent7: (x): ¬{E}x -> {D}x sent8: (x): {C}x -> (¬{A}x v ¬{B}x) sent9: (x): {E}x -> ({C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent10: (Ex): (¬{H}x v {I}x) sent11: {A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa} sent12: ¬{H}{c} sent13: {F}{aa} sent14: ¬{E}{a} -> {D}{a} sent15: {AA}{aa} sent16: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{CO}{jb} v {AB}{jb}) sent17: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent18: {F}{c} -> {E}{c} sent19: {D}{a} sent20: (x): {A}x -> {AA}x

that the cue does not grudge Leontopodium and/or is not non-electromagnetic does not hold.

¬(¬{CO}{jb} v {AB}{jb})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the barbell is a drawing that grudges viscometry. ; $context$ = sent1: the tabard demises and is a potoroo if it is not nebulous. sent2: the watercress demises and it is nonarboreal. sent3: the barbell is not nebulous. sent4: if the collards is not an autoclave then it is Achaean and nonarboreal. sent5: the barbell grudges viscometry if the fact that the watercress does not transfer windmill or it is electromagnetic or both is false. sent6: the collards is a kind of a Achaean if something is either not an autoclave or a agglutinin or both. sent7: if something is not nebulous then it is a kind of a potoroo. sent8: something either does not demise or does not grudge viscometry or both if it draws. sent9: if there exists something such that it is nebulous then the tabard is a kind of a drawing that is a kind of a potoroo. sent10: there is something such that it either does not autoclave or is a agglutinin or both. sent11: the watercress does transfer windmill if it does demise. sent12: the collards does not autoclave. sent13: the watercress is nonarboreal. sent14: if the barbell is not nebulous then it is a potoroo. sent15: that the watercress transfers windmill is not false. sent16: if the barbell does not demise that the cue does not grudge Leontopodium or is electromagnetic or both is not correct. sent17: the fact that something does not transfer windmill or is electromagnetic or both is not true if it demises. sent18: if the collards is nonarboreal then it is nebulous. sent19: the barbell is a potoroo. sent20: if something does demise then that it does transfer windmill is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent17 -> int1: that the watercress either does not transfer windmill or is electromagnetic or both is not correct if it does demise.; sent2 -> int2: the watercress does demise.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the watercress either does not transfer windmill or is electromagnetic or both is false.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: the barbell grudges viscometry.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the methamphetamine transfers bearer.

{D}{b}

sent1: everything does not teleport and it is not a scours. sent2: the salicylate does not devote pectin if there exists something such that that it is a phytotoxin and/or it is not veterinary is not true. sent3: that something is apologetics and it is a brocaded is wrong if it does not transfer bearer. sent4: if that the horsewhip does not lengthen and is a madrigalist does not hold it is not a brocaded. sent5: the methamphetamine is not Samoan if there exists something such that that it is both apologetics and a brocaded is not right. sent6: if something is not a brocaded then the fact that it is not apologetics and it is a Samoan is incorrect. sent7: if the fact that the salicylate does not devote pectin hold the chlorite does not transfer bearer and it is not aortal. sent8: that the horsewhip is not cytotoxic and is a madrigalist does not hold if the methamphetamine is not a Samoan. sent9: something does recriminate if it verbalizes. sent10: the fact that the rennin is a phytotoxin or it is not veterinary or both is not correct if the fetoprotein recriminates. sent11: something is voyeuristic and is a inamorata if it does not teleport. sent12: if the fact that the horsewhip is not apologetics but it is a Samoan does not hold then the methamphetamine transfers bearer. sent13: the horsewhip transfers bearer if the methamphetamine is a brocaded. sent14: that the Choctaw is not a subordination but it is a brocaded is not right if it is not a kind of a Trimorphodon. sent15: the fetoprotein verbalizes if the harpsichordist is voyeuristic. sent16: that the horsewhip does not lengthen but it is a kind of a madrigalist is false.

sent1: (x): (¬{M}x & ¬{N}x) sent2: (x): ¬({H}x v ¬{G}x) -> ¬{F}{d} sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({C}x & {B}x) sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: (x): ¬({C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}{b} sent6: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {A}x) sent7: ¬{F}{d} -> (¬{D}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) sent8: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬(¬{IT}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent9: (x): {J}x -> {I}x sent10: {I}{f} -> ¬({H}{e} v ¬{G}{e}) sent11: (x): ¬{M}x -> ({K}x & {L}x) sent12: ¬(¬{C}{a} & {A}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent13: {B}{b} -> {D}{a} sent14: ¬{FL}{bo} -> ¬(¬{HN}{bo} & {B}{bo}) sent15: {K}{g} -> {J}{f} sent16: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})

that the fact that the horsewhip is not cytotoxic but it is a madrigalist does not hold is right.

¬(¬{IT}{a} & {AB}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the methamphetamine transfers bearer. ; $context$ = sent1: everything does not teleport and it is not a scours. sent2: the salicylate does not devote pectin if there exists something such that that it is a phytotoxin and/or it is not veterinary is not true. sent3: that something is apologetics and it is a brocaded is wrong if it does not transfer bearer. sent4: if that the horsewhip does not lengthen and is a madrigalist does not hold it is not a brocaded. sent5: the methamphetamine is not Samoan if there exists something such that that it is both apologetics and a brocaded is not right. sent6: if something is not a brocaded then the fact that it is not apologetics and it is a Samoan is incorrect. sent7: if the fact that the salicylate does not devote pectin hold the chlorite does not transfer bearer and it is not aortal. sent8: that the horsewhip is not cytotoxic and is a madrigalist does not hold if the methamphetamine is not a Samoan. sent9: something does recriminate if it verbalizes. sent10: the fact that the rennin is a phytotoxin or it is not veterinary or both is not correct if the fetoprotein recriminates. sent11: something is voyeuristic and is a inamorata if it does not teleport. sent12: if the fact that the horsewhip is not apologetics but it is a Samoan does not hold then the methamphetamine transfers bearer. sent13: the horsewhip transfers bearer if the methamphetamine is a brocaded. sent14: that the Choctaw is not a subordination but it is a brocaded is not right if it is not a kind of a Trimorphodon. sent15: the fetoprotein verbalizes if the harpsichordist is voyeuristic. sent16: that the horsewhip does not lengthen but it is a kind of a madrigalist is false. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent16 -> int1: the horsewhip does not brocade.; sent6 -> int2: if the horsewhip is not a brocaded that it is a kind of non-apologetics thing that is a Samoan is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that that the horsewhip is not apologetics and is a Samoan is not false is incorrect.; int3 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the culling clasp and the maladroitness happens.

