hypothesis stringlengths 11 177 | context stringlengths 0 2.71k | hypothesis_formula stringlengths 3 35 | context_formula stringlengths 0 865 | proofs list | proof_label stringclasses 3
values | proofs_formula list | world_assump_label stringclasses 3
values | original_tree_depth int64 1 4 | depth int64 1 3 ⌀ | num_formula_distractors int64 0 22 | num_translation_distractors int64 0 0 | num_all_distractors int64 0 22 | negative_hypothesis stringlengths 15 158 ⌀ | negative_hypothesis_formula stringlengths 3 37 ⌀ | negative_original_tree_depth int64 0 25 ⌀ | negative_proofs list | negative_proof_label stringclasses 2
values | negative_world_assump_label stringclasses 2
values | prompt_serial stringlengths 99 2.85k | proof_serial stringlengths 11 654 | version stringclasses 1
value | premise stringlengths 0 188 | assumptions list | paraphrased_premises list | paraphrased_premise stringlengths 0 753 | assumption stringlengths 0 200 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
the twitterer does not jell inutility. | sent1: the Oregonian forecloses. sent2: something does not miscarry if it is an orthodontist. sent3: the introitus does not approximate if that it is both not a bronco and a hastiness is not correct. sent4: the Oregonian is an orthodontist and forecloses. sent5: if something is not surgical then it is a chlorofucin and... | ¬{B}{a} | sent1: {D}{aa} sent2: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}x sent3: ¬(¬{G}{b} & {F}{b}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent4: ({A}{aa} & {D}{aa}) sent5: (x): ¬{J}x -> ({I}x & {H}x) sent6: (x): (¬{E}x v ¬{D}x) -> ¬{D}x sent7: (x): (¬{L}x & ¬{K}x) -> ¬{J}x sent8: {H}{c} -> ¬(¬{G}{b} & {F}{b}) sent9: (x): (¬{L}x & ¬{K}x) | [
"sent2 -> int1: if the Oregonian is an orthodontist then it does not miscarry.; sent4 -> int2: the Oregonian is an orthodontist.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Oregonian does not miscarry.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent2 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa}; sent4 -> int2: {A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{C}{aa};"
] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 | the twitterer does jell inutility. | {B}{a} | 14 | [
"sent9 -> int4: the fiduciary does not tuck sloping and it does not scrabble discernability.; sent7 -> int5: that if the fact that the fiduciary does not tuck sloping and it does not scrabble discernability is correct then the fiduciary is not surgical is not incorrect.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the fiduciary is nonsur... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the twitterer does not jell inutility. ; $context$ = sent1: the Oregonian forecloses. sent2: something does not miscarry if it is an orthodontist. sent3: the introitus does not approximate if that it is both not a bronco and a hastiness is not correct. sent4: the Oregonian is an orthodontist and foreclos... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | something does not miscarry if it is an orthodontist. | [
"the Oregonian is an orthodontist and forecloses."
] | [
"something does not miscarry if it is an orthodontist."
] | something does not miscarry if it is an orthodontist. | the Oregonian is an orthodontist and forecloses. |
the cuticle is not a Greece. | sent1: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a salp or does not abuse Okinawa or both the cuticle does not abuse Okinawa. sent2: if that either something does scrabble strip or it is a Kurdish or both is not right it is not a buffet. sent3: the cuticle is a kind of a gravity and it is a salp. sent4: t... | ¬{A}{a} | sent1: (x): (¬{D}x v ¬{B}x) -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: (x): ¬({L}x v {M}x) -> ¬{F}x sent3: ({C}{a} & {D}{a}) sent4: {D}{a} sent5: ¬{N}{e} sent6: (x): ({P}x & ¬{Q}x) sent7: {F}{d} -> ¬({E}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent8: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent9: (x): {I}x -> (¬{G}x & {H}x) sent10: (¬{F}{e} & {H}{e}) -> {F}{d} sent11: (x): ({P}... | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cuticle is a kind of a Greece.; assump1 & sent14 -> int1: the cuticle is a Greece and it abuses Okinawa.; sent3 -> int2: the fact that the cuticle is a kind of a gravity is correct.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; assump1 & sent14 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); sent3 -> int2: {C}{a};"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 16 | 0 | 16 | the cuticle is a nod and it is a kind of a salp. | ({BI}{a} & {D}{a}) | 5 | [
"sent15 -> int3: the cuticle does nod and it is a Greece if it does not abuse Okinawa.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the cuticle is not a Greece. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a salp or does not abuse Okinawa or both the cuticle does not abuse Okinawa. sent2: if that either something does scrabble strip or it is a Kurdish or both is not right it is not a buffet. sent3: the... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the cuticle abuses Okinawa. | [
"the cuticle is a kind of a gravity and it is a salp."
] | [
"the cuticle abuses Okinawa."
] | the cuticle abuses Okinawa. | the cuticle is a kind of a gravity and it is a salp. |
the scrabbling breadth does not occur. | sent1: that the territoriality but not the abusing insidiousness occurs does not hold if the hailstorm does not occur. sent2: both the mineralness and the scrabbling lapin happens if the interconnection does not occur. sent3: the fact that the scrabbling chartreuse happens but the intrapulmonariness does not occur is n... | ¬{B} | sent1: ¬{E} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D}) sent2: ¬{P} -> ({K} & {O}) sent3: ¬{BM} -> ¬({H} & ¬{BE}) sent4: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent5: (¬{N} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{L} sent6: ¬({C} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent8: ¬{C} -> ({B} & {A}) sent9: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{A} v ¬{B}) sent10: (¬{G} v {I}) -> ¬{G} sent11: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{... | [
"sent7 & sent18 -> int1: that the noncollapsibleness happens but the baffle does not occur is not correct.; sent11 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent7 & sent18 -> int1: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}); sent11 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 16 | the scrabbling breadth happens. | {B} | 14 | [
"sent2 & sent12 -> int2: the mineralness occurs and the scrabbling lapin happens.; int2 -> int3: the mineralness occurs.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the scrabbling breadth does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the territoriality but not the abusing insidiousness occurs does not hold if the hailstorm does not occur. sent2: both the mineralness and the scrabbling lapin happens if the interconnection does not occur. sent3: the fact that the scrabbli... | sent7 & sent18 -> int1: that the noncollapsibleness happens but the baffle does not occur is not correct.; sent11 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the phosphorousness does not occur then that the noncollapsibleness occurs and the baffle does not occur is incorrect. | [
"the phosphorousness does not occur.",
"the scrabbling breadth does not occur if that the noncollapsibleness but not the baffle happens does not hold."
] | [
"The noncollapsibleness is incorrect if the phosphorousness doesn't occur.",
"The noncollapsibleness is incorrect if the phosphorousness does not occur."
] | The noncollapsibleness is incorrect if the phosphorousness doesn't occur. | the phosphorousness does not occur. |
the scrabbling breadth does not occur. | sent1: that the territoriality but not the abusing insidiousness occurs does not hold if the hailstorm does not occur. sent2: both the mineralness and the scrabbling lapin happens if the interconnection does not occur. sent3: the fact that the scrabbling chartreuse happens but the intrapulmonariness does not occur is n... | ¬{B} | sent1: ¬{E} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D}) sent2: ¬{P} -> ({K} & {O}) sent3: ¬{BM} -> ¬({H} & ¬{BE}) sent4: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent5: (¬{N} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{L} sent6: ¬({C} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent8: ¬{C} -> ({B} & {A}) sent9: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{A} v ¬{B}) sent10: (¬{G} v {I}) -> ¬{G} sent11: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{... | [
"sent7 & sent18 -> int1: that the noncollapsibleness happens but the baffle does not occur is not correct.; sent11 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent7 & sent18 -> int1: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}); sent11 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 16 | the scrabbling breadth happens. | {B} | 14 | [
"sent2 & sent12 -> int2: the mineralness occurs and the scrabbling lapin happens.; int2 -> int3: the mineralness occurs.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the scrabbling breadth does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the territoriality but not the abusing insidiousness occurs does not hold if the hailstorm does not occur. sent2: both the mineralness and the scrabbling lapin happens if the interconnection does not occur. sent3: the fact that the scrabbli... | sent7 & sent18 -> int1: that the noncollapsibleness happens but the baffle does not occur is not correct.; sent11 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the phosphorousness does not occur then that the noncollapsibleness occurs and the baffle does not occur is incorrect. | [
"the phosphorousness does not occur.",
"the scrabbling breadth does not occur if that the noncollapsibleness but not the baffle happens does not hold."
] | [
"The noncollapsibleness is incorrect if the phosphorousness doesn't occur.",
"The noncollapsibleness is incorrect if the phosphorousness does not occur."
] | The noncollapsibleness is incorrect if the phosphorousness does not occur. | the scrabbling breadth does not occur if that the noncollapsibleness but not the baffle happens does not hold. |
the gneiss is unwieldy. | sent1: if the analyst does abuse heterocycle the gneiss is unwieldy. sent2: the fact that the gneiss is fearful thing that is not sclerotic is not true if there is something such that the fact that it is not unpublishable is not correct. sent3: something is unwieldy and it is coital if it is non-fearful. sent4: that th... | {B}{b} | sent1: {AB}{a} -> {B}{b} sent2: (x): {F}x -> ¬({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & {C}x) sent4: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent5: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({CS}x & ¬{AA}x) sent7: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent8: (Ex): {F}x sent9: {B}{a} -> {B}{iu} sent10: (x): {B}x -> ¬{A}x | [
"sent7 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent7 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 8 | the fact that the mandarin is a kind of intramuscular thing that is not an extension is not correct. | ¬({CS}{iu} & ¬{AA}{iu}) | 8 | [
"sent6 -> int1: if that the mandarin is not oneiric is not incorrect then that it is intramuscular and is not an extension is false.; sent10 -> int2: if the mandarin is unwieldy it is not oneiric.; sent3 -> int3: if the analyst is not fearful then it is unwieldy and it is coital.; sent8 & sent2 -> int4: that the gn... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the gneiss is unwieldy. ; $context$ = sent1: if the analyst does abuse heterocycle the gneiss is unwieldy. sent2: the fact that the gneiss is fearful thing that is not sclerotic is not true if there is something such that the fact that it is not unpublishable is not correct. sent3: something is unwieldy ... | sent7 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the gneiss is unwieldy if that the analyst is an extension and does not abuse heterocycle is not right. | [
"the fact that the analyst is an extension and does not abuse heterocycle is not right."
] | [
"the gneiss is unwieldy if that the analyst is an extension and does not abuse heterocycle is not right."
] | the gneiss is unwieldy if that the analyst is an extension and does not abuse heterocycle is not right. | the fact that the analyst is an extension and does not abuse heterocycle is not right. |
the scrabbling ripple occurs and the nonreversibleness happens. | sent1: the Byzantineness occurs. sent2: both the salvage and the asclepiadaceousness happens. sent3: the mugging occurs. sent4: the tucking Rubinstein happens. sent5: if the resolution does not occur and the Spanishness does not occur the nonreversibleness does not occur. sent6: the wait happens. sent7: the androgynous... | ({A} & {B}) | sent1: {EQ} sent2: ({HS} & {EM}) sent3: {GC} sent4: {HK} sent5: (¬{C} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{B} sent6: {U} sent7: ({CP} & {JF}) sent8: ¬({E} v {F}) -> ¬{C} sent9: {GG} sent10: ({BI} & {BR}) sent11: {BO} sent12: {GF} sent13: ¬{H} -> ¬({E} v {F}) sent14: {DS} sent15: ({HO} & {CT}) sent16: ({FE} & {GJ}) sent17: {B} sent18: {A} | [
"sent18 & sent17 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent18 & sent17 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 16 | 0 | 16 | the eyeful happens. | {EN} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the scrabbling ripple occurs and the nonreversibleness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the Byzantineness occurs. sent2: both the salvage and the asclepiadaceousness happens. sent3: the mugging occurs. sent4: the tucking Rubinstein happens. sent5: if the resolution does not occur and the Spanishness does no... | sent18 & sent17 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the scrabbling ripple happens. | [
"the nonreversibleness occurs."
] | [
"the scrabbling ripple happens."
] | the scrabbling ripple happens. | the nonreversibleness occurs. |
the Irani is not impersonal. | sent1: the Irani is both not febrile and not actinometric. sent2: if the Irani is both actinometric and not restful then the fact that it is not impersonal is correct. sent3: if something is not actinometric and it is not restful it is not impersonal. sent4: if something is not communal it is not actinometric and it is... | ¬{B}{aa} | sent1: (¬{BG}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) sent2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{CC}x) sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent7: ¬{D}{b} -> ({A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent8: ¬(¬{F}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) -> {F}{c} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {E}x... | [
"sent3 -> int1: the Irani is not impersonal if that it is not actinometric but non-restful is not wrong.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent3 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 15 | 0 | 15 | the lagan is not actinometric and it is not psychometric. | (¬{AA}{o} & ¬{CC}{o}) | 6 | [
"sent4 -> int2: the lagan is a kind of non-actinometric thing that is not psychometric if it is not communal.; sent6 -> int3: the lagan is a kind of non-communal thing that is not impersonal if it is not an approaching.; sent15 -> int4: the lagan is not an approaching if it is not an approaching and/or is a kind of... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Irani is not impersonal. ; $context$ = sent1: the Irani is both not febrile and not actinometric. sent2: if the Irani is both actinometric and not restful then the fact that it is not impersonal is correct. sent3: if something is not actinometric and it is not restful it is not impersonal. sent4: if ... | sent3 -> int1: the Irani is not impersonal if that it is not actinometric but non-restful is not wrong.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if something is not actinometric and it is not restful it is not impersonal. | [
"the Irani is not actinometric and it is not restful."
] | [
"if something is not actinometric and it is not restful it is not impersonal."
] | if something is not actinometric and it is not restful it is not impersonal. | the Irani is not actinometric and it is not restful. |
the skate is not a kind of a civilian. | sent1: if the fact that that something is a kind of non-unusual thing that does jell Dijon is not incorrect is incorrect it is not a civilian. sent2: everything does not jell Segway. sent3: if that something does not jell Segway hold then that it is non-unusual thing that gels Dijon is incorrect. | ¬{B}{aa} | sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: (x): ¬{A}x sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) | [
"sent3 -> int1: if the skate does not jell Segway the fact that it is not unusual and it does jell Dijon is not correct.; sent2 -> int2: the fact that the skate does not jell Segway is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the skate is a kind of non-unusual thing that does jell Dijon is not correct.; sent1 -> i... | PROVED | [
"sent3 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent2 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent1 -> int4: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the skate is not a kind of a civilian. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that that something is a kind of non-unusual thing that does jell Dijon is not incorrect is incorrect it is not a civilian. sent2: everything does not jell Segway. sent3: if that something does not jell Segway hold then that it is no... | sent3 -> int1: if the skate does not jell Segway the fact that it is not unusual and it does jell Dijon is not correct.; sent2 -> int2: the fact that the skate does not jell Segway is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the skate is a kind of non-unusual thing that does jell Dijon is not correct.; sent1 -> int4: ... | DeductionInstance | if that something does not jell Segway hold then that it is non-unusual thing that gels Dijon is incorrect. | [
"everything does not jell Segway.",
"if the fact that that something is a kind of non-unusual thing that does jell Dijon is not incorrect is incorrect it is not a civilian."
] | [
"Dijon is incorrect if something doesn't jell Segway hold.",
"Dijon is incorrect if something does not jell Segway hold."
] | Dijon is incorrect if something doesn't jell Segway hold. | everything does not jell Segway. |
the skate is not a kind of a civilian. | sent1: if the fact that that something is a kind of non-unusual thing that does jell Dijon is not incorrect is incorrect it is not a civilian. sent2: everything does not jell Segway. sent3: if that something does not jell Segway hold then that it is non-unusual thing that gels Dijon is incorrect. | ¬{B}{aa} | sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: (x): ¬{A}x sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) | [
"sent3 -> int1: if the skate does not jell Segway the fact that it is not unusual and it does jell Dijon is not correct.; sent2 -> int2: the fact that the skate does not jell Segway is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the skate is a kind of non-unusual thing that does jell Dijon is not correct.; sent1 -> i... | PROVED | [
"sent3 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent2 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent1 -> int4: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the skate is not a kind of a civilian. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that that something is a kind of non-unusual thing that does jell Dijon is not incorrect is incorrect it is not a civilian. sent2: everything does not jell Segway. sent3: if that something does not jell Segway hold then that it is no... | sent3 -> int1: if the skate does not jell Segway the fact that it is not unusual and it does jell Dijon is not correct.; sent2 -> int2: the fact that the skate does not jell Segway is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the skate is a kind of non-unusual thing that does jell Dijon is not correct.; sent1 -> int4: ... | DeductionInstance | if that something does not jell Segway hold then that it is non-unusual thing that gels Dijon is incorrect. | [
"everything does not jell Segway.",
"if the fact that that something is a kind of non-unusual thing that does jell Dijon is not incorrect is incorrect it is not a civilian."
] | [
"Dijon is incorrect if something doesn't jell Segway hold.",
"Dijon is incorrect if something does not jell Segway hold."
] | Dijon is incorrect if something does not jell Segway hold. | if the fact that that something is a kind of non-unusual thing that does jell Dijon is not incorrect is incorrect it is not a civilian. |
that the scrabbling magnetite happens hold. | sent1: the fact that the tonic does not occur and the diastolicness does not occur hold if the digitalness does not occur. sent2: the gelling agelessness does not occur and the referral does not occur. sent3: the recidivism does not occur. sent4: if the diastolicness does not occur then the swoosh occurs and/or the spl... | {B} | sent1: ¬{I} -> (¬{H} & ¬{G}) sent2: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent3: ¬{DA} sent4: ¬{G} -> ({F} v ¬{E}) sent5: ¬{EE} sent6: ¬(¬{N} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{L} sent7: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent8: {O} -> ¬(¬{N} & ¬{M}) sent9: ¬(¬{Q} & ¬{P}) -> {O} sent10: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent11: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent12: ¬(¬{C} & ¬{A}) -> {B} sen... | [
"sent10 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent10 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 1 | 1 | 16 | 0 | 16 | the scrabbling magnetite happens. | {B} | 14 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the scrabbling magnetite happens hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the tonic does not occur and the diastolicness does not occur hold if the digitalness does not occur. sent2: the gelling agelessness does not occur and the referral does not occur. sent3: the recidivism does not occur. sent4: ... | sent10 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the gelling agelessness does not occur and the referral does not occur the fact that the scrabbling magnetite does not occur is right. | [
"the gelling agelessness does not occur and the referral does not occur."
] | [
"if the gelling agelessness does not occur and the referral does not occur the fact that the scrabbling magnetite does not occur is right."
] | if the gelling agelessness does not occur and the referral does not occur the fact that the scrabbling magnetite does not occur is right. | the gelling agelessness does not occur and the referral does not occur. |
the fact that the fountain happens and the clip-clop occurs is not true. | sent1: the freighting does not occur if the smoldering does not occur and the confluence occurs. sent2: that the confluence does not occur and the freight does not occur does not hold if that the smoldering does not occur is not wrong. sent3: if the unreadiness does not occur that the fountain and the clip-clop happens... | ¬({D} & {E}) | sent1: (¬{H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent2: ¬{H} -> ¬(¬{G} & ¬{F}) sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent4: {N} -> ¬(¬{K} & {M}) sent5: {C} -> {D} sent6: {AD} -> ¬({U} & ¬{AA}) sent7: (¬{D} & {C}) -> ¬{B} sent8: ¬{P} -> ({N} & {O}) sent9: (¬{J} & {K}) -> ¬{H} sent10: ¬(¬{K} & {M}) -> {K} sent11: ({A} v {B}) sent12: (¬{J} & {I}) -> ¬{... | [
"sent11 & sent14 & sent13 -> int1: the countermand occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the fountain happens.; sent24 & sent26 -> int3: the clip-clop and the freight happens.; int3 -> int4: the clip-clop happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent11 & sent14 & sent13 -> int1: {C}; int1 & sent5 -> int2: {D}; sent24 & sent26 -> int3: ({E} & {F}); int3 -> int4: {E}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 | that the fountain happens and the clip-clop happens is false. | ¬({D} & {E}) | 14 | [
"sent21 -> int5: the fact that the disintegrativeness happens is right.; sent6 & int5 -> int6: that the fruitfulness and the non-ampleness occurs is not true.; sent15 & int6 -> int7: the succussion does not occur.; sent8 & int7 -> int8: the hailing and the canter happens.; int8 -> int9: the hail occurs.; sent4 & in... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the fountain happens and the clip-clop occurs is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the freighting does not occur if the smoldering does not occur and the confluence occurs. sent2: that the confluence does not occur and the freight does not occur does not hold if that the smoldering does not oc... | sent11 & sent14 & sent13 -> int1: the countermand occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the fountain happens.; sent24 & sent26 -> int3: the clip-clop and the freight happens.; int3 -> int4: the clip-clop happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens or both. | [
"that the unreadiness happens causes that the countermand occurs.",
"that the Tantricness occurs prevents that the countermand does not occur.",
"that the fountain does not occur is prevented by the countermand.",
"if the confluence does not occur both the clip-clop and the freighting happens.",
"the conflu... | [
"Either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens.",
"Either the unreadiness or the Tantricness happens.",
"Either the unreadiness or Tantricness happens.",
"Either the unreadiness occurs or the Tantricness occurs.",
"The unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens."
] | Either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens. | that the unreadiness happens causes that the countermand occurs. |
the fact that the fountain happens and the clip-clop occurs is not true. | sent1: the freighting does not occur if the smoldering does not occur and the confluence occurs. sent2: that the confluence does not occur and the freight does not occur does not hold if that the smoldering does not occur is not wrong. sent3: if the unreadiness does not occur that the fountain and the clip-clop happens... | ¬({D} & {E}) | sent1: (¬{H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent2: ¬{H} -> ¬(¬{G} & ¬{F}) sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent4: {N} -> ¬(¬{K} & {M}) sent5: {C} -> {D} sent6: {AD} -> ¬({U} & ¬{AA}) sent7: (¬{D} & {C}) -> ¬{B} sent8: ¬{P} -> ({N} & {O}) sent9: (¬{J} & {K}) -> ¬{H} sent10: ¬(¬{K} & {M}) -> {K} sent11: ({A} v {B}) sent12: (¬{J} & {I}) -> ¬{... | [
"sent11 & sent14 & sent13 -> int1: the countermand occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the fountain happens.; sent24 & sent26 -> int3: the clip-clop and the freight happens.; int3 -> int4: the clip-clop happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent11 & sent14 & sent13 -> int1: {C}; int1 & sent5 -> int2: {D}; sent24 & sent26 -> int3: ({E} & {F}); int3 -> int4: {E}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 | that the fountain happens and the clip-clop happens is false. | ¬({D} & {E}) | 14 | [
"sent21 -> int5: the fact that the disintegrativeness happens is right.; sent6 & int5 -> int6: that the fruitfulness and the non-ampleness occurs is not true.; sent15 & int6 -> int7: the succussion does not occur.; sent8 & int7 -> int8: the hailing and the canter happens.; int8 -> int9: the hail occurs.; sent4 & in... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the fountain happens and the clip-clop occurs is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the freighting does not occur if the smoldering does not occur and the confluence occurs. sent2: that the confluence does not occur and the freight does not occur does not hold if that the smoldering does not oc... | sent11 & sent14 & sent13 -> int1: the countermand occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the fountain happens.; sent24 & sent26 -> int3: the clip-clop and the freight happens.; int3 -> int4: the clip-clop happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens or both. | [
"that the unreadiness happens causes that the countermand occurs.",
"that the Tantricness occurs prevents that the countermand does not occur.",
"that the fountain does not occur is prevented by the countermand.",
"if the confluence does not occur both the clip-clop and the freighting happens.",
"the conflu... | [
"Either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens.",
"Either the unreadiness or the Tantricness happens.",
"Either the unreadiness or Tantricness happens.",
"Either the unreadiness occurs or the Tantricness occurs.",
"The unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens."
] | Either the unreadiness or the Tantricness happens. | that the Tantricness occurs prevents that the countermand does not occur. |
the fact that the fountain happens and the clip-clop occurs is not true. | sent1: the freighting does not occur if the smoldering does not occur and the confluence occurs. sent2: that the confluence does not occur and the freight does not occur does not hold if that the smoldering does not occur is not wrong. sent3: if the unreadiness does not occur that the fountain and the clip-clop happens... | ¬({D} & {E}) | sent1: (¬{H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent2: ¬{H} -> ¬(¬{G} & ¬{F}) sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent4: {N} -> ¬(¬{K} & {M}) sent5: {C} -> {D} sent6: {AD} -> ¬({U} & ¬{AA}) sent7: (¬{D} & {C}) -> ¬{B} sent8: ¬{P} -> ({N} & {O}) sent9: (¬{J} & {K}) -> ¬{H} sent10: ¬(¬{K} & {M}) -> {K} sent11: ({A} v {B}) sent12: (¬{J} & {I}) -> ¬{... | [
"sent11 & sent14 & sent13 -> int1: the countermand occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the fountain happens.; sent24 & sent26 -> int3: the clip-clop and the freight happens.; int3 -> int4: the clip-clop happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent11 & sent14 & sent13 -> int1: {C}; int1 & sent5 -> int2: {D}; sent24 & sent26 -> int3: ({E} & {F}); int3 -> int4: {E}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 | that the fountain happens and the clip-clop happens is false. | ¬({D} & {E}) | 14 | [
"sent21 -> int5: the fact that the disintegrativeness happens is right.; sent6 & int5 -> int6: that the fruitfulness and the non-ampleness occurs is not true.; sent15 & int6 -> int7: the succussion does not occur.; sent8 & int7 -> int8: the hailing and the canter happens.; int8 -> int9: the hail occurs.; sent4 & in... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the fountain happens and the clip-clop occurs is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the freighting does not occur if the smoldering does not occur and the confluence occurs. sent2: that the confluence does not occur and the freight does not occur does not hold if that the smoldering does not oc... | sent11 & sent14 & sent13 -> int1: the countermand occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the fountain happens.; sent24 & sent26 -> int3: the clip-clop and the freight happens.; int3 -> int4: the clip-clop happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens or both. | [
"that the unreadiness happens causes that the countermand occurs.",
"that the Tantricness occurs prevents that the countermand does not occur.",
"that the fountain does not occur is prevented by the countermand.",
"if the confluence does not occur both the clip-clop and the freighting happens.",
"the conflu... | [
"Either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens.",
"Either the unreadiness or the Tantricness happens.",
"Either the unreadiness or Tantricness happens.",
"Either the unreadiness occurs or the Tantricness occurs.",
"The unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens."