({C} & {A})

sent1: the renunciation happens if that the grudging bookmark but not the shaping occurs is incorrect. sent2: if the grudging Capitol does not occur then the punch-up occurs. sent3: the punch-up occurs. sent4: that the renunciation happens prevents the non-maladroitness. sent5: the devoting Rush and the viziership happens if the littering does not occur. sent6: the perithelialness and the transferring lather occurs. sent7: the grudging Capitol does not occur. sent8: that the culling clasp and the punch-up happens is right if the grudging Capitol does not occur. sent9: if the renunciation does not occur then that both the culling clasp and the maladroitness happens is wrong. sent10: if the devoting Rush occurs the punch-up happens but the grudging Capitol does not occur. sent11: if the maladroitness does not occur then the fact that the romaicness but not the terming occurs is wrong.

sent1: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent2: ¬{E} -> {D} sent3: {D} sent4: {B} -> {A} sent5: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent6: ({K} & {BI}) sent7: ¬{E} sent8: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {D}) sent9: ¬{B} -> ¬({C} & {A}) sent10: {F} -> ({D} & ¬{E}) sent11: ¬{A} -> ¬({EF} & ¬{GE})

that the romaicness but not the term happens does not hold.

¬({EF} & ¬{GE})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the culling clasp and the maladroitness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the renunciation happens if that the grudging bookmark but not the shaping occurs is incorrect. sent2: if the grudging Capitol does not occur then the punch-up occurs. sent3: the punch-up occurs. sent4: that the renunciation happens prevents the non-maladroitness. sent5: the devoting Rush and the viziership happens if the littering does not occur. sent6: the perithelialness and the transferring lather occurs. sent7: the grudging Capitol does not occur. sent8: that the culling clasp and the punch-up happens is right if the grudging Capitol does not occur. sent9: if the renunciation does not occur then that both the culling clasp and the maladroitness happens is wrong. sent10: if the devoting Rush occurs the punch-up happens but the grudging Capitol does not occur. sent11: if the maladroitness does not occur then the fact that the romaicness but not the terming occurs is wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent7 -> int1: the culling clasp occurs and the punch-up happens.; int1 -> int2: the culling clasp happens.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the heliosphere grudges Paton.

{A}{a}

sent1: the thylacine is not cruciferous if something does not tarnish but it does expire. sent2: if the fact that something does transfer thylacine but it does not cull Passion does not hold then it does grudge Paton. sent3: the heliosphere is a kind of a Yquem. sent4: something is not a kind of a tarnish but it does expire if that it does cull Dactylopterus is not wrong. sent5: something does cull tapestried and it is desirable if it is not cruciferous. sent6: the hagfish grudges Paton. sent7: if the thylacine culls tapestried the fact that the snowball does not cull Passion is right. sent8: if the snowball does not cull Passion the stippler transfers thylacine or it does not grudge Paton or both. sent9: the megilp does grudge Paton. sent10: if the snowball does not cull Passion then the stippler either does not transfer thylacine or does not grudge Paton or both. sent11: the deanery grudges Paton. sent12: the polygamist does grudge Paton. sent13: if that something does not cull Dactylopterus and is a Kandahar is not correct then it cull Dactylopterus. sent14: the heliosphere does grudge Paton. sent15: the fact that the lysozyme does not cull Dactylopterus but it is a Kandahar is not true if the seaway is not a cockchafer. sent16: The Paton does grudge heliosphere. sent17: the heliosphere is a kind of a paddlewheel. sent18: the seaway is not a cockchafer.

sent1: (x): (¬{H}x & {G}x) -> ¬{F}{d} sent2: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {A}x sent3: {BN}{a} sent4: (x): {I}x -> (¬{H}x & {G}x) sent5: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({D}x & {E}x) sent6: {A}{ae} sent7: {D}{d} -> ¬{C}{c} sent8: ¬{C}{c} -> ({B}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) sent9: {A}{ft} sent10: ¬{C}{c} -> (¬{B}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) sent11: {A}{di} sent12: {A}{ce} sent13: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & {K}x) -> {I}x sent14: {A}{a} sent15: ¬{J}{f} -> ¬(¬{I}{e} & {K}{e}) sent16: {AA}{aa} sent17: {CA}{a} sent18: ¬{J}{f}

the horticulturist grudges Paton.

{A}{bg}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the heliosphere grudges Paton. ; $context$ = sent1: the thylacine is not cruciferous if something does not tarnish but it does expire. sent2: if the fact that something does transfer thylacine but it does not cull Passion does not hold then it does grudge Paton. sent3: the heliosphere is a kind of a Yquem. sent4: something is not a kind of a tarnish but it does expire if that it does cull Dactylopterus is not wrong. sent5: something does cull tapestried and it is desirable if it is not cruciferous. sent6: the hagfish grudges Paton. sent7: if the thylacine culls tapestried the fact that the snowball does not cull Passion is right. sent8: if the snowball does not cull Passion the stippler transfers thylacine or it does not grudge Paton or both. sent9: the megilp does grudge Paton. sent10: if the snowball does not cull Passion then the stippler either does not transfer thylacine or does not grudge Paton or both. sent11: the deanery grudges Paton. sent12: the polygamist does grudge Paton. sent13: if that something does not cull Dactylopterus and is a Kandahar is not correct then it cull Dactylopterus. sent14: the heliosphere does grudge Paton. sent15: the fact that the lysozyme does not cull Dactylopterus but it is a Kandahar is not true if the seaway is not a cockchafer. sent16: The Paton does grudge heliosphere. sent17: the heliosphere is a kind of a paddlewheel. sent18: the seaway is not a cockchafer. ; $proof$ =

sent14 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the expedition does not occur and the transferring judgeship does not occur does not hold.