] | Either the unreadiness or Tantricness happens. | that the fountain does not occur is prevented by the countermand. |
the fact that the fountain happens and the clip-clop occurs is not true. | sent1: the freighting does not occur if the smoldering does not occur and the confluence occurs. sent2: that the confluence does not occur and the freight does not occur does not hold if that the smoldering does not occur is not wrong. sent3: if the unreadiness does not occur that the fountain and the clip-clop happens... | ¬({D} & {E}) | sent1: (¬{H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent2: ¬{H} -> ¬(¬{G} & ¬{F}) sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent4: {N} -> ¬(¬{K} & {M}) sent5: {C} -> {D} sent6: {AD} -> ¬({U} & ¬{AA}) sent7: (¬{D} & {C}) -> ¬{B} sent8: ¬{P} -> ({N} & {O}) sent9: (¬{J} & {K}) -> ¬{H} sent10: ¬(¬{K} & {M}) -> {K} sent11: ({A} v {B}) sent12: (¬{J} & {I}) -> ¬{... | [
"sent11 & sent14 & sent13 -> int1: the countermand occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the fountain happens.; sent24 & sent26 -> int3: the clip-clop and the freight happens.; int3 -> int4: the clip-clop happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent11 & sent14 & sent13 -> int1: {C}; int1 & sent5 -> int2: {D}; sent24 & sent26 -> int3: ({E} & {F}); int3 -> int4: {E}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 | that the fountain happens and the clip-clop happens is false. | ¬({D} & {E}) | 14 | [
"sent21 -> int5: the fact that the disintegrativeness happens is right.; sent6 & int5 -> int6: that the fruitfulness and the non-ampleness occurs is not true.; sent15 & int6 -> int7: the succussion does not occur.; sent8 & int7 -> int8: the hailing and the canter happens.; int8 -> int9: the hail occurs.; sent4 & in... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the fountain happens and the clip-clop occurs is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the freighting does not occur if the smoldering does not occur and the confluence occurs. sent2: that the confluence does not occur and the freight does not occur does not hold if that the smoldering does not oc... | sent11 & sent14 & sent13 -> int1: the countermand occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the fountain happens.; sent24 & sent26 -> int3: the clip-clop and the freight happens.; int3 -> int4: the clip-clop happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens or both. | [
"that the unreadiness happens causes that the countermand occurs.",
"that the Tantricness occurs prevents that the countermand does not occur.",
"that the fountain does not occur is prevented by the countermand.",
"if the confluence does not occur both the clip-clop and the freighting happens.",
"the conflu... | [
"Either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens.",
"Either the unreadiness or the Tantricness happens.",
"Either the unreadiness or Tantricness happens.",
"Either the unreadiness occurs or the Tantricness occurs.",
"The unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens."
] | Either the unreadiness occurs or the Tantricness occurs. | if the confluence does not occur both the clip-clop and the freighting happens. |
the fact that the fountain happens and the clip-clop occurs is not true. | sent1: the freighting does not occur if the smoldering does not occur and the confluence occurs. sent2: that the confluence does not occur and the freight does not occur does not hold if that the smoldering does not occur is not wrong. sent3: if the unreadiness does not occur that the fountain and the clip-clop happens... | ¬({D} & {E}) | sent1: (¬{H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent2: ¬{H} -> ¬(¬{G} & ¬{F}) sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent4: {N} -> ¬(¬{K} & {M}) sent5: {C} -> {D} sent6: {AD} -> ¬({U} & ¬{AA}) sent7: (¬{D} & {C}) -> ¬{B} sent8: ¬{P} -> ({N} & {O}) sent9: (¬{J} & {K}) -> ¬{H} sent10: ¬(¬{K} & {M}) -> {K} sent11: ({A} v {B}) sent12: (¬{J} & {I}) -> ¬{... | [
"sent11 & sent14 & sent13 -> int1: the countermand occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the fountain happens.; sent24 & sent26 -> int3: the clip-clop and the freight happens.; int3 -> int4: the clip-clop happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent11 & sent14 & sent13 -> int1: {C}; int1 & sent5 -> int2: {D}; sent24 & sent26 -> int3: ({E} & {F}); int3 -> int4: {E}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 | that the fountain happens and the clip-clop happens is false. | ¬({D} & {E}) | 14 | [
"sent21 -> int5: the fact that the disintegrativeness happens is right.; sent6 & int5 -> int6: that the fruitfulness and the non-ampleness occurs is not true.; sent15 & int6 -> int7: the succussion does not occur.; sent8 & int7 -> int8: the hailing and the canter happens.; int8 -> int9: the hail occurs.; sent4 & in... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the fountain happens and the clip-clop occurs is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the freighting does not occur if the smoldering does not occur and the confluence occurs. sent2: that the confluence does not occur and the freight does not occur does not hold if that the smoldering does not oc... | sent11 & sent14 & sent13 -> int1: the countermand occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the fountain happens.; sent24 & sent26 -> int3: the clip-clop and the freight happens.; int3 -> int4: the clip-clop happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens or both. | [
"that the unreadiness happens causes that the countermand occurs.",
"that the Tantricness occurs prevents that the countermand does not occur.",
"that the fountain does not occur is prevented by the countermand.",
"if the confluence does not occur both the clip-clop and the freighting happens.",
"the conflu... | [
"Either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens.",
"Either the unreadiness or the Tantricness happens.",
"Either the unreadiness or Tantricness happens.",
"Either the unreadiness occurs or the Tantricness occurs.",
"The unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens."
] | The unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens. | the confluence does not occur. |
the fact that the trombonist is not stenographic and it is not a Thuja does not hold. | sent1: the ionization is non-stenographic and/or abuses undercoat. sent2: the fact that the ionization does not abuse undercoat but it is stenographic is not right if the trombonist does not abuse undercoat. sent3: if there is something such that it either does not abuse undercoat or is not internal or both then the ch... | ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) | sent1: (¬{A}{aa} v {AA}{aa}) sent2: ¬{AA}{b} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent5: (Ex): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent6: (x): (¬{D}x & {E}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: {A}{a} -> (¬{II}{a} v ¬{FH}{a}) sent8: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{A}x & ¬{C}x) sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) s... | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 14 | 0 | 14 | there exists something such that it is not a deep or is not respiratory or both. | (Ex): (¬{II}x v ¬{FH}x) | 5 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the trombonist is not stenographic and it is not a Thuja does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the ionization is non-stenographic and/or abuses undercoat. sent2: the fact that the ionization does not abuse undercoat but it is stenographic is not right if the trombonist does not abuse undercoa... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | if the chlorofucin is not stenographic the fact that the trombonist is not stenographic and it is not a Thuja is incorrect. | [
"that the chlorofucin is non-stenographic thing that does not abuse undercoat is not correct."
] | [
"if the chlorofucin is not stenographic the fact that the trombonist is not stenographic and it is not a Thuja is incorrect."
] | if the chlorofucin is not stenographic the fact that the trombonist is not stenographic and it is not a Thuja is incorrect. | that the chlorofucin is non-stenographic thing that does not abuse undercoat is not correct. |
the fact that something is an oleander is incorrect. | sent1: the decumary is a kind of an oleander if the assemblyman is a kind of a durance. sent2: the assemblyman is a durance if there exists something such that the fact that it scrabbles decumary and is a kind of a Mutinus is wrong. sent3: the go-kart is a durance. sent4: there exists something such that that it does s... | ¬((Ex): {B}x) | sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent2: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent3: {A}{f} sent4: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: (x): {F}x sent6: (Ex): {GG}x sent7: (Ex): {BE}x sent8: (x): ¬{AB}x -> {A}{a} sent9: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: (x): {F}x -> ({E}x & ¬{D}x) sent11: ¬{D}{c} -> ¬({B}{b} & {C}{b}) | [
"sent9 & sent2 -> int1: that the assemblyman is a durance is not false.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: the decumary is an oleander.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent9 & sent2 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent1 & int1 -> int2: {B}{b}; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 | there exists something such that that it gels Mutinus and abuses ripple does not hold. | (Ex): ¬({JF}x & {ED}x) | 9 | [
"sent10 -> int3: the jotter is a kind of a hymeneal but it is not an appeasement if it is a guereza.; sent5 -> int4: the jotter is a kind of a guereza.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the jotter is a kind of hymeneal thing that is not an appeasement.; int5 -> int6: everything is a kind of a hymeneal that is not a kind of an ... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that something is an oleander is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the decumary is a kind of an oleander if the assemblyman is a kind of a durance. sent2: the assemblyman is a durance if there exists something such that the fact that it scrabbles decumary and is a kind of a Mutinus is wrong. sent3... | sent9 & sent2 -> int1: that the assemblyman is a durance is not false.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: the decumary is an oleander.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there is something such that that it does scrabble decumary and it is a Mutinus does not hold. | [
"the assemblyman is a durance if there exists something such that the fact that it scrabbles decumary and is a kind of a Mutinus is wrong.",
"the decumary is a kind of an oleander if the assemblyman is a kind of a durance."
] | [
"It is a Mutinus that does not hold and it does scrabble decumary.",
"There is a Mutinus that does not hold and a scrabble decumary that does."
] | It is a Mutinus that does not hold and it does scrabble decumary. | the assemblyman is a durance if there exists something such that the fact that it scrabbles decumary and is a kind of a Mutinus is wrong. |
the fact that something is an oleander is incorrect. | sent1: the decumary is a kind of an oleander if the assemblyman is a kind of a durance. sent2: the assemblyman is a durance if there exists something such that the fact that it scrabbles decumary and is a kind of a Mutinus is wrong. sent3: the go-kart is a durance. sent4: there exists something such that that it does s... | ¬((Ex): {B}x) | sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent2: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent3: {A}{f} sent4: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: (x): {F}x sent6: (Ex): {GG}x sent7: (Ex): {BE}x sent8: (x): ¬{AB}x -> {A}{a} sent9: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: (x): {F}x -> ({E}x & ¬{D}x) sent11: ¬{D}{c} -> ¬({B}{b} & {C}{b}) | [
"sent9 & sent2 -> int1: that the assemblyman is a durance is not false.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: the decumary is an oleander.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent9 & sent2 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent1 & int1 -> int2: {B}{b}; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 | there exists something such that that it gels Mutinus and abuses ripple does not hold. | (Ex): ¬({JF}x & {ED}x) | 9 | [
"sent10 -> int3: the jotter is a kind of a hymeneal but it is not an appeasement if it is a guereza.; sent5 -> int4: the jotter is a kind of a guereza.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the jotter is a kind of hymeneal thing that is not an appeasement.; int5 -> int6: everything is a kind of a hymeneal that is not a kind of an ... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that something is an oleander is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the decumary is a kind of an oleander if the assemblyman is a kind of a durance. sent2: the assemblyman is a durance if there exists something such that the fact that it scrabbles decumary and is a kind of a Mutinus is wrong. sent3... | sent9 & sent2 -> int1: that the assemblyman is a durance is not false.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: the decumary is an oleander.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there is something such that that it does scrabble decumary and it is a Mutinus does not hold. | [
"the assemblyman is a durance if there exists something such that the fact that it scrabbles decumary and is a kind of a Mutinus is wrong.",
"the decumary is a kind of an oleander if the assemblyman is a kind of a durance."
] | [
"It is a Mutinus that does not hold and it does scrabble decumary.",
"There is a Mutinus that does not hold and a scrabble decumary that does."
] | There is a Mutinus that does not hold and a scrabble decumary that does. | the decumary is a kind of an oleander if the assemblyman is a kind of a durance. |
the punchboard is not a indigestibility but it is a Kuroshio. | sent1: the dovekie is not a tremble. sent2: if that the punchboard is not a kind of a indigestibility but it is a kind of a Kuroshio is not right the dovekie does jell Carum. sent3: something that does not scrabble punchboard is not a kind of a Kuroshio. sent4: if that that either the punchboard does abuse acetate or i... | (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) | sent1: ¬{F}{b} sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent4: ¬({C}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{A}{cj} sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{B}{b} sent6: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent7: (x): {B}x -> ¬({C}x v ¬{A}x) sent8: ¬{F}{b} -> ¬({E}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) sent9: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{E}x sent10: ¬{AB}{a} -> {B}{b} | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the punchboard is not a indigestibility but it is a Kuroshio does not hold.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the dovekie does jell Carum.; sent6 & sent5 -> int2: the dovekie does not jell Carum.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"... | PROVED | [
"void -> assump1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); sent2 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent6 & sent5 -> int2: ¬{B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 | the photocopier is not a Kuroshio. | ¬{AB}{cj} | 8 | [
"sent3 -> int4: the photocopier is not a Kuroshio if it does not scrabble punchboard.; sent7 -> int5: that either the punchboard abuses acetate or it does not scrabble punchboard or both is wrong if it does jell Carum.; sent9 -> int6: the dovekie does not scrabble fitter if the fact that it scrabble fitter and it i... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the punchboard is not a indigestibility but it is a Kuroshio. ; $context$ = sent1: the dovekie is not a tremble. sent2: if that the punchboard is not a kind of a indigestibility but it is a kind of a Kuroshio is not right the dovekie does jell Carum. sent3: something that does not scrabble punchboard is ... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the punchboard is not a indigestibility but it is a Kuroshio does not hold.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the dovekie does jell Carum.; sent6 & sent5 -> int2: the dovekie does not jell Carum.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PRO... | DeductionInstance | if that the punchboard is not a kind of a indigestibility but it is a kind of a Kuroshio is not right the dovekie does jell Carum. | [
"there exists something such that it does not scrabble punchboard.",
"the dovekie does not jell Carum if there exists something such that it does not scrabble punchboard."
] | [
"Carum does not think that the punchboard is a kind of indigestibility.",
"Carum doesn't think that the punchboard is a kind of indigestibility."