¬(¬{C} & ¬{D})

sent1: the disenfranchisement and the hoofing occurs. sent2: the expedition does not occur and the transferring judgeship does not occur if the disenfranchisement does not occur. sent3: if the hoofing happens then the fact that the expedition does not occur and the transferring judgeship does not occur is wrong. sent4: if the grudging bandstand happens that the transferring humectant does not occur and the patrioticness does not occur is not correct. sent5: if the carrot happens that the feint does not occur and the looping does not occur is not right. sent6: if the topographicalness occurs and the insufficientness occurs then the expedition does not occur. sent7: the disenfranchisement happens if the expedition does not occur and the hoofing does not occur. sent8: the fact that the excrescentness does not occur and the tremolo does not occur does not hold if the disenfranchisement occurs.

sent1: ({A} & {B}) sent2: ¬{A} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent3: {B} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent4: {FP} -> ¬(¬{BJ} & ¬{HU}) sent5: {GH} -> ¬(¬{ID} & ¬{JH}) sent6: ({E} & {F}) -> ¬{C} sent7: (¬{C} & ¬{B}) -> {A} sent8: {A} -> ¬(¬{BO} & ¬{AQ})

that the excrescentness does not occur and the tremolo does not occur does not hold.

¬(¬{BO} & ¬{AQ})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the expedition does not occur and the transferring judgeship does not occur does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the disenfranchisement and the hoofing occurs. sent2: the expedition does not occur and the transferring judgeship does not occur if the disenfranchisement does not occur. sent3: if the hoofing happens then the fact that the expedition does not occur and the transferring judgeship does not occur is wrong. sent4: if the grudging bandstand happens that the transferring humectant does not occur and the patrioticness does not occur is not correct. sent5: if the carrot happens that the feint does not occur and the looping does not occur is not right. sent6: if the topographicalness occurs and the insufficientness occurs then the expedition does not occur. sent7: the disenfranchisement happens if the expedition does not occur and the hoofing does not occur. sent8: the fact that the excrescentness does not occur and the tremolo does not occur does not hold if the disenfranchisement occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: that the hoofing occurs is correct.; int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it transfers spermatophyte and is Augustan.

(Ex): ({B}x & {C}x)

sent1: the behaviorist is a kind of a Watergate and it does transfer spermatophyte. sent2: something does transfer spermatophyte. sent3: there is something such that it is Augustan. sent4: if the fact that the behaviorist does not grudge styrax and does grudge prestige is incorrect it is Augustan. sent5: the fact that the behaviorist does not grudge styrax and grudges prestige does not hold.

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it transfers spermatophyte and is Augustan. ; $context$ = sent1: the behaviorist is a kind of a Watergate and it does transfer spermatophyte. sent2: something does transfer spermatophyte. sent3: there is something such that it is Augustan. sent4: if the fact that the behaviorist does not grudge styrax and does grudge prestige is incorrect it is Augustan. sent5: the fact that the behaviorist does not grudge styrax and grudges prestige does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the behaviorist transfers spermatophyte.; sent4 & sent5 -> int2: the behaviorist is not non-Augustan.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the behaviorist does transfer spermatophyte and it is Augustan.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that either the Paradise does disperse or it is adenoidal or both is false.

¬({C}{a} v {D}{a})

sent1: if that something does disperse and does not grudge shrimp is not correct then it grudges telephotograph. sent2: the Paradise does grudge telephotograph and grudges shrimp. sent3: something disperses if that it does grudge shrimp is correct. sent4: the king disperses. sent5: the Paradise does quit or does disperse or both.

sent1: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}x sent2: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent3: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent4: {C}{ds} sent5: ({L}{a} v {C}{a})

the waterspout grudges telephotograph.

{A}{aa}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that either the Paradise does disperse or it is adenoidal or both is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something does disperse and does not grudge shrimp is not correct then it grudges telephotograph. sent2: the Paradise does grudge telephotograph and grudges shrimp. sent3: something disperses if that it does grudge shrimp is correct. sent4: the king disperses. sent5: the Paradise does quit or does disperse or both. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the Paradise does grudge shrimp.; sent3 -> int2: the Paradise does disperse if it grudges shrimp.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the Paradise disperses is not wrong.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the nasturtium is not a hacek.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: that the nasturtium is a hacek and is a nyctophobia is false if it does not cull dockyard. sent2: something is not unsexy. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it does not exhale or it is unsexy or both is incorrect. sent4: there exists something such that it does not exhale and/or is unsexy. sent5: something is not a hacek and/or culls dockyard. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hacek and/or it culls dockyard is incorrect. sent7: if something is a kind of a club-head it is a icefall. sent8: the nasturtium is a hacek if the detractor culls dockyard. sent9: the nasturtium is a club-head. sent10: if the detractor does not cull nasturtium but it grudges pectin then it is not a nyctophobia. sent11: something is not a hacek if that it is a hacek and it is a nyctophobia does not hold. sent12: if there exists something such that that either it does not exhale or it is unsexy or both does not hold then the detractor does cull dockyard.

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

the arginine culls dockyard.

{A}{iq}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nasturtium is not a hacek. ; $context$ = sent1: that the nasturtium is a hacek and is a nyctophobia is false if it does not cull dockyard. sent2: something is not unsexy. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it does not exhale or it is unsexy or both is incorrect. sent4: there exists something such that it does not exhale and/or is unsexy. sent5: something is not a hacek and/or culls dockyard. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hacek and/or it culls dockyard is incorrect. sent7: if something is a kind of a club-head it is a icefall. sent8: the nasturtium is a hacek if the detractor culls dockyard. sent9: the nasturtium is a club-head. sent10: if the detractor does not cull nasturtium but it grudges pectin then it is not a nyctophobia. sent11: something is not a hacek if that it is a hacek and it is a nyctophobia does not hold. sent12: if there exists something such that that either it does not exhale or it is unsexy or both does not hold then the detractor does cull dockyard. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent12 -> int1: the detractor culls dockyard.; sent8 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the aviary does promenade.

{A}{a}

sent1: if the saury does not transfer humectant then it does not refrain. sent2: if there is something such that it does not transfer spectrogram and/or it does not transfer perfume then the PVA does not transfer perfume. sent3: if the PVA is a poltergeist the saury does not transfer humectant. sent4: if something does transfer humectant then that the efferent is a kind of a refrain that does not transfer humectant does not hold. sent5: everything is a newsworthiness and/or it is not a seine. sent6: the aviary does promenade if there is something such that it is a newsworthiness and/or not a seine. sent7: the PVA is a poltergeist and strengthens if it does not transfer perfume. sent8: the cyme does not transfer spectrogram and/or it does not transfer perfume. sent9: the efferent does not refrain if the fact that it is a refrain and it does not transfer humectant is not right. sent10: either everything culls drunk or it is not Ismaili or both. sent11: if something is not a promenade and/or is not a Yellowstone it is not a promenade. sent12: if there exists something such that it is not a refrain the fact that the Lidocaine does not cull spectrogram is not false. sent13: the fact that the Lidocaine does promenade if the efferent does cull spectrogram and is not a Yellowstone hold. sent14: the aviary is a promenade if something is not a seine.

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

that the aviary is a kind of a seine is not wrong.

{AB}{a}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the aviary does promenade. ; $context$ = sent1: if the saury does not transfer humectant then it does not refrain. sent2: if there is something such that it does not transfer spectrogram and/or it does not transfer perfume then the PVA does not transfer perfume. sent3: if the PVA is a poltergeist the saury does not transfer humectant. sent4: if something does transfer humectant then that the efferent is a kind of a refrain that does not transfer humectant does not hold. sent5: everything is a newsworthiness and/or it is not a seine. sent6: the aviary does promenade if there is something such that it is a newsworthiness and/or not a seine. sent7: the PVA is a poltergeist and strengthens if it does not transfer perfume. sent8: the cyme does not transfer spectrogram and/or it does not transfer perfume. sent9: the efferent does not refrain if the fact that it is a refrain and it does not transfer humectant is not right. sent10: either everything culls drunk or it is not Ismaili or both. sent11: if something is not a promenade and/or is not a Yellowstone it is not a promenade. sent12: if there exists something such that it is not a refrain the fact that the Lidocaine does not cull spectrogram is not false. sent13: the fact that the Lidocaine does promenade if the efferent does cull spectrogram and is not a Yellowstone hold. sent14: the aviary is a promenade if something is not a seine. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the island is a newsworthiness and/or not a seine.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it is a newsworthiness and/or it is not a seine.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the drain occurs.

{C}

sent1: that the one-hitter happens hold if the thermohydrometricness does not occur but the transferring fanjet happens. sent2: the Americanism occurs. sent3: the transferring fanjet occurs. sent4: the thermohydrometricness happens. sent5: the stringing happens. sent6: the draining does not occur if the transferring fanjet occurs and the thermohydrometricness happens.

sent1: (¬{B} & {A}) -> {GA} sent2: {EL} sent3: {A} sent4: {B} sent5: {CI} sent6: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C}

the one-hitter occurs.

{GA}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the drain occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the one-hitter happens hold if the thermohydrometricness does not occur but the transferring fanjet happens. sent2: the Americanism occurs. sent3: the transferring fanjet occurs. sent4: the thermohydrometricness happens. sent5: the stringing happens. sent6: the draining does not occur if the transferring fanjet occurs and the thermohydrometricness happens. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the transferring fanjet happens and the thermohydrometricness occurs.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that either the grudging lateen-rig does not occur or the cecalness happens or both is not right.

¬(¬{AA} v {AB})

sent1: the weave and the transferring Turkish happens. sent2: either the transferring penne or the carpentry or both happens. sent3: the flushing occurs. sent4: if the cecalness happens the weave does not occur. sent5: that the Kazakhstaniness does not occur and/or the culling Palaquium occurs is wrong. sent6: either the chuting does not occur or the transferring yielding occurs or both. sent7: if the non-Jesuiticalness and/or the odorousness occurs then the overdosing does not occur. sent8: the hatefulness happens. sent9: the antibacterialness happens. sent10: the sublunarness happens. sent11: if the nonmagneticness does not occur that the ecotourism does not occur is not wrong. sent12: the deductiveness does not occur. sent13: the clean occurs. sent14: the culling disinformation does not occur. sent15: the unevenness does not occur. sent16: the grudging Puffinus happens. sent17: the fact that the nonmetallicness occurs hold. sent18: if the culling disinformation does not occur the fact that the exclusive does not occur is right. sent19: that either the abscondment does not occur or the condescending occurs or both is incorrect. sent20: the rear and the voltage occurs.

sent1: ({B} & {A}) sent2: ({FJ} v {IH}) sent3: {FE} sent4: {AB} -> ¬{B} sent5: ¬(¬{JI} v {EA}) sent6: (¬{FS} v {BP}) sent7: (¬{JB} v {BU}) -> ¬{IN} sent8: {HA} sent9: {IT} sent10: {ER} sent11: ¬{HQ} -> ¬{JA} sent12: ¬{FU} sent13: {IP} sent14: ¬{CP} sent15: ¬{BG} sent16: {H} sent17: {GE} sent18: ¬{CP} -> ¬{II} sent19: ¬(¬{GL} v {BS}) sent20: ({HE} & {IK})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that either the grudging lateen-rig does not occur or the cecalness happens or both is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the weave and the transferring Turkish happens. sent2: either the transferring penne or the carpentry or both happens. sent3: the flushing occurs. sent4: if the cecalness happens the weave does not occur. sent5: that the Kazakhstaniness does not occur and/or the culling Palaquium occurs is wrong. sent6: either the chuting does not occur or the transferring yielding occurs or both. sent7: if the non-Jesuiticalness and/or the odorousness occurs then the overdosing does not occur. sent8: the hatefulness happens. sent9: the antibacterialness happens. sent10: the sublunarness happens. sent11: if the nonmagneticness does not occur that the ecotourism does not occur is not wrong. sent12: the deductiveness does not occur. sent13: the clean occurs. sent14: the culling disinformation does not occur. sent15: the unevenness does not occur. sent16: the grudging Puffinus happens. sent17: the fact that the nonmetallicness occurs hold. sent18: if the culling disinformation does not occur the fact that the exclusive does not occur is right. sent19: that either the abscondment does not occur or the condescending occurs or both is incorrect. sent20: the rear and the voltage occurs. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the grudging lateen-rig does not occur and/or the cecalness happens.; sent1 -> int1: the weave happens.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is not a spoonbill and does not travel.