] | Carum does not think that the punchboard is a kind of indigestibility. | there exists something such that it does not scrabble punchboard. |
the punchboard is not a indigestibility but it is a Kuroshio. | sent1: the dovekie is not a tremble. sent2: if that the punchboard is not a kind of a indigestibility but it is a kind of a Kuroshio is not right the dovekie does jell Carum. sent3: something that does not scrabble punchboard is not a kind of a Kuroshio. sent4: if that that either the punchboard does abuse acetate or i... | (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) | sent1: ¬{F}{b} sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent4: ¬({C}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{A}{cj} sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{B}{b} sent6: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent7: (x): {B}x -> ¬({C}x v ¬{A}x) sent8: ¬{F}{b} -> ¬({E}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) sent9: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{E}x sent10: ¬{AB}{a} -> {B}{b} | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the punchboard is not a indigestibility but it is a Kuroshio does not hold.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the dovekie does jell Carum.; sent6 & sent5 -> int2: the dovekie does not jell Carum.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"... | PROVED | [
"void -> assump1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); sent2 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent6 & sent5 -> int2: ¬{B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 | the photocopier is not a Kuroshio. | ¬{AB}{cj} | 8 | [
"sent3 -> int4: the photocopier is not a Kuroshio if it does not scrabble punchboard.; sent7 -> int5: that either the punchboard abuses acetate or it does not scrabble punchboard or both is wrong if it does jell Carum.; sent9 -> int6: the dovekie does not scrabble fitter if the fact that it scrabble fitter and it i... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the punchboard is not a indigestibility but it is a Kuroshio. ; $context$ = sent1: the dovekie is not a tremble. sent2: if that the punchboard is not a kind of a indigestibility but it is a kind of a Kuroshio is not right the dovekie does jell Carum. sent3: something that does not scrabble punchboard is ... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the punchboard is not a indigestibility but it is a Kuroshio does not hold.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the dovekie does jell Carum.; sent6 & sent5 -> int2: the dovekie does not jell Carum.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PRO... | DeductionInstance | if that the punchboard is not a kind of a indigestibility but it is a kind of a Kuroshio is not right the dovekie does jell Carum. | [
"there exists something such that it does not scrabble punchboard.",
"the dovekie does not jell Carum if there exists something such that it does not scrabble punchboard."
] | [
"Carum does not think that the punchboard is a kind of indigestibility.",
"Carum doesn't think that the punchboard is a kind of indigestibility."
] | Carum doesn't think that the punchboard is a kind of indigestibility. | the dovekie does not jell Carum if there exists something such that it does not scrabble punchboard. |
the carotene is a kind of a counterespionage that is a Mammut. | sent1: the carotene is a counterespionage if it is a neutral. sent2: the carotene is heathlike if there exists something such that it is a thumbprint and is not a demythologization. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is a demythologization is right. sent4: if a counterespionage is a Mammut the car... | ({D}{a} & {E}{a}) | sent1: {C}{a} -> {D}{a} sent2: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {DA}{a} sent3: (Ex): {A}x sent4: (x): ({D}x & {E}x) -> {C}{a} sent5: {D}{b} sent6: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent7: {E}{a} sent8: (Ex): {E}x sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x & {E}x) sent10: (x): {E}x -> ¬({C}{c} & {F}{c}) sent11: (Ex): {B}x sent12: {DE}{a} -> {ED}{a} ... | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 | that the carotene is a counterespionage and it is a Mammut is incorrect. | ¬({D}{a} & {E}{a}) | 5 | [
"sent9 -> int1: that the carotene is a kind of a counterespionage and it is a Mammut is not right if it is not a demythologization.; sent19 -> int2: the carotene is not a demythologization and is a thumbprint if it is not a neutral.; sent18 -> int3: the carotene is not a neutral if it does not jell diathermy and it... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the carotene is a kind of a counterespionage that is a Mammut. ; $context$ = sent1: the carotene is a counterespionage if it is a neutral. sent2: the carotene is heathlike if there exists something such that it is a thumbprint and is not a demythologization. sent3: there exists something such that the fa... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | something that does not jell diathermy and is not a unappetizingness is not a neutral. | [
"something is a kind of a thumbprint."
] | [
"something that does not jell diathermy and is not a unappetizingness is not a neutral."
] | something that does not jell diathermy and is not a unappetizingness is not a neutral. | something is a kind of a thumbprint. |
the monotype does scrabble bummer. | sent1: the treat is not a gentile. sent2: something does not scrabble bummer if it is a love-in-a-mist. sent3: that the monotype is not a simian is not wrong. sent4: if the zeaxanthin is a transferrin then it is not brachial. sent5: that the monotype is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya is false if it is not... | {B}{aa} | sent1: ¬{A}{hj} sent2: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent3: ¬{AE}{aa} sent4: {HG}{iu} -> ¬{BM}{iu} sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: ¬{A}{aa} sent8: {BG}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent9: ¬{AA}{df} sent10: (x): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x | [
"sent6 -> int1: that that the monotype does not scrabble bummer is not wrong if that the monotype is both not a love-in-a-mist and not a Romneya is wrong is not incorrect.; sent5 & sent7 -> int2: the fact that the monotype is not a love-in-a-mist and not a Romneya does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent6 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent5 & sent7 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the monotype does scrabble bummer. ; $context$ = sent1: the treat is not a gentile. sent2: something does not scrabble bummer if it is a love-in-a-mist. sent3: that the monotype is not a simian is not wrong. sent4: if the zeaxanthin is a transferrin then it is not brachial. sent5: that the monotype is no... | sent6 -> int1: that that the monotype does not scrabble bummer is not wrong if that the monotype is both not a love-in-a-mist and not a Romneya is wrong is not incorrect.; sent5 & sent7 -> int2: the fact that the monotype is not a love-in-a-mist and not a Romneya does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if that something is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya does not hold then it does not scrabble bummer. | [
"that the monotype is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya is false if it is not a gentile.",
"the monotype is not a kind of a gentile."
] | [
"It does not scrabble bummer if that is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya.",
"If it's not a love-in-a-mist and it's not a Romneya, then it's not scrabble bummer."
] | It does not scrabble bummer if that is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya. | that the monotype is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya is false if it is not a gentile. |
the monotype does scrabble bummer. | sent1: the treat is not a gentile. sent2: something does not scrabble bummer if it is a love-in-a-mist. sent3: that the monotype is not a simian is not wrong. sent4: if the zeaxanthin is a transferrin then it is not brachial. sent5: that the monotype is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya is false if it is not... | {B}{aa} | sent1: ¬{A}{hj} sent2: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent3: ¬{AE}{aa} sent4: {HG}{iu} -> ¬{BM}{iu} sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: ¬{A}{aa} sent8: {BG}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent9: ¬{AA}{df} sent10: (x): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x | [
"sent6 -> int1: that that the monotype does not scrabble bummer is not wrong if that the monotype is both not a love-in-a-mist and not a Romneya is wrong is not incorrect.; sent5 & sent7 -> int2: the fact that the monotype is not a love-in-a-mist and not a Romneya does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent6 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent5 & sent7 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the monotype does scrabble bummer. ; $context$ = sent1: the treat is not a gentile. sent2: something does not scrabble bummer if it is a love-in-a-mist. sent3: that the monotype is not a simian is not wrong. sent4: if the zeaxanthin is a transferrin then it is not brachial. sent5: that the monotype is no... | sent6 -> int1: that that the monotype does not scrabble bummer is not wrong if that the monotype is both not a love-in-a-mist and not a Romneya is wrong is not incorrect.; sent5 & sent7 -> int2: the fact that the monotype is not a love-in-a-mist and not a Romneya does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if that something is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya does not hold then it does not scrabble bummer. | [
"that the monotype is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya is false if it is not a gentile.",
"the monotype is not a kind of a gentile."
] | [
"It does not scrabble bummer if that is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya.",
"If it's not a love-in-a-mist and it's not a Romneya, then it's not scrabble bummer."
] | If it's not a love-in-a-mist and it's not a Romneya, then it's not scrabble bummer. | the monotype is not a kind of a gentile. |
the fact that there is something such that the fact that it abuses postscript and does not tuck Uighur is false is wrong. | sent1: if the fact that the rugulah is not a kind of a wagtail is not incorrect then that it does scrabble angioplasty and is a thiazide is wrong. sent2: the rugulah is not a kind of a voluntary. sent3: if there exists something such that it does not jell Transfiguration then that the inspiration is autographic and doe... | ¬((Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)) | sent1: ¬{FO}{a} -> ¬({BN}{a} & {AK}{a}) sent2: ¬{A}{a} sent3: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬({G}{d} & ¬{I}{d}) sent4: {A}{b} -> ¬({EU}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent5: ¬{J}{f} -> (¬{K}{f} v ¬{H}{f}) sent6: ¬({M}{g} & ¬{J}{g}) -> ¬{J}{f} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent8: (x): ¬({G}x & ¬{I}x) -> ¬{G}x sent9: (x): ¬({EU}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬... | [
"sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the rugulah abuses postscript and does not tuck Uighur is false.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent7 & sent2 -> int1: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 15 | 0 | 15 | the additive is not quadraphonic. | ¬{EU}{dc} | 17 | [
"sent15 -> int2: if the fact that the hatchery is a kind of a none but it does not abuse bummer is not correct it is voluntary.; sent8 -> int3: if that the inspiration is autographic and does not scrabble dressing is not correct it is not autographic.; sent16 & sent12 -> int4: the fact that the LP is a soffit and i... | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that the fact that it abuses postscript and does not tuck Uighur is false is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the rugulah is not a kind of a wagtail is not incorrect then that it does scrabble angioplasty and is a thiazide is wrong. sent2: the rugulah is ... | sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the rugulah abuses postscript and does not tuck Uighur is false.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the rugulah does abuse postscript but it does not tuck Uighur is not correct if it is not a voluntary. | [
"the rugulah is not a kind of a voluntary."
] | [
"that the rugulah does abuse postscript but it does not tuck Uighur is not correct if it is not a voluntary."
] | that the rugulah does abuse postscript but it does not tuck Uighur is not correct if it is not a voluntary. | the rugulah is not a kind of a voluntary. |
the reproduction does not scrabble pretermission. | sent1: if that something is Mycenaean is true then the fact that the reproduction does not jell sinker is correct. sent2: the yachtsman is a kind of a lurker if it scrabbles pretermission. sent3: if something is non-Mediterranean thing that does not scrabble pretermission then the follow-up is not a lurker. sent4: the ... | ¬{D}{b} | sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬{IQ}{b} sent2: {D}{c} -> {B}{c} sent3: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{B}{a} sent4: ¬{C}{a} sent5: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent6: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{D}{a} sent7: {A}{a} -> (¬{HJ}{a} & ¬{FE}{a}) sent8: (Ex): (¬{B}x & {C}x) sent9: ¬(¬{A}{b} v ¬{C}{b}) -> {A}{a} sent10: (¬{IG}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent11: ¬{B}{b} sent1... | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 14 | 0 | 14 | there is something such that it does not abuse chance-medley and it does not rise. | (Ex): (¬{HJ}x & ¬{FE}x) | 8 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the reproduction does not scrabble pretermission. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is Mycenaean is true then the fact that the reproduction does not jell sinker is correct. sent2: the yachtsman is a kind of a lurker if it scrabbles pretermission. sent3: if something is non-Mediterranean thing that ... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the yachtsman is a kind of a lurker if it scrabbles pretermission. | [
"if the fact that the fact that the reproduction is not Mycenaean and/or is not Mediterranean hold is false then the follow-up is Mycenaean."
] | [
"the yachtsman is a kind of a lurker if it scrabbles pretermission."
] | the yachtsman is a kind of a lurker if it scrabbles pretermission. | if the fact that the fact that the reproduction is not Mycenaean and/or is not Mediterranean hold is false then the follow-up is Mycenaean. |
the fact that the speculating does not occur and the counterattraction occurs does not hold. | sent1: the processing occurs and the chlamydialness happens. sent2: the uncreativeness occurs. sent3: that the stead does not occur and the codification does not occur is false. sent4: the flouncing does not occur if the fact that the elimination does not occur and the manicure does not occur is wrong. sent5: that both... | ¬(¬{B} & {A}) | sent1: ({HQ} & {EH}) sent2: {C} sent3: ¬(¬{O} & ¬{ED}) sent4: ¬(¬{AL} & ¬{HI}) -> ¬{IL} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent6: ({CR} & {FH}) sent7: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{B} & {A}) sent8: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent9: ¬(¬{BU} & ¬{GR}) -> ¬{CC} sent10: {FQ} sent11: {FB} sent12: {AQ} sent13: {AB} -> ¬{B} sent14: {EO} sent15: ({A} & {C}) ... | [
"sent8 & sent5 -> int1: the speculating does not occur.; sent15 -> int2: the counterattraction occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent8 & sent5 -> int1: ¬{B}; sent15 -> int2: {A}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 16 | that the fact that the speculating does not occur but the counterattraction occurs is not incorrect does not hold. | ¬(¬{B} & {A}) | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the speculating does not occur and the counterattraction occurs does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the processing occurs and the chlamydialness happens. sent2: the uncreativeness occurs. sent3: that the stead does not occur and the codification does not occur is false. sent4: the flouncing... | sent8 & sent5 -> int1: the speculating does not occur.; sent15 -> int2: the counterattraction occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if that the non-nomotheticness and the non-impenitentness occurs is incorrect then the speculating does not occur. | [
"that both the non-nomotheticness and the penitentness occurs is wrong.",
"the counterattraction happens and the uncreativeness occurs."
] | [
"The speculating does not occur if the non-nomotheticness is incorrect.",
"The speculating doesn't happen if the non-nomotheticness is incorrect."
] | The speculating does not occur if the non-nomotheticness is incorrect. | that both the non-nomotheticness and the penitentness occurs is wrong. |
the fact that the speculating does not occur and the counterattraction occurs does not hold. | sent1: the processing occurs and the chlamydialness happens. sent2: the uncreativeness occurs. sent3: that the stead does not occur and the codification does not occur is false. sent4: the flouncing does not occur if the fact that the elimination does not occur and the manicure does not occur is wrong. sent5: that both... | ¬(¬{B} & {A}) | sent1: ({HQ} & {EH}) sent2: {C} sent3: ¬(¬{O} & ¬{ED}) sent4: ¬(¬{AL} & ¬{HI}) -> ¬{IL} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent6: ({CR} & {FH}) sent7: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{B} & {A}) sent8: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent9: ¬(¬{BU} & ¬{GR}) -> ¬{CC} sent10: {FQ} sent11: {FB} sent12: {AQ} sent13: {AB} -> ¬{B} sent14: {EO} sent15: ({A} & {C}) ... | [
"sent8 & sent5 -> int1: the speculating does not occur.; sent15 -> int2: the counterattraction occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent8 & sent5 -> int1: ¬{B}; sent15 -> int2: {A}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 16 | that the fact that the speculating does not occur but the counterattraction occurs is not incorrect does not hold. | ¬(¬{B} & {A}) | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the speculating does not occur and the counterattraction occurs does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the processing occurs and the chlamydialness happens. sent2: the uncreativeness occurs. sent3: that the stead does not occur and the codification does not occur is false. sent4: the flouncing... | sent8 & sent5 -> int1: the speculating does not occur.; sent15 -> int2: the counterattraction occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if that the non-nomotheticness and the non-impenitentness occurs is incorrect then the speculating does not occur. | [
"that both the non-nomotheticness and the penitentness occurs is wrong.",
"the counterattraction happens and the uncreativeness occurs."