(Ex): (¬{C}x & ¬{D}x)

sent1: the flurazepam is both not logistics and not a travel. sent2: something is logistics. sent3: there are annual things. sent4: there exists something such that that it is a fanjet hold. sent5: the HS1 is logistics. sent6: the psittacosaur does transfer zakat. sent7: the flurazepam does not travel. sent8: there exists something such that it is not a travel. sent9: there exists something such that it is not chalky. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a spoonbill and it is not logistics. sent11: that if the psittacosaur is a spoonbill then the flurazepam is not a kind of a spoonbill and it is not a travel hold. sent12: something is both not a homograft and larval. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a fanjet is true then the snowman is logistics. sent14: if the snowman is a kind of a travel then the flurazepam is not a kind of a travel and is not logistics. sent15: there exists something such that that it does not cull disconnection hold. sent16: if something is not a fanjet then it does not cull supersedure and it does not grudge unorthodoxy. sent17: if the psittacosaur is a kind of a spoonbill the snowman is not a spoonbill.

sent1: (¬{B}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent2: (Ex): {B}x sent3: (Ex): {CO}x sent4: (Ex): {A}x sent5: {B}{cd} sent6: {HS}{b} sent7: ¬{D}{c} sent8: (Ex): ¬{D}x sent9: (Ex): ¬{HF}x sent10: (Ex): (¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) sent11: {C}{b} -> (¬{C}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent12: (Ex): (¬{DQ}x & {GK}x) sent13: (x): {A}x -> {B}{a} sent14: {D}{a} -> (¬{D}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent15: (Ex): ¬{HA}x sent16: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{GS}x & ¬{IO}x) sent17: {C}{b} -> ¬{C}{a}

there exists something such that it does not cull supersedure and does not grudge unorthodoxy.

(Ex): (¬{GS}x & ¬{IO}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = something is not a spoonbill and does not travel. ; $context$ = sent1: the flurazepam is both not logistics and not a travel. sent2: something is logistics. sent3: there are annual things. sent4: there exists something such that that it is a fanjet hold. sent5: the HS1 is logistics. sent6: the psittacosaur does transfer zakat. sent7: the flurazepam does not travel. sent8: there exists something such that it is not a travel. sent9: there exists something such that it is not chalky. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a spoonbill and it is not logistics. sent11: that if the psittacosaur is a spoonbill then the flurazepam is not a kind of a spoonbill and it is not a travel hold. sent12: something is both not a homograft and larval. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a fanjet is true then the snowman is logistics. sent14: if the snowman is a kind of a travel then the flurazepam is not a kind of a travel and is not logistics. sent15: there exists something such that that it does not cull disconnection hold. sent16: if something is not a fanjet then it does not cull supersedure and it does not grudge unorthodoxy. sent17: if the psittacosaur is a kind of a spoonbill the snowman is not a spoonbill. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent13 -> int1: that the snowman is logistics hold.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the pickaninny is not a response.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: if the CPU is Panhellenic then the pickaninny is a kind of a response. sent2: if the syncopator is a kind of a response then the pickaninny does google. sent3: there exists nothing such that it does not google and is a variate. sent4: if the CPU is Panhellenic the pickaninny googles. sent5: the CPU is a variate. sent6: the syncopator is Panhellenic if the fact that the CPU does not google and is a response is not true. sent7: there is nothing such that it does grudge primo and is a kind of a Bush. sent8: there exists nothing such that it is a response and is Panhellenic. sent9: there exists nothing that does not google and is Panhellenic. sent10: the boiling is a variate. sent11: the fact that there is nothing that is not a cockatoo and grudges tenantry hold. sent12: there is nothing that is not a variate but Panhellenic. sent13: the CPU is a variate if the fact that the syncopator is not Panhellenic is not right. sent14: the capercaillie is a response. sent15: there is nothing such that it is a kind of non-resolute thing that is a newsagent. sent16: that the CPU is not violent but it googles does not hold. sent17: the pickaninny is Panhellenic if the CPU is a response. sent18: the CPU is Panhellenic if the syncopator is not a variate. sent19: the CPU is not non-Panhellenic if that the syncopator does not google but it is a variate is not correct.

sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent2: {B}{aa} -> {AA}{b} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: {A}{a} -> {AA}{b} sent5: {AB}{a} sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {A}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬({HQ}x & {Q}x) sent8: (x): ¬({B}x & {A}x) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {A}x) sent10: {AB}{p} sent11: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {DU}x) sent12: (x): ¬(¬{AB}x & {A}x) sent13: {A}{aa} -> {AB}{a} sent14: {B}{bi} sent15: (x): ¬(¬{CQ}x & {DH}x) sent16: ¬(¬{GG}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent17: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent18: ¬{AB}{aa} -> {A}{a} sent19: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {A}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the pickaninny is not a response. ; $context$ = sent1: if the CPU is Panhellenic then the pickaninny is a kind of a response. sent2: if the syncopator is a kind of a response then the pickaninny does google. sent3: there exists nothing such that it does not google and is a variate. sent4: if the CPU is Panhellenic the pickaninny googles. sent5: the CPU is a variate. sent6: the syncopator is Panhellenic if the fact that the CPU does not google and is a response is not true. sent7: there is nothing such that it does grudge primo and is a kind of a Bush. sent8: there exists nothing such that it is a response and is Panhellenic. sent9: there exists nothing that does not google and is Panhellenic. sent10: the boiling is a variate. sent11: the fact that there is nothing that is not a cockatoo and grudges tenantry hold. sent12: there is nothing that is not a variate but Panhellenic. sent13: the CPU is a variate if the fact that the syncopator is not Panhellenic is not right. sent14: the capercaillie is a response. sent15: there is nothing such that it is a kind of non-resolute thing that is a newsagent. sent16: that the CPU is not violent but it googles does not hold. sent17: the pickaninny is Panhellenic if the CPU is a response. sent18: the CPU is Panhellenic if the syncopator is not a variate. sent19: the CPU is not non-Panhellenic if that the syncopator does not google but it is a variate is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the fact that the syncopator does not google but it is a variate is false.; sent19 & int1 -> int2: the CPU is Panhellenic.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the grudging dispute does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: that both the estivating and the grudging dispute happens is brought about by that the transferring bounce does not occur. sent2: if the finalization does not occur and the unilateralness does not occur the avoiding occurs. sent3: the inelegantness does not occur. sent4: that the grudging dispute happens is brought about by that the inelegantness does not occur and the estivating does not occur. sent5: the grudging Mysidae does not occur if the mutant occurs. sent6: that the transferring bounce does not occur and the lockage occurs is brought about by the broadcasting. sent7: if the estivating happens then the inelegantness does not occur and the linealness does not occur. sent8: the estivating does not occur. sent9: the broadcast happens if the grudging Mysidae does not occur.

sent1: ¬{D} -> ({B} & {C}) sent2: (¬{HD} & ¬{HL}) -> {DK} sent3: ¬{A} sent4: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> {C} sent5: {H} -> ¬{G} sent6: {F} -> (¬{D} & {E}) sent7: {B} -> (¬{A} & ¬{JD}) sent8: ¬{B} sent9: ¬{G} -> {F}

the linealness does not occur.

¬{JD}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the grudging dispute does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that both the estivating and the grudging dispute happens is brought about by that the transferring bounce does not occur. sent2: if the finalization does not occur and the unilateralness does not occur the avoiding occurs. sent3: the inelegantness does not occur. sent4: that the grudging dispute happens is brought about by that the inelegantness does not occur and the estivating does not occur. sent5: the grudging Mysidae does not occur if the mutant occurs. sent6: that the transferring bounce does not occur and the lockage occurs is brought about by the broadcasting. sent7: if the estivating happens then the inelegantness does not occur and the linealness does not occur. sent8: the estivating does not occur. sent9: the broadcast happens if the grudging Mysidae does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent8 -> int1: the inelegantness does not occur and the estivating does not occur.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the clerk is non-appetitive.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: the maltha is a rank or is not a unevenness or both. sent2: if the maltha is a rank the engraver is protozoal. sent3: the fact that the engraver is protozoal is true if the maltha is not a kind of a unevenness. sent4: either the clerk is appetitive or it is not a kind of a rank or both. sent5: that something is a kind of a unevenness hold if it ranks and it is not protozoal. sent6: if the maltha is not protozoal the engraver does rank. sent7: if the engraver is protozoal then the clerk is appetitive.

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

the gallstone is a unevenness.

{B}{cp}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the clerk is non-appetitive. ; $context$ = sent1: the maltha is a rank or is not a unevenness or both. sent2: if the maltha is a rank the engraver is protozoal. sent3: the fact that the engraver is protozoal is true if the maltha is not a kind of a unevenness. sent4: either the clerk is appetitive or it is not a kind of a rank or both. sent5: that something is a kind of a unevenness hold if it ranks and it is not protozoal. sent6: if the maltha is not protozoal the engraver does rank. sent7: if the engraver is protozoal then the clerk is appetitive. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the engraver is protozoal is not wrong.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the swiftlet is a kind of a fascist and/or is unlawful.

({C}{b} v {D}{b})

sent1: the rip is not a kind of a substitution. sent2: the rip is not a terrorization and it is not a kind of a tested. sent3: the aftereffect is fascist. sent4: the swiftlet is a kind of a substitution. sent5: that the swiftlet is not outer hold. sent6: the rip is a detractor. sent7: the tripalmitin is not professional and it is not outer. sent8: there exists something such that that it is not a Afro-wig and it is not an octillion does not hold. sent9: the swiftlet is a kind of a substitution and/or it is unlawful. sent10: that the swiftlet is outer hold if the rip is both not fascist and not unlawful. sent11: the swiftlet does not grumble and it is not angry. sent12: either the rip is a substitution or it is unlawful or both. sent13: if the rip is not a substitution and it is not outer then the swiftlet is fascist. sent14: the thorium is not outer. sent15: the rip is not a fascist. sent16: the rip is not febrile.

sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: (¬{GQ}{a} & ¬{CJ}{a}) sent3: {C}{am} sent4: {A}{b} sent5: ¬{B}{b} sent6: {O}{a} sent7: (¬{HM}{dp} & ¬{B}{dp}) sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{G}x & ¬{F}x) sent9: ({A}{b} v {D}{b}) sent10: (¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent11: (¬{HE}{b} & ¬{AU}{b}) sent12: ({A}{a} v {D}{a}) sent13: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {C}{b} sent14: ¬{B}{cu} sent15: ¬{C}{a} sent16: ¬{E}{a}

that that the swiftlet is fascist and/or unlawful is incorrect is right.

¬({C}{b} v {D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the swiftlet is a kind of a fascist and/or is unlawful. ; $context$ = sent1: the rip is not a kind of a substitution. sent2: the rip is not a terrorization and it is not a kind of a tested. sent3: the aftereffect is fascist. sent4: the swiftlet is a kind of a substitution. sent5: that the swiftlet is not outer hold. sent6: the rip is a detractor. sent7: the tripalmitin is not professional and it is not outer. sent8: there exists something such that that it is not a Afro-wig and it is not an octillion does not hold. sent9: the swiftlet is a kind of a substitution and/or it is unlawful. sent10: that the swiftlet is outer hold if the rip is both not fascist and not unlawful. sent11: the swiftlet does not grumble and it is not angry. sent12: either the rip is a substitution or it is unlawful or both. sent13: if the rip is not a substitution and it is not outer then the swiftlet is fascist. sent14: the thorium is not outer. sent15: the rip is not a fascist. sent16: the rip is not febrile. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it does not transfer sixteenth then that it does not refine and is a kind of a fortuitousness does not hold.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a Schwarzwald then that it is non-atrial thing that is a deference is not true. sent2: that the pangolin is not a gargle but endoscopic is not correct if it is firmamental. sent3: there is something such that if it is not agreeable then it is not a probenecid and it is a Musophagidae. sent4: the fact that the pangolin does not refine and is a fortuitousness does not hold if it does not transfer sixteenth. sent5: if something is not livable then the fact that it is not an experimenter and is a caparisoned is wrong. sent6: if the world does refine the fact that it is both not a Dimorphotheca and livable is not true. sent7: if something is not prolix the fact that it is not a kind of a Africander and it culls Cuminum does not hold. sent8: there is something such that if it does grudge counterpoint that it is non-cubital thing that is nonsteroidal is not correct. sent9: there is something such that if it is not a Dolichonyx then the fact that it does not transfer vocabulary and is a hyperkalemia is not right. sent10: if the pangolin does not transfer sixteenth it does not refine and it is a fortuitousness. sent11: there is something such that if it is not nonmigratory then it is not endoscopic and it does grudge world.

sent1: (Ex): ¬{IP}x -> ¬(¬{IO}x & {G}x) sent2: {DH}{aa} -> ¬(¬{JA}{aa} & {JF}{aa}) sent3: (Ex): ¬{BU}x -> (¬{IN}x & {Q}x) sent4: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent5: (x): ¬{BN}x -> ¬(¬{DU}x & {AO}x) sent6: {AA}{ia} -> ¬(¬{M}{ia} & {BN}{ia}) sent7: (x): ¬{DO}x -> ¬(¬{GS}x & {HA}x) sent8: (Ex): {HI}x -> ¬(¬{JE}x & {AM}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬{ED}x -> ¬(¬{GF}x & {GA}x) sent10: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent11: (Ex): ¬{T}x -> (¬{JF}x & {CI}x)

there is something such that if it is not prolix the fact that it is not a Africander and does cull Cuminum is not true.