] | [
"The speculating does not occur if the non-nomotheticness is incorrect.",
"The speculating doesn't happen if the non-nomotheticness is incorrect."
] | The speculating doesn't happen if the non-nomotheticness is incorrect. | the counterattraction happens and the uncreativeness occurs. |
the bars does not occur. | sent1: the Zoroastrian occurs if the oblateness occurs. sent2: the Zoroastrianness does not occur if the non-deductiveness and the abusing fuzz occurs. sent3: if that the stopover happens hold both the non-deductiveness and the abusing fuzz happens. sent4: the oblate happens. sent5: the barring does not occur if the Zo... | ¬{D} | sent1: {A} -> {B} sent2: (¬{C} & {E}) -> ¬{B} sent3: {F} -> (¬{C} & {E}) sent4: {A} sent5: ({B} v {C}) -> ¬{D} sent6: ¬{E} -> ¬({D} & {C}) | [
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the Zoroastrian happens.; int1 -> int2: the Zoroastrian happens or the deductiveness happens or both.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: {B}; int1 -> int2: ({B} v {C}); sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | the bars happens. | {D} | 7 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the bars does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the Zoroastrian occurs if the oblateness occurs. sent2: the Zoroastrianness does not occur if the non-deductiveness and the abusing fuzz occurs. sent3: if that the stopover happens hold both the non-deductiveness and the abusing fuzz happens. sent4: the oblat... | sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the Zoroastrian happens.; int1 -> int2: the Zoroastrian happens or the deductiveness happens or both.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the Zoroastrian occurs if the oblateness occurs. | [
"the oblate happens.",
"the barring does not occur if the Zoroastrianness and/or the deductiveness happens."
] | [
"If the oblateness occurs, the Zoroastrian occurs.",
"If the oblateness occurs, the Zoroastrian will occur."
] | If the oblateness occurs, the Zoroastrian occurs. | the oblate happens. |
the bars does not occur. | sent1: the Zoroastrian occurs if the oblateness occurs. sent2: the Zoroastrianness does not occur if the non-deductiveness and the abusing fuzz occurs. sent3: if that the stopover happens hold both the non-deductiveness and the abusing fuzz happens. sent4: the oblate happens. sent5: the barring does not occur if the Zo... | ¬{D} | sent1: {A} -> {B} sent2: (¬{C} & {E}) -> ¬{B} sent3: {F} -> (¬{C} & {E}) sent4: {A} sent5: ({B} v {C}) -> ¬{D} sent6: ¬{E} -> ¬({D} & {C}) | [
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the Zoroastrian happens.; int1 -> int2: the Zoroastrian happens or the deductiveness happens or both.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: {B}; int1 -> int2: ({B} v {C}); sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | the bars happens. | {D} | 7 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the bars does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the Zoroastrian occurs if the oblateness occurs. sent2: the Zoroastrianness does not occur if the non-deductiveness and the abusing fuzz occurs. sent3: if that the stopover happens hold both the non-deductiveness and the abusing fuzz happens. sent4: the oblat... | sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the Zoroastrian happens.; int1 -> int2: the Zoroastrian happens or the deductiveness happens or both.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the Zoroastrian occurs if the oblateness occurs. | [
"the oblate happens.",
"the barring does not occur if the Zoroastrianness and/or the deductiveness happens."
] | [
"If the oblateness occurs, the Zoroastrian occurs.",
"If the oblateness occurs, the Zoroastrian will occur."
] | If the oblateness occurs, the Zoroastrian will occur. | the barring does not occur if the Zoroastrianness and/or the deductiveness happens. |
the Guyanese is not a crouch or a spinmeister or both. | sent1: the potpie is not a spinmeister if the fact that it does abuse surcoat and scrabbles EDS does not hold. sent2: the fact that the Guyanese either is not a crouch or scrabbles EDS or both is not right if the potpie does not scrabbles EDS. sent3: the Guyanese does crouch. sent4: if the fact that the harvest is not ... | (¬{C}{b} v {B}{b}) | sent1: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} v {AB}{b}) sent3: {C}{b} sent4: ¬{L}{d} -> ({J}{c} & {K}{c}) sent5: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent6: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} v {B}{b}) sent7: ¬{IA}{a} sent8: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent9: ¬({I}{c} & ¬{H}{c}) -> ¬{G}{c} sent10: ¬({C}{b} & {AA}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent1... | [
"sent1 & sent5 -> int1: the potpie is not a spinmeister.; int1 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent1 & sent5 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; int1 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 16 | the Guyanese does not crouch or it is a spinmeister or both. | (¬{C}{b} v {B}{b}) | 9 | [
"sent16 -> int2: the exocrine is not genuine but it gels Skuld if it does not jell fetlock.; sent12 -> int3: if the exocrine is not vicinal it does not jell fetlock.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Guyanese is not a crouch or a spinmeister or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the potpie is not a spinmeister if the fact that it does abuse surcoat and scrabbles EDS does not hold. sent2: the fact that the Guyanese either is not a crouch or scrabbles EDS or both is not right if the potpie does not scrabbl... | sent1 & sent5 -> int1: the potpie is not a spinmeister.; int1 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the potpie is not a spinmeister if the fact that it does abuse surcoat and scrabbles EDS does not hold. | [
"the fact that that the potpie does abuse surcoat and it does scrabble EDS is not false does not hold.",
"if the potpie is not a spinmeister that the Guyanese is either not a crouch or a spinmeister or both is not right."
] | [
"The potpie is not a spinmeister if it does abuse surcoat and scrabbles.",
"If the potpie does abuse surcoat and scrabbles, it's not a spinmeister."
] | The potpie is not a spinmeister if it does abuse surcoat and scrabbles. | the fact that that the potpie does abuse surcoat and it does scrabble EDS is not false does not hold. |
the Guyanese is not a crouch or a spinmeister or both. | sent1: the potpie is not a spinmeister if the fact that it does abuse surcoat and scrabbles EDS does not hold. sent2: the fact that the Guyanese either is not a crouch or scrabbles EDS or both is not right if the potpie does not scrabbles EDS. sent3: the Guyanese does crouch. sent4: if the fact that the harvest is not ... | (¬{C}{b} v {B}{b}) | sent1: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} v {AB}{b}) sent3: {C}{b} sent4: ¬{L}{d} -> ({J}{c} & {K}{c}) sent5: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent6: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} v {B}{b}) sent7: ¬{IA}{a} sent8: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent9: ¬({I}{c} & ¬{H}{c}) -> ¬{G}{c} sent10: ¬({C}{b} & {AA}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent1... | [
"sent1 & sent5 -> int1: the potpie is not a spinmeister.; int1 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent1 & sent5 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; int1 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 16 | the Guyanese does not crouch or it is a spinmeister or both. | (¬{C}{b} v {B}{b}) | 9 | [
"sent16 -> int2: the exocrine is not genuine but it gels Skuld if it does not jell fetlock.; sent12 -> int3: if the exocrine is not vicinal it does not jell fetlock.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Guyanese is not a crouch or a spinmeister or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the potpie is not a spinmeister if the fact that it does abuse surcoat and scrabbles EDS does not hold. sent2: the fact that the Guyanese either is not a crouch or scrabbles EDS or both is not right if the potpie does not scrabbl... | sent1 & sent5 -> int1: the potpie is not a spinmeister.; int1 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the potpie is not a spinmeister if the fact that it does abuse surcoat and scrabbles EDS does not hold. | [
"the fact that that the potpie does abuse surcoat and it does scrabble EDS is not false does not hold.",
"if the potpie is not a spinmeister that the Guyanese is either not a crouch or a spinmeister or both is not right."
] | [
"The potpie is not a spinmeister if it does abuse surcoat and scrabbles.",
"If the potpie does abuse surcoat and scrabbles, it's not a spinmeister."
] | If the potpie does abuse surcoat and scrabbles, it's not a spinmeister. | if the potpie is not a spinmeister that the Guyanese is either not a crouch or a spinmeister or both is not right. |
the provider is a millionairess. | sent1: if something does not scrabble flamefish or it husks or both it does not scrabble flamefish. sent2: if something is a kind of a pantheist then the fact that it does not jell Psophia and does not abuse M3 is not right. sent3: if either the ilmenite gels Psophia or it does not husk or both it does not scrabble fla... | {B}{a} | sent1: (x): (¬{D}x v {E}x) -> ¬{D}x sent2: (x): {G}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{H}x) sent3: ({F}{c} v ¬{E}{c}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x) -> {A}x sent5: ¬{AB}{a} sent6: ¬{E}{c} sent7: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{H}{b}) -> {F}{a} sent8: ({N}{d} & {M}{d}) sent9: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent10: (x): {A}x -> ({DS}x & ¬{CD}x) sent11: ({AA}{... | [
"sent11 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent11 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 1 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 15 | the provider is a kind of a millionairess. | {B}{a} | 7 | [
"sent6 -> int1: the ilmenite gels Psophia or it is not a husk or both.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: that the ilmenite does not scrabble flamefish hold.; int2 -> int3: there exists something such that that it does not scrabble flamefish is not false.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the provider is a millionairess. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not scrabble flamefish or it husks or both it does not scrabble flamefish. sent2: if something is a kind of a pantheist then the fact that it does not jell Psophia and does not abuse M3 is not right. sent3: if either the ilmenite gel... | sent11 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the provider retrains and does not jell waterleaf it is not a kind of a millionairess. | [
"the provider retrains but it does not jell waterleaf."
] | [
"if the provider retrains and does not jell waterleaf it is not a kind of a millionairess."
] | if the provider retrains and does not jell waterleaf it is not a kind of a millionairess. | the provider retrains but it does not jell waterleaf. |
the babbitt is not a kind of a Veneto. | sent1: the babbitt is not daisylike and it is not a Veneto if the Maltese abuses sacrilegiousness. sent2: if the Maltese is a essonite the babbitt does not abuse sacrilegiousness but it is a Veneto. sent3: if the babbitt does abuse sacrilegiousness that the environment is a Veneto is true. sent4: if something is not a ... | ¬{C}{a} | sent1: {B}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent2: {D}{b} -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent3: {B}{a} -> {C}{aa} sent4: (x): (¬{H}x & {I}x) -> ¬{G}x sent5: (x): (¬{B}x & {C}x) -> {A}x sent6: (x): ¬{G}x -> (¬{F}x & ¬{E}x) sent7: {I}{d} -> ¬(¬{H}{d} & {G}{d}) sent8: (x): ¬{A}x sent9: (x): ¬{G}x -> (¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) sent10: ¬{J}{b} sent11... | [
"sent8 -> int1: the environment is not daisylike.; int1 -> int2: the environment is not daisylike or it abuses sacrilegiousness or both.; sent17 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent8 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 -> int2: (¬{A}{aa} v {B}{aa}); sent17 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 | the diaphone does not jell egress or is not non-Orthodox or both. | (¬{GB}{ea} v {AN}{ea}) | 9 | [
"sent5 -> int3: if the babbitt does not abuse sacrilegiousness and is a kind of a Veneto then it is daisylike.; sent6 -> int4: the intercostal is not a fling and it does not abuse environment if that it does not abuse Bukharin is not incorrect.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the babbitt is not a kind of a Veneto. ; $context$ = sent1: the babbitt is not daisylike and it is not a Veneto if the Maltese abuses sacrilegiousness. sent2: if the Maltese is a essonite the babbitt does not abuse sacrilegiousness but it is a Veneto. sent3: if the babbitt does abuse sacrilegiousness tha... | sent8 -> int1: the environment is not daisylike.; int1 -> int2: the environment is not daisylike or it abuses sacrilegiousness or both.; sent17 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | everything is not daisylike. | [
"if the fact that the environment is non-daisylike or it abuses sacrilegiousness or both is right the babbitt is a Veneto."
] | [
"everything is not daisylike."
] | everything is not daisylike. | if the fact that the environment is non-daisylike or it abuses sacrilegiousness or both is right the babbitt is a Veneto. |
that the mackintosh is not a kind of a half-mast and does not scrabble sprayer does not hold. | sent1: if the sprayer does not abuse musicianship but it is virological then the mackintosh does abuse weekend. sent2: the cuff is not a half-mast. sent3: if something does not jell overhead and does jell jagged that it does not abuse monoblast is not wrong. sent4: the fact that the mackintosh is not amoebic and it doe... | ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) | sent1: (¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) -> {B}{a} sent2: ¬{AA}{eh} sent3: (x): (¬{J}x & {I}x) -> ¬{H}x sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{ET}{a} & ¬{FN}{a}) sent5: (¬{J}{d} & {I}{d}) sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent7: (x): ({C}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent8: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{DN}x & ¬{A}x) sent9: (x): {A}x -> ({C}x v ¬{AB}x) sent10: {F}... | [
"sent6 & sent19 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent6 & sent19 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 20 | 0 | 20 | the mackintosh is not a half-mast and does not scrabble sprayer. | (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) | 7 | [
"sent7 -> int1: the fact that the mackintosh does not scrabble sprayer is true if it is virological and/or it does not scrabble sprayer.; sent9 -> int2: if the mackintosh is a Lincolnshire it is virological or it does not scrabble sprayer or both.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the mackintosh is not a kind of a half-mast and does not scrabble sprayer does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sprayer does not abuse musicianship but it is virological then the mackintosh does abuse weekend. sent2: the cuff is not a half-mast. sent3: if something does not jell overhead and do... | sent6 & sent19 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the mackintosh is not a half-mast and it does not scrabble sprayer is not right if it is not a Lincolnshire. | [
"the mackintosh is not a Lincolnshire."
] | [
"that the mackintosh is not a half-mast and it does not scrabble sprayer is not right if it is not a Lincolnshire."
] | that the mackintosh is not a half-mast and it does not scrabble sprayer is not right if it is not a Lincolnshire. | the mackintosh is not a Lincolnshire. |
the non-structuralness prevents that the inflection occurs. | sent1: the inflection occurs if the structuralness does not occur. sent2: that the translationalness does not occur is correct. sent3: that that either the inflection happens or the structuralness occurs or both is not correct if the bimorphemicness does not occur is not incorrect. sent4: the fact that the postdoctoral... | ¬{B} -> ¬{A} | sent1: ¬{B} -> {A} sent2: ¬{ET} sent3: ¬{C} -> ¬({A} v {B}) sent4: ¬({A} v {B}) -> ¬{IG} sent5: {B} -> ¬{A} | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the inflection occurs.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"void -> assump1: {A};"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 5 | 0 | 5 | the postdoctoral does not occur. | ¬{IG} | 7 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the non-structuralness prevents that the inflection occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the inflection occurs if the structuralness does not occur. sent2: that the translationalness does not occur is correct. sent3: that that either the inflection happens or the structuralness occurs or both is not correct if t... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | [
""
] | [
""
] | |||
the fact that the lotus does not jell geophagy hold. | sent1: the embankment is not malodorous if the kerchief is not malodorous but a frost. sent2: the fact that the embankment is a Ledum is right. sent3: something does not jell geophagy and it is not a Ledum if it is not malodorous. sent4: if that something gels pustule and/or it is a kind of a Ardisia is not right then ... | ¬{B}{b} | sent1: (¬{C}{c} & {E}{c}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent2: {A}{a} sent3: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) sent4: (x): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} v {AB}{b}) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent8: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{C}x & {E}x) | [
"sent5 & sent2 -> int1: that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or is a Ardisia is not true.; sent6 -> int2: if that that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or is a Ardisia is not true hold then it does not jell geophagy.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent5 & sent2 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{b} v {AB}{b}); sent6 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA}{b} v {AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 | the lotus does jell geophagy. | {B}{b} | 7 | [
"sent3 -> int3: the embankment does not jell geophagy and is not a Ledum if it is non-malodorous.; sent8 -> int4: if the kerchief does not scrabble workhouse it is not malodorous and it is a frost.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the lotus does not jell geophagy hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the embankment is not malodorous if the kerchief is not malodorous but a frost. sent2: the fact that the embankment is a Ledum is right. sent3: something does not jell geophagy and it is not a Ledum if it is not malodorous. sent4: ... | sent5 & sent2 -> int1: that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or is a Ardisia is not true.; sent6 -> int2: if that that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or is a Ardisia is not true hold then it does not jell geophagy.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or it is a kind of a Ardisia is false if the embankment is a Ledum. | [
"the fact that the embankment is a Ledum is right.",
"if that something either does not jell pustule or is a Ardisia or both is incorrect it does not jell geophagy."
] | [
"If the embankment is a Ledum, the lotus does not jell and is a kind of Ardisia.",
"If the embankment is a Ledum, the lotus does not jell and it is a kind of Ardisia."
] | If the embankment is a Ledum, the lotus does not jell and is a kind of Ardisia. | the fact that the embankment is a Ledum is right. |
the fact that the lotus does not jell geophagy hold. | sent1: the embankment is not malodorous if the kerchief is not malodorous but a frost. sent2: the fact that the embankment is a Ledum is right. sent3: something does not jell geophagy and it is not a Ledum if it is not malodorous. sent4: if that something gels pustule and/or it is a kind of a Ardisia is not right then ... | ¬{B}{b} | sent1: (¬{C}{c} & {E}{c}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent2: {A}{a} sent3: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) sent4: (x): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} v {AB}{b}) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent8: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{C}x & {E}x) | [
"sent5 & sent2 -> int1: that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or is a Ardisia is not true.; sent6 -> int2: if that that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or is a Ardisia is not true hold then it does not jell geophagy.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent5 & sent2 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{b} v {AB}{b}); sent6 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA}{b} v {AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 | the lotus does jell geophagy. | {B}{b} | 7 | [
"sent3 -> int3: the embankment does not jell geophagy and is not a Ledum if it is non-malodorous.; sent8 -> int4: if the kerchief does not scrabble workhouse it is not malodorous and it is a frost.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the lotus does not jell geophagy hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the embankment is not malodorous if the kerchief is not malodorous but a frost. sent2: the fact that the embankment is a Ledum is right. sent3: something does not jell geophagy and it is not a Ledum if it is not malodorous. sent4: ... | sent5 & sent2 -> int1: that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or is a Ardisia is not true.; sent6 -> int2: if that that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or is a Ardisia is not true hold then it does not jell geophagy.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or it is a kind of a Ardisia is false if the embankment is a Ledum. | [
"the fact that the embankment is a Ledum is right.",
"if that something either does not jell pustule or is a Ardisia or both is incorrect it does not jell geophagy."
] | [
"If the embankment is a Ledum, the lotus does not jell and is a kind of Ardisia.",
"If the embankment is a Ledum, the lotus does not jell and it is a kind of Ardisia."
] | If the embankment is a Ledum, the lotus does not jell and it is a kind of Ardisia. | if that something either does not jell pustule or is a Ardisia or both is incorrect it does not jell geophagy. |
the thoracotomy happens. | sent1: the Franciscanness happens. sent2: if the fact that the abusing Mojave does not occur is not wrong the thoracotomy does not occur and the updraft does not occur. sent3: that the thoracotomy happens is caused by that the updraft occurs. sent4: that the middle happens is not incorrect. sent5: the invocation happen... | {B} | sent1: {DJ} sent2: ¬{C} -> (¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent3: {A} -> {B} sent4: {JA} sent5: {CO} sent6: {DM} sent7: {IR} sent8: {DT} -> {EC} sent9: {HA} sent10: {HJ} -> {I} sent11: {EC} sent12: {GM} sent13: {ER} sent14: {A} | [
"sent3 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent3 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 12 | the thoracotomy does not occur. | ¬{B} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the thoracotomy happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the Franciscanness happens. sent2: if the fact that the abusing Mojave does not occur is not wrong the thoracotomy does not occur and the updraft does not occur. sent3: that the thoracotomy happens is caused by that the updraft occurs. sent4: that the middle ... | sent3 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the thoracotomy happens is caused by that the updraft occurs. | [
"the updraft occurs."
] | [
"that the thoracotomy happens is caused by that the updraft occurs."
] | that the thoracotomy happens is caused by that the updraft occurs. | the updraft occurs. |
the squawbush gels probabilism and/or it is non-paralytic. | sent1: if the rawhide does not jell hydrofluorocarbon and/or is not a conveyance that the squawbush is not a Cynewulf is not wrong. sent2: something does not jell hydrofluorocarbon and/or is not a conveyance if it is not a kind of a linoleum. sent3: that either the squawbush gels probabilism or it is not paralytic or b... | ({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) | sent1: (¬{E}{b} v ¬{F}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{G}x -> (¬{E}x v ¬{F}x) sent3: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent5: (Ex): {B}x sent6: ¬{B}{a} sent7: (x): {JB}x -> ¬({II}{at} v ¬{HA}{at}) sent8: {L}{d} sent9: ¬({A}{a} v ¬{DL}{a}) sent10: ¬(¬{I}{b} & ¬{H}{b}) -> ¬{G}{b} sent11: (E... | [
"sent11 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent11 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 1 | 1 | 14 | 0 | 14 | that the squawbush gels probabilism and/or it is not paralytic hold. | ({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) | 10 | [
"sent4 -> int1: if the squawbush is not a Cynewulf then it gels probabilism and is a bob.; sent2 -> int2: if the rawhide is not a kind of a linoleum it does not jell hydrofluorocarbon or it is not a conveyance or both.; sent16 & sent8 -> int3: the follow-up is a characterization.; sent14 & int3 -> int4: the cock-a-... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the squawbush gels probabilism and/or it is non-paralytic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the rawhide does not jell hydrofluorocarbon and/or is not a conveyance that the squawbush is not a Cynewulf is not wrong. sent2: something does not jell hydrofluorocarbon and/or is not a conveyance if it is not a kind of a... | sent11 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | something is a bob. | [
"that either the squawbush gels probabilism or it is not paralytic or both does not hold if there is something such that it is a bob."
] | [
"something is a bob."
] | something is a bob. | that either the squawbush gels probabilism or it is not paralytic or both does not hold if there is something such that it is a bob. |
the sweep does not jell gloved. | sent1: the sweep does not jell gloved if the Centre is ascensional and it is a kind of a furosemide. sent2: the fact that the provider is a kind of a loop but it is not a kind of a stickball does not hold if there are non-subhuman things. sent3: the sweep is a furosemide if the fact that the fact that the Centre does n... | ¬{F}{c} | sent1: ({D}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent3: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{H}{b}) -> {E}{c} sent4: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent5: ({I}{b} & {H}{b}) -> {G}{b} sent6: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {F}x sent8: ¬{H}{b} sent9: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{... | [
"sent11 & sent10 -> int1: the fact that the provider is not a loop and is not a stickball does not hold.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the Centre is ascensional hold.; sent14 -> int3: if the Centre is a Welsh it is a furosemide.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent11 & sent10 -> int1: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 & sent4 -> int2: {D}{b}; sent14 -> int3: {G}{b} -> {E}{b};"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 12 | 0 | 12 | the sweep gels gloved. | {F}{c} | 5 | [
"sent7 -> int4: if that the fact that the sweep is not subhuman and it does not loop hold is not true then it gels gloved.; sent18 -> int5: if the sweep is a kind of a stickball then the fact that it is not subhuman and it is not a loop is not true.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the sweep does not jell gloved. ; $context$ = sent1: the sweep does not jell gloved if the Centre is ascensional and it is a kind of a furosemide. sent2: the fact that the provider is a kind of a loop but it is not a kind of a stickball does not hold if there are non-subhuman things. sent3: the sweep is ... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it is not subhuman. | [
"if there are non-subhuman things the fact that the provider is not a loop and not a stickball is wrong.",
"if that the provider is not a loop and is not a stickball does not hold the fact that the Centre is ascensional is not wrong.",
"something is a furosemide if it is Welsh."
] | [
"There is something that is not subhuman.",
"There is a thing that is not subhuman.",
"There is something like that that is not subhuman."
] | There is something that is not subhuman. | if there are non-subhuman things the fact that the provider is not a loop and not a stickball is wrong. |
the sweep does not jell gloved. | sent1: the sweep does not jell gloved if the Centre is ascensional and it is a kind of a furosemide. sent2: the fact that the provider is a kind of a loop but it is not a kind of a stickball does not hold if there are non-subhuman things. sent3: the sweep is a furosemide if the fact that the fact that the Centre does n... | ¬{F}{c} | sent1: ({D}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent3: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{H}{b}) -> {E}{c} sent4: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent5: ({I}{b} & {H}{b}) -> {G}{b} sent6: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {F}x sent8: ¬{H}{b} sent9: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{... | [
"sent11 & sent10 -> int1: the fact that the provider is not a loop and is not a stickball does not hold.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the Centre is ascensional hold.; sent14 -> int3: if the Centre is a Welsh it is a furosemide.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent11 & sent10 -> int1: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 & sent4 -> int2: {D}{b}; sent14 -> int3: {G}{b} -> {E}{b};"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 12 | 0 | 12 | the sweep gels gloved. | {F}{c} | 5 | [
"sent7 -> int4: if that the fact that the sweep is not subhuman and it does not loop hold is not true then it gels gloved.; sent18 -> int5: if the sweep is a kind of a stickball then the fact that it is not subhuman and it is not a loop is not true.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the sweep does not jell gloved. ; $context$ = sent1: the sweep does not jell gloved if the Centre is ascensional and it is a kind of a furosemide. sent2: the fact that the provider is a kind of a loop but it is not a kind of a stickball does not hold if there are non-subhuman things. sent3: the sweep is ... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it is not subhuman. | [
"if there are non-subhuman things the fact that the provider is not a loop and not a stickball is wrong.",
"if that the provider is not a loop and is not a stickball does not hold the fact that the Centre is ascensional is not wrong.",
"something is a furosemide if it is Welsh."
] | [
"There is something that is not subhuman.",
"There is a thing that is not subhuman.",
"There is something like that that is not subhuman."
] | There is a thing that is not subhuman. | if that the provider is not a loop and is not a stickball does not hold the fact that the Centre is ascensional is not wrong. |
the sweep does not jell gloved. | sent1: the sweep does not jell gloved if the Centre is ascensional and it is a kind of a furosemide. sent2: the fact that the provider is a kind of a loop but it is not a kind of a stickball does not hold if there are non-subhuman things. sent3: the sweep is a furosemide if the fact that the fact that the Centre does n... | ¬{F}{c} | sent1: ({D}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent3: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{H}{b}) -> {E}{c} sent4: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent5: ({I}{b} & {H}{b}) -> {G}{b} sent6: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {F}x sent8: ¬{H}{b} sent9: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{... | [
"sent11 & sent10 -> int1: the fact that the provider is not a loop and is not a stickball does not hold.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the Centre is ascensional hold.; sent14 -> int3: if the Centre is a Welsh it is a furosemide.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent11 & sent10 -> int1: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 & sent4 -> int2: {D}{b}; sent14 -> int3: {G}{b} -> {E}{b};"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 12 | 0 | 12 | the sweep gels gloved. | {F}{c} | 5 | [
"sent7 -> int4: if that the fact that the sweep is not subhuman and it does not loop hold is not true then it gels gloved.; sent18 -> int5: if the sweep is a kind of a stickball then the fact that it is not subhuman and it is not a loop is not true.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the sweep does not jell gloved. ; $context$ = sent1: the sweep does not jell gloved if the Centre is ascensional and it is a kind of a furosemide. sent2: the fact that the provider is a kind of a loop but it is not a kind of a stickball does not hold if there are non-subhuman things. sent3: the sweep is ... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it is not subhuman. | [
"if there are non-subhuman things the fact that the provider is not a loop and not a stickball is wrong.",
"if that the provider is not a loop and is not a stickball does not hold the fact that the Centre is ascensional is not wrong.",
"something is a furosemide if it is Welsh."