(Ex): ¬{DO}x -> ¬(¬{GS}x & {HA}x)

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it does not transfer sixteenth then that it does not refine and is a kind of a fortuitousness does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a Schwarzwald then that it is non-atrial thing that is a deference is not true. sent2: that the pangolin is not a gargle but endoscopic is not correct if it is firmamental. sent3: there is something such that if it is not agreeable then it is not a probenecid and it is a Musophagidae. sent4: the fact that the pangolin does not refine and is a fortuitousness does not hold if it does not transfer sixteenth. sent5: if something is not livable then the fact that it is not an experimenter and is a caparisoned is wrong. sent6: if the world does refine the fact that it is both not a Dimorphotheca and livable is not true. sent7: if something is not prolix the fact that it is not a kind of a Africander and it culls Cuminum does not hold. sent8: there is something such that if it does grudge counterpoint that it is non-cubital thing that is nonsteroidal is not correct. sent9: there is something such that if it is not a Dolichonyx then the fact that it does not transfer vocabulary and is a hyperkalemia is not right. sent10: if the pangolin does not transfer sixteenth it does not refine and it is a fortuitousness. sent11: there is something such that if it is not nonmigratory then it is not endoscopic and it does grudge world. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that something is a kind of postal a Service hold.

(Ex): ({C}x & {B}x)

sent1: there is something such that it does grudge Afroasiatic and does devote dihybrid. sent2: the alcoholic is postal if there is something such that that it does grudge Afroasiatic and devotes dihybrid is not correct. sent3: there is something such that the fact that the fact that it grudges Afroasiatic and it does devote dihybrid is not false is false. sent4: if the protease is not a paralytic then the fact that the alcoholic is not non-lumbar but a Cladonia does not hold. sent5: the fact that the alcoholic is a Service is right if it is not non-paralytic. sent6: the alcoholic is postal if something does not grudge Afroasiatic. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is deconstructionist is correct. sent8: that the alcoholic is a kind of a paralytic is true. sent9: there is something such that it is postal. sent10: that the rennin is postal and it is a Service is not true if something does devote dihybrid. sent11: there exists something such that it is a Service.

sent1: (Ex): ({E}x & {D}x) sent2: (x): ¬({E}x & {D}x) -> {C}{a} sent3: (Ex): ¬({E}x & {D}x) sent4: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({HH}{a} & {DD}{a}) sent5: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent6: (x): ¬{E}x -> {C}{a} sent7: (Ex): {DO}x sent8: {A}{a} sent9: (Ex): {C}x sent10: (x): {D}x -> ¬({C}{c} & {B}{c}) sent11: (Ex): {B}x

there is something such that the fact that it is both not non-lumbar and a Cladonia is not correct.

(Ex): ¬({HH}x & {DD}x)

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that something is a kind of postal a Service hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it does grudge Afroasiatic and does devote dihybrid. sent2: the alcoholic is postal if there is something such that that it does grudge Afroasiatic and devotes dihybrid is not correct. sent3: there is something such that the fact that the fact that it grudges Afroasiatic and it does devote dihybrid is not false is false. sent4: if the protease is not a paralytic then the fact that the alcoholic is not non-lumbar but a Cladonia does not hold. sent5: the fact that the alcoholic is a Service is right if it is not non-paralytic. sent6: the alcoholic is postal if something does not grudge Afroasiatic. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is deconstructionist is correct. sent8: that the alcoholic is a kind of a paralytic is true. sent9: there is something such that it is postal. sent10: that the rennin is postal and it is a Service is not true if something does devote dihybrid. sent11: there exists something such that it is a Service. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent8 -> int1: the alcoholic is a Service.; sent3 & sent2 -> int2: the alcoholic is postal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the alcoholic is a kind of postal thing that is a kind of a Service.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the dragee is a syrup or a crying or both.

({A}{aa} v {C}{aa})

sent1: the dragee is a Romulus and/or is a willingness. sent2: either the dragee is a pang or it is a syrup or both. sent3: the dragee is a Romulus. sent4: if something is not a sport it is not polyatomic. sent5: everything is western. sent6: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a transcendentalism that does not cull skipper is not correct then the fact that the mulatto is a syrup is not wrong. sent7: the jackscrew is a syrup. sent8: if the presence is not polyatomic that the adsorption is a kind of a transcendentalism and does not cull skipper is not true. sent9: the presence does cull nark. sent10: if something does cull nark it is not nonsurgical and it is not a sport. sent11: that everything is a Romulus is right. sent12: the fact that either the dragee is a Romulus or it is a Conepatus or both is not wrong. sent13: the eschatologist is a syrup. sent14: if the mulatto is a syrup then that the position is not a kind of a Romulus but it cries is wrong. sent15: the dragee is either a crying or nonreversible or both. sent16: everything is a Best and it is a kind of a ratline. sent17: that something is a kind of a syrup and/or it is a kind of a crying is not correct if it is not a Romulus.

sent1: ({B}{aa} v {DP}{aa}) sent2: ({IQ}{aa} v {A}{aa}) sent3: {B}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬{F}x sent5: (x): {DU}x sent6: (x): ¬({D}x & ¬{E}x) -> {A}{b} sent7: {A}{be} sent8: ¬{F}{d} -> ¬({D}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) sent9: {I}{d} sent10: (x): {I}x -> (¬{H}x & ¬{G}x) sent11: (x): {B}x sent12: ({B}{aa} v {GB}{aa}) sent13: {A}{do} sent14: {A}{b} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent15: ({C}{aa} v {HA}{aa}) sent16: (x): ({AK}x & {HO}x) sent17: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x v {C}x)

the fact that the dragee is a kind of a syrup or it cries or both is not correct.