] | [
"There is something that is not subhuman.",
"There is a thing that is not subhuman.",
"There is something like that that is not subhuman."
] | There is something like that that is not subhuman. | something is a furosemide if it is Welsh. |
the fact that the exchanger scrabbles porker and it is not non-transdermal hold. | sent1: there is something such that it is a Gothic. sent2: the exchanger is transdermal. sent3: there exists something such that that it is non-civilian does not hold. sent4: something is splintery and not anthropological. sent5: if something that is calcic does not scrabble Danu then the exchanger does scrabble porker... | ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) | sent1: (Ex): {EA}x sent2: {B}{a} sent3: (Ex): {E}x sent4: (Ex): ({FQ}x & ¬{IB}x) sent5: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {F}x) -> {D}x sent7: (Ex): ({CG}x & ¬{EJ}x) sent8: (Ex): {FK}x sent9: (Ex): {A}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent11: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent12: (Ex): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent13: (x): ({AA... | [
"sent18 & sent5 -> int1: the exchanger does scrabble porker.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent18 & sent5 -> int1: {A}{a}; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 | the fact that the exchanger does scrabble porker and it is transdermal is incorrect. | ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) | 6 | [
"sent15 -> int2: if the heliosphere is a one-hundredth it is substantival and it does not scrabble porker.; sent6 -> int3: if the fact that the heliosphere is not a one-hundredth and does scrabble toucanet does not hold it is a one-hundredth.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the exchanger scrabbles porker and it is not non-transdermal hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is a Gothic. sent2: the exchanger is transdermal. sent3: there exists something such that that it is non-civilian does not hold. sent4: something is splintery and not anth... | sent18 & sent5 -> int1: the exchanger does scrabble porker.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | something is a kind of calcic thing that does not scrabble Danu. | [
"if something that is calcic does not scrabble Danu then the exchanger does scrabble porker.",
"the exchanger is transdermal."
] | [
"There is something that does not scrabble Danu.",
"There is something that doesn't scrabble Danu."
] | There is something that does not scrabble Danu. | if something that is calcic does not scrabble Danu then the exchanger does scrabble porker. |
the fact that the exchanger scrabbles porker and it is not non-transdermal hold. | sent1: there is something such that it is a Gothic. sent2: the exchanger is transdermal. sent3: there exists something such that that it is non-civilian does not hold. sent4: something is splintery and not anthropological. sent5: if something that is calcic does not scrabble Danu then the exchanger does scrabble porker... | ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) | sent1: (Ex): {EA}x sent2: {B}{a} sent3: (Ex): {E}x sent4: (Ex): ({FQ}x & ¬{IB}x) sent5: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {F}x) -> {D}x sent7: (Ex): ({CG}x & ¬{EJ}x) sent8: (Ex): {FK}x sent9: (Ex): {A}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent11: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent12: (Ex): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent13: (x): ({AA... | [
"sent18 & sent5 -> int1: the exchanger does scrabble porker.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent18 & sent5 -> int1: {A}{a}; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 | the fact that the exchanger does scrabble porker and it is transdermal is incorrect. | ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) | 6 | [
"sent15 -> int2: if the heliosphere is a one-hundredth it is substantival and it does not scrabble porker.; sent6 -> int3: if the fact that the heliosphere is not a one-hundredth and does scrabble toucanet does not hold it is a one-hundredth.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the exchanger scrabbles porker and it is not non-transdermal hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is a Gothic. sent2: the exchanger is transdermal. sent3: there exists something such that that it is non-civilian does not hold. sent4: something is splintery and not anth... | sent18 & sent5 -> int1: the exchanger does scrabble porker.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | something is a kind of calcic thing that does not scrabble Danu. | [
"if something that is calcic does not scrabble Danu then the exchanger does scrabble porker.",
"the exchanger is transdermal."
] | [
"There is something that does not scrabble Danu.",
"There is something that doesn't scrabble Danu."
] | There is something that doesn't scrabble Danu. | the exchanger is transdermal. |
the condonation does not occur and the cyclopeanness occurs. | sent1: the inedibleness occurs if the scrabbling cockhorse does not occur. sent2: that the unknownness does not occur prevents that the parimutuel occurs. sent3: that that the unknown occurs is correct does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the condonation does not occur but the cyclopeanness happens is incorrect the p... | (¬{AA} & {AB}) | sent1: ¬{CC} -> {FE} sent2: ¬{A} -> ¬{B} sent3: ¬{A} sent4: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the condonation does not occur but the cyclopeanness happens does not hold.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the parimutuel happens.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the parimutuel does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"void -> assump1: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}); sent4 & assump1 -> int1: {B}; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: ¬{B}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the condonation does not occur and the cyclopeanness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the inedibleness occurs if the scrabbling cockhorse does not occur. sent2: that the unknownness does not occur prevents that the parimutuel occurs. sent3: that that the unknown occurs is correct does not hold. sent4: if the... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the condonation does not occur but the cyclopeanness happens does not hold.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the parimutuel happens.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the parimutuel does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the fact that the condonation does not occur but the cyclopeanness happens is incorrect the parimutuel occurs. | [
"that the unknownness does not occur prevents that the parimutuel occurs.",
"that that the unknown occurs is correct does not hold."
] | [
"If the condonation doesn't happen but the cyclopeanness happens, it's incorrect.",
"If the condonation doesn't happen but the cyclopeanness does, it's incorrect."
] | If the condonation doesn't happen but the cyclopeanness happens, it's incorrect. | that the unknownness does not occur prevents that the parimutuel occurs. |
the condonation does not occur and the cyclopeanness occurs. | sent1: the inedibleness occurs if the scrabbling cockhorse does not occur. sent2: that the unknownness does not occur prevents that the parimutuel occurs. sent3: that that the unknown occurs is correct does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the condonation does not occur but the cyclopeanness happens is incorrect the p... | (¬{AA} & {AB}) | sent1: ¬{CC} -> {FE} sent2: ¬{A} -> ¬{B} sent3: ¬{A} sent4: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the condonation does not occur but the cyclopeanness happens does not hold.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the parimutuel happens.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the parimutuel does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"void -> assump1: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}); sent4 & assump1 -> int1: {B}; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: ¬{B}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the condonation does not occur and the cyclopeanness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the inedibleness occurs if the scrabbling cockhorse does not occur. sent2: that the unknownness does not occur prevents that the parimutuel occurs. sent3: that that the unknown occurs is correct does not hold. sent4: if the... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the condonation does not occur but the cyclopeanness happens does not hold.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the parimutuel happens.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the parimutuel does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the fact that the condonation does not occur but the cyclopeanness happens is incorrect the parimutuel occurs. | [
"that the unknownness does not occur prevents that the parimutuel occurs.",
"that that the unknown occurs is correct does not hold."
] | [
"If the condonation doesn't happen but the cyclopeanness happens, it's incorrect.",
"If the condonation doesn't happen but the cyclopeanness does, it's incorrect."
] | If the condonation doesn't happen but the cyclopeanness does, it's incorrect. | that that the unknown occurs is correct does not hold. |
the squawbush is a kind of a joylessness. | sent1: if the furfural is both phenomenal and unoriginal the decline ashes. sent2: if the fact that something is a foster-daughter and is a kind of a joylessness is false it is not a joylessness. sent3: the furfural is phenomenal and is not unoriginal. sent4: if the furfural is phenomenal but it is not unoriginal the d... | {A}{c} | sent1: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent2: (x): ¬({C}x & {A}x) -> ¬{A}x sent3: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent5: ({D}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent6: ¬{AB}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({C}x & {A}x) sent8: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{B}x & {A}x) | [
"sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the decline is a kind of an ash is not incorrect.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it is an ash.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent4 & sent3 -> int1: {B}{b}; int1 -> int2: (Ex): {B}x;"
] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 | that the squawbush is not a joylessness is not incorrect. | ¬{A}{c} | 6 | [
"sent2 -> int3: the squawbush is not a joylessness if that it is a kind of a foster-daughter and is a joylessness is not right.; sent7 -> int4: the fact that the squawbush is a foster-daughter and it is a joylessness is not true if it does not ash.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the squawbush is a kind of a joylessness. ; $context$ = sent1: if the furfural is both phenomenal and unoriginal the decline ashes. sent2: if the fact that something is a foster-daughter and is a kind of a joylessness is false it is not a joylessness. sent3: the furfural is phenomenal and is not unorigin... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | if the furfural is phenomenal but it is not unoriginal the decline is an ash. | [
"the furfural is phenomenal and is not unoriginal."
] | [
"if the furfural is phenomenal but it is not unoriginal the decline is an ash."
] | if the furfural is phenomenal but it is not unoriginal the decline is an ash. | the furfural is phenomenal and is not unoriginal. |
the nones occurs. | sent1: if the scrabbling pizzicato does not occur then the mapping does not occur. sent2: the fact that either the Terpsichore does not occur or the articularness does not occur or both is incorrect. sent3: if that the weightlessness does not occur is right then the fact that the theatricalness but not the nones occurs... | {A} | sent1: ¬{DN} -> ¬{FS} sent2: ¬(¬{ES} v ¬{T}) sent3: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & ¬{A}) sent4: ¬{B} -> ¬{A} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) sent6: {AA} sent7: ¬{EF} sent8: ¬(¬{IJ} v ¬{IE}) -> ¬{BO} sent9: ¬{E} -> (¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent10: ¬({AA} v ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent11: ¬{G} -> (¬{F} v ¬{E}) sent12: ¬{IK} sent13: ¬{IF} sent14: (¬{F} v ¬{E}) -> ... | [
"sent17 & sent5 -> int1: the theatrical does not occur.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent17 & sent5 -> int1: ¬{B}; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 14 | the nones happens. | {A} | 9 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the nones occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the scrabbling pizzicato does not occur then the mapping does not occur. sent2: the fact that either the Terpsichore does not occur or the articularness does not occur or both is incorrect. sent3: if that the weightlessness does not occur is right then the fact t... | sent17 & sent5 -> int1: the theatrical does not occur.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the theatricalness does not occur if that the shuttingness does not occur or the gelling Laos does not occur or both is not right. | [
"that the shuttingness does not occur or the gelling Laos does not occur or both is not correct.",
"if the theatrical does not occur then the nones does not occur."
] | [
"If the shuttingness doesn't happen or the gelling doesn't happen, the theatricalness doesn't happen.",
"If the shuttingness doesn't happen or the gelling Laos doesn't happen, the theatricalness doesn't happen."
] | If the shuttingness doesn't happen or the gelling doesn't happen, the theatricalness doesn't happen. | that the shuttingness does not occur or the gelling Laos does not occur or both is not correct. |
the nones occurs. | sent1: if the scrabbling pizzicato does not occur then the mapping does not occur. sent2: the fact that either the Terpsichore does not occur or the articularness does not occur or both is incorrect. sent3: if that the weightlessness does not occur is right then the fact that the theatricalness but not the nones occurs... | {A} | sent1: ¬{DN} -> ¬{FS} sent2: ¬(¬{ES} v ¬{T}) sent3: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & ¬{A}) sent4: ¬{B} -> ¬{A} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) sent6: {AA} sent7: ¬{EF} sent8: ¬(¬{IJ} v ¬{IE}) -> ¬{BO} sent9: ¬{E} -> (¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent10: ¬({AA} v ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent11: ¬{G} -> (¬{F} v ¬{E}) sent12: ¬{IK} sent13: ¬{IF} sent14: (¬{F} v ¬{E}) -> ... | [
"sent17 & sent5 -> int1: the theatrical does not occur.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent17 & sent5 -> int1: ¬{B}; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 14 | the nones happens. | {A} | 9 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the nones occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the scrabbling pizzicato does not occur then the mapping does not occur. sent2: the fact that either the Terpsichore does not occur or the articularness does not occur or both is incorrect. sent3: if that the weightlessness does not occur is right then the fact t... | sent17 & sent5 -> int1: the theatrical does not occur.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the theatricalness does not occur if that the shuttingness does not occur or the gelling Laos does not occur or both is not right. | [
"that the shuttingness does not occur or the gelling Laos does not occur or both is not correct.",
"if the theatrical does not occur then the nones does not occur."
] | [
"If the shuttingness doesn't happen or the gelling doesn't happen, the theatricalness doesn't happen.",
"If the shuttingness doesn't happen or the gelling Laos doesn't happen, the theatricalness doesn't happen."
] | If the shuttingness doesn't happen or the gelling Laos doesn't happen, the theatricalness doesn't happen. | if the theatrical does not occur then the nones does not occur. |
the analysand does fire but it is not a luger. | sent1: the fact that the raider is a kind of a fire that does not bond is incorrect. sent2: the fact that something is a fire but it is not a luger is true if the fact that it is a thermojunction is correct. sent3: that the Riff is a kind of a luger is true. sent4: that that the fact that the analysand is a fire but it... | ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) | sent1: ¬({B}{aa} & ¬{BN}{aa}) sent2: (x): {A}x -> ({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent3: {C}{jj} sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent5: (x): {A}x -> ¬({C}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) sent6: {A}{aa} sent7: ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent8: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) | [
"sent6 -> int1: something is a thermojunction.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent6 -> int1: (Ex): {A}x; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 6 | the analysand is a fire that is not a luger. | ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) | 5 | [
"sent2 -> int2: if the analysand is a thermojunction then it is a fire and is not a luger.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the analysand does fire but it is not a luger. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the raider is a kind of a fire that does not bond is incorrect. sent2: the fact that something is a fire but it is not a luger is true if the fact that it is a thermojunction is correct. sent3: that the Riff is a kind of a ... | sent6 -> int1: something is a thermojunction.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the raider is a thermojunction. | [
"that that the fact that the analysand is a fire but it is not a luger is not false is not right hold if there exists something such that it is a thermojunction."