¬({A}{aa} v {C}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dragee is a syrup or a crying or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the dragee is a Romulus and/or is a willingness. sent2: either the dragee is a pang or it is a syrup or both. sent3: the dragee is a Romulus. sent4: if something is not a sport it is not polyatomic. sent5: everything is western. sent6: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a transcendentalism that does not cull skipper is not correct then the fact that the mulatto is a syrup is not wrong. sent7: the jackscrew is a syrup. sent8: if the presence is not polyatomic that the adsorption is a kind of a transcendentalism and does not cull skipper is not true. sent9: the presence does cull nark. sent10: if something does cull nark it is not nonsurgical and it is not a sport. sent11: that everything is a Romulus is right. sent12: the fact that either the dragee is a Romulus or it is a Conepatus or both is not wrong. sent13: the eschatologist is a syrup. sent14: if the mulatto is a syrup then that the position is not a kind of a Romulus but it cries is wrong. sent15: the dragee is either a crying or nonreversible or both. sent16: everything is a Best and it is a kind of a ratline. sent17: that something is a kind of a syrup and/or it is a kind of a crying is not correct if it is not a Romulus. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the override does transfer grinding.

{C}{a}

sent1: if there exists something such that either it does not transfer calvary or it is not a renewal or both then that the override culls paperwork is not wrong. sent2: if something either is argumentative or does cull paperwork or both then it does not transfer grinding. sent3: something that is a nutriment and/or a jolt is not upper-class. sent4: there exists something such that it does not transfer calvary or is not a renewal or both. sent5: the Brioschi is not a wrecked.

sent1: (x): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent2: (x): ({B}x v {A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: (x): ({FE}x v {AP}x) -> ¬{FC}x sent4: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent5: ¬{E}{b}

that the override does transfer grinding is true.

{C}{a}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the override does transfer grinding. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that either it does not transfer calvary or it is not a renewal or both then that the override culls paperwork is not wrong. sent2: if something either is argumentative or does cull paperwork or both then it does not transfer grinding. sent3: something that is a nutriment and/or a jolt is not upper-class. sent4: there exists something such that it does not transfer calvary or is not a renewal or both. sent5: the Brioschi is not a wrecked. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent1 -> int1: the override culls paperwork.; int1 -> int2: the override is argumentative and/or does cull paperwork.; sent2 -> int3: if that the override is argumentative and/or it does cull paperwork is not false it does not transfer grinding.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the sideburn is radial-ply.

{A}{a}

sent1: something is not radial-ply if it is not infallible. sent2: the sideburn is not a Qum. sent3: the sideburn is a shearer. sent4: that the headhunter is both not metrological and not a charlatanism is not correct. sent5: the sideburn is radial-ply if the fact that the kangaroo is not a surgery is correct. sent6: the sideburn is not a 1530s. sent7: the sideburn does not grudge sixteenth. sent8: something is not a Ibadan if it does not cull sixteenth. sent9: the indomethacin is not a surgery. sent10: the Arabist is not radial-ply. sent11: something is not a surgery if it is not infallible. sent12: the pro-lifer is infallible. sent13: the blolly does not assume if it is not metrological and it is not a discretion. sent14: if the fact that the headhunter is not metrological and is not a charlatanism is not true then the blolly is not metrological. sent15: if the sideburn is not infallible then the kangaroo is radial-ply. sent16: if something is not a surgery it is not radial-ply. sent17: if something does not assume then the fact that it grudges kangaroo and it is a surgery does not hold. sent18: the kangaroo is radial-ply if the sideburn is not a surgery. sent19: the kangaroo is not infallible. sent20: the imitation is not a discretion and/or it is not a Orangeman. sent21: a non-epidemiologic thing is not anatropous.

sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{A}x sent2: ¬{EQ}{a} sent3: {AQ}{a} sent4: ¬(¬{G}{e} & ¬{I}{e}) sent5: ¬{C}{aa} -> {A}{a} sent6: ¬{AJ}{a} sent7: ¬{Q}{a} sent8: (x): ¬{FO}x -> ¬{IJ}x sent9: ¬{C}{ak} sent10: ¬{A}{fg} sent11: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x sent12: {B}{g} sent13: (¬{G}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) -> ¬{E}{c} sent14: ¬(¬{G}{e} & ¬{I}{e}) -> ¬{G}{c} sent15: ¬{B}{a} -> {A}{aa} sent16: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{A}x sent17: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({D}x & {C}x) sent18: ¬{C}{a} -> {A}{aa} sent19: ¬{B}{aa} sent20: (¬{F}{d} v ¬{H}{d}) sent21: (x): ¬{FG}x -> ¬{HS}x

the sideburn is not radial-ply.

¬{A}{a}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sideburn is radial-ply. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not radial-ply if it is not infallible. sent2: the sideburn is not a Qum. sent3: the sideburn is a shearer. sent4: that the headhunter is both not metrological and not a charlatanism is not correct. sent5: the sideburn is radial-ply if the fact that the kangaroo is not a surgery is correct. sent6: the sideburn is not a 1530s. sent7: the sideburn does not grudge sixteenth. sent8: something is not a Ibadan if it does not cull sixteenth. sent9: the indomethacin is not a surgery. sent10: the Arabist is not radial-ply. sent11: something is not a surgery if it is not infallible. sent12: the pro-lifer is infallible. sent13: the blolly does not assume if it is not metrological and it is not a discretion. sent14: if the fact that the headhunter is not metrological and is not a charlatanism is not true then the blolly is not metrological. sent15: if the sideburn is not infallible then the kangaroo is radial-ply. sent16: if something is not a surgery it is not radial-ply. sent17: if something does not assume then the fact that it grudges kangaroo and it is a surgery does not hold. sent18: the kangaroo is radial-ply if the sideburn is not a surgery. sent19: the kangaroo is not infallible. sent20: the imitation is not a discretion and/or it is not a Orangeman. sent21: a non-epidemiologic thing is not anatropous. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> int1: the kangaroo is not a surgery if it is not infallible.; int1 & sent19 -> int2: the kangaroo is not a surgery.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__