] | [
"the raider is a thermojunction."
] | the raider is a thermojunction. | that that the fact that the analysand is a fire but it is not a luger is not false is not right hold if there exists something such that it is a thermojunction. |
the serviceman is not operable but it is a bonfire. | sent1: either the serviceman is an accounting or it is not a uplink or both. sent2: if the Angolese is a parade it does tuck Irish. sent3: if the serviceman accounts and/or is not a viewers that it is a bonfire is not false. sent4: the serviceman is not operable if it is not a Bengali. sent5: the serviceman is not a sm... | (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) | sent1: ({D}{a} v ¬{HH}{a}) sent2: {BR}{db} -> {BE}{db} sent3: ({D}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) -> {C}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: ¬{Q}{a} sent6: ¬{E}{hu} sent7: ¬{E}{go} sent8: ¬{C}{co} sent9: (¬{CI}{a} & {FS}{a}) sent10: ¬{B}{hi} sent11: ({D}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) sent12: ¬{FE}{a} sent13: ({E}{a} v ¬{FQ}{a}) sent14: ¬{A}{gh} sent15... | [
"sent4 & sent15 -> int1: the serviceman is not operable.; sent3 & sent11 -> int2: the serviceman is a bonfire.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent4 & sent15 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent3 & sent11 -> int2: {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the serviceman is not operable but it is a bonfire. ; $context$ = sent1: either the serviceman is an accounting or it is not a uplink or both. sent2: if the Angolese is a parade it does tuck Irish. sent3: if the serviceman accounts and/or is not a viewers that it is a bonfire is not false. sent4: the ser... | sent4 & sent15 -> int1: the serviceman is not operable.; sent3 & sent11 -> int2: the serviceman is a bonfire.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the serviceman is not operable if it is not a Bengali. | [
"the serviceman is not a kind of a Bengali.",
"if the serviceman accounts and/or is not a viewers that it is a bonfire is not false.",
"the serviceman accounts and/or it is not a kind of a viewers."
] | [
"If it's not a Bengali, the serviceman won't work.",
"The serviceman is not functional if he is not a Bengali.",
"If it is not a Bengali, the serviceman won't work."
] | If it's not a Bengali, the serviceman won't work. | the serviceman is not a kind of a Bengali. |
the serviceman is not operable but it is a bonfire. | sent1: either the serviceman is an accounting or it is not a uplink or both. sent2: if the Angolese is a parade it does tuck Irish. sent3: if the serviceman accounts and/or is not a viewers that it is a bonfire is not false. sent4: the serviceman is not operable if it is not a Bengali. sent5: the serviceman is not a sm... | (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) | sent1: ({D}{a} v ¬{HH}{a}) sent2: {BR}{db} -> {BE}{db} sent3: ({D}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) -> {C}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: ¬{Q}{a} sent6: ¬{E}{hu} sent7: ¬{E}{go} sent8: ¬{C}{co} sent9: (¬{CI}{a} & {FS}{a}) sent10: ¬{B}{hi} sent11: ({D}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) sent12: ¬{FE}{a} sent13: ({E}{a} v ¬{FQ}{a}) sent14: ¬{A}{gh} sent15... | [
"sent4 & sent15 -> int1: the serviceman is not operable.; sent3 & sent11 -> int2: the serviceman is a bonfire.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent4 & sent15 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent3 & sent11 -> int2: {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the serviceman is not operable but it is a bonfire. ; $context$ = sent1: either the serviceman is an accounting or it is not a uplink or both. sent2: if the Angolese is a parade it does tuck Irish. sent3: if the serviceman accounts and/or is not a viewers that it is a bonfire is not false. sent4: the ser... | sent4 & sent15 -> int1: the serviceman is not operable.; sent3 & sent11 -> int2: the serviceman is a bonfire.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the serviceman is not operable if it is not a Bengali. | [
"the serviceman is not a kind of a Bengali.",
"if the serviceman accounts and/or is not a viewers that it is a bonfire is not false.",
"the serviceman accounts and/or it is not a kind of a viewers."
] | [
"If it's not a Bengali, the serviceman won't work.",
"The serviceman is not functional if he is not a Bengali.",
"If it is not a Bengali, the serviceman won't work."
] | The serviceman is not functional if he is not a Bengali. | if the serviceman accounts and/or is not a viewers that it is a bonfire is not false. |
the serviceman is not operable but it is a bonfire. | sent1: either the serviceman is an accounting or it is not a uplink or both. sent2: if the Angolese is a parade it does tuck Irish. sent3: if the serviceman accounts and/or is not a viewers that it is a bonfire is not false. sent4: the serviceman is not operable if it is not a Bengali. sent5: the serviceman is not a sm... | (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) | sent1: ({D}{a} v ¬{HH}{a}) sent2: {BR}{db} -> {BE}{db} sent3: ({D}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) -> {C}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: ¬{Q}{a} sent6: ¬{E}{hu} sent7: ¬{E}{go} sent8: ¬{C}{co} sent9: (¬{CI}{a} & {FS}{a}) sent10: ¬{B}{hi} sent11: ({D}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) sent12: ¬{FE}{a} sent13: ({E}{a} v ¬{FQ}{a}) sent14: ¬{A}{gh} sent15... | [
"sent4 & sent15 -> int1: the serviceman is not operable.; sent3 & sent11 -> int2: the serviceman is a bonfire.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent4 & sent15 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent3 & sent11 -> int2: {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the serviceman is not operable but it is a bonfire. ; $context$ = sent1: either the serviceman is an accounting or it is not a uplink or both. sent2: if the Angolese is a parade it does tuck Irish. sent3: if the serviceman accounts and/or is not a viewers that it is a bonfire is not false. sent4: the ser... | sent4 & sent15 -> int1: the serviceman is not operable.; sent3 & sent11 -> int2: the serviceman is a bonfire.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the serviceman is not operable if it is not a Bengali. | [
"the serviceman is not a kind of a Bengali.",
"if the serviceman accounts and/or is not a viewers that it is a bonfire is not false.",
"the serviceman accounts and/or it is not a kind of a viewers."
] | [
"If it's not a Bengali, the serviceman won't work.",
"The serviceman is not functional if he is not a Bengali.",
"If it is not a Bengali, the serviceman won't work."
] | If it is not a Bengali, the serviceman won't work. | the serviceman accounts and/or it is not a kind of a viewers. |
the fact that the SNP does scrabble Dachau is not false. | sent1: something that is gymnosophical is algorithmic. sent2: if there exists something such that the fact that it is cheerful and/or it is a anil does not hold the SNP does not scrabble Dachau. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is cheerful and/or it is not a anil is false the SNP does not scr... | {A}{a} | sent1: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent2: (x): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent3: (x): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent4: {E}{b} -> {D}{a} sent5: (Ex): {AB}x sent6: (Ex): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent7: ¬{BN}{cg} sent8: (x): ¬({DI}x v ¬{CL}x) -> ¬{GM}{a} sent9: (Ex): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent10: ¬{G}{b} -> ({E}{b} & {F}{b}) sent11: (x): {... | [
"sent9 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent9 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 1 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 9 | the suspension does not scrabble Dachau. | ¬{A}{co} | 7 | [
"sent11 -> int1: if that the SNP is algorithmic hold then it is leafy.; sent1 -> int2: the SNP is algorithmic if it is gymnosophical.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the SNP does scrabble Dachau is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: something that is gymnosophical is algorithmic. sent2: if there exists something such that the fact that it is cheerful and/or it is a anil does not hold the SNP does not scrabble Dachau. sent3: if there exists something such t... | sent9 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that that it is cheerful or not a anil or both is incorrect. | [
"if there exists something such that the fact that it is cheerful and/or it is not a anil is false the SNP does not scrabble Dachau."
] | [
"there exists something such that that it is cheerful or not a anil or both is incorrect."
] | there exists something such that that it is cheerful or not a anil or both is incorrect. | if there exists something such that the fact that it is cheerful and/or it is not a anil is false the SNP does not scrabble Dachau. |
the dextrin is not a kind of a fascista. | sent1: the habitat is non-Colombian thing that scrabbles registered. sent2: that the dextrin is permeable and not a Shawn is not right if it does jell soldiering. sent3: the candle abuses Reich. sent4: the dextrin is not permeable if the candle scrabbles Mutinus. sent5: if something is both not impermeable and a delinq... | ¬{E}{b} | sent1: (¬{EU}{df} & {FL}{df}) sent2: {G}{b} -> ¬({D}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) sent3: {A}{a} sent4: {B}{a} -> ¬{D}{b} sent5: (x): ({D}x & {C}x) -> ¬{E}x sent6: (x): {A}x sent7: {B}{a} -> (¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) sent8: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {E}x sent9: {J}{b} sent10: {B}{b} -> (¬{E}{a} & {D}{a}) sent11: ¬{D}{b} sent12: ({D}{b} & {C}{b}... | [
"sent6 -> int1: the slag does abuse Reich.; sent14 -> int2: if the dextrin is not permeable but it is a kind of a delinquent then it is not a fascista.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent6 -> int1: {A}{aa}; sent14 -> int2: (¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{E}{b};"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 14 | 0 | 14 | the dextrin is fascista. | {E}{b} | 7 | [
"sent8 -> int3: if the dextrin scrabbles Mutinus but it does not abuse Reich then it is a kind of a fascista.; sent16 -> int4: if the dextrin is Sinhala then it is a Orleanism and/or it is not a kind of a library.; int4 & sent9 -> int5: the dextrin is a Orleanism or it is not a library or both.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the dextrin is not a kind of a fascista. ; $context$ = sent1: the habitat is non-Colombian thing that scrabbles registered. sent2: that the dextrin is permeable and not a Shawn is not right if it does jell soldiering. sent3: the candle abuses Reich. sent4: the dextrin is not permeable if the candle scrab... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | everything abuses Reich. | [
"if something that is not permeable is a delinquent then it is not a fascista."
] | [
"everything abuses Reich."
] | everything abuses Reich. | if something that is not permeable is a delinquent then it is not a fascista. |
the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a kind of a vermouth. | sent1: if the bister is not a Poecilocapsus the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a vermouth. sent2: if something is not a Poecilocapsus the fact that it is vesicular and it is not a pollinium is incorrect. sent3: the correspondent is not a kind of a minimalist. sent4: if the fact that the correspondent consorts ... | (¬{D}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) | sent1: ¬{B}{b} -> (¬{D}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent2: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({EC}x & ¬{DU}x) sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) | [
"sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the correspondent does consort Szilard and does not breathe is false.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the bister is not a Poecilocapsus.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent5 & sent3 -> int1: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent4 & int1 -> int2: ¬{B}{b}; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | if that the bondwoman is not a Poecilocapsus is not wrong the fact that it is both vesicular and not a pollinium is wrong. | ¬{B}{c} -> ¬({EC}{c} & ¬{DU}{c}) | 1 | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a kind of a vermouth. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bister is not a Poecilocapsus the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a vermouth. sent2: if something is not a Poecilocapsus the fact that it is vesicular and it is not a pollinium is incorrect. sent3: the c... | sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the correspondent does consort Szilard and does not breathe is false.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the bister is not a Poecilocapsus.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe does not hold if it is not minimalist. | [
"the correspondent is not a kind of a minimalist.",
"if the fact that the correspondent consorts Szilard but it does not breathe is not right then the bister is not a Poecilocapsus.",
"if the bister is not a Poecilocapsus the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a vermouth."
] | [
"If it is not minimalist, the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe.",
"If it is not minimalist, the correspondent consorts with Szilard and does not breathe.",
"If it's not minimalist, the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe."
] | If it is not minimalist, the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe. | the correspondent is not a kind of a minimalist. |
the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a kind of a vermouth. | sent1: if the bister is not a Poecilocapsus the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a vermouth. sent2: if something is not a Poecilocapsus the fact that it is vesicular and it is not a pollinium is incorrect. sent3: the correspondent is not a kind of a minimalist. sent4: if the fact that the correspondent consorts ... | (¬{D}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) | sent1: ¬{B}{b} -> (¬{D}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent2: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({EC}x & ¬{DU}x) sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) | [
"sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the correspondent does consort Szilard and does not breathe is false.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the bister is not a Poecilocapsus.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent5 & sent3 -> int1: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent4 & int1 -> int2: ¬{B}{b}; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | if that the bondwoman is not a Poecilocapsus is not wrong the fact that it is both vesicular and not a pollinium is wrong. | ¬{B}{c} -> ¬({EC}{c} & ¬{DU}{c}) | 1 | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a kind of a vermouth. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bister is not a Poecilocapsus the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a vermouth. sent2: if something is not a Poecilocapsus the fact that it is vesicular and it is not a pollinium is incorrect. sent3: the c... | sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the correspondent does consort Szilard and does not breathe is false.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the bister is not a Poecilocapsus.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe does not hold if it is not minimalist. | [
"the correspondent is not a kind of a minimalist.",
"if the fact that the correspondent consorts Szilard but it does not breathe is not right then the bister is not a Poecilocapsus.",
"if the bister is not a Poecilocapsus the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a vermouth."
] | [
"If it is not minimalist, the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe.",
"If it is not minimalist, the correspondent consorts with Szilard and does not breathe.",
"If it's not minimalist, the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe."
] | If it is not minimalist, the correspondent consorts with Szilard and does not breathe. | if the fact that the correspondent consorts Szilard but it does not breathe is not right then the bister is not a Poecilocapsus. |
the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a kind of a vermouth. | sent1: if the bister is not a Poecilocapsus the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a vermouth. sent2: if something is not a Poecilocapsus the fact that it is vesicular and it is not a pollinium is incorrect. sent3: the correspondent is not a kind of a minimalist. sent4: if the fact that the correspondent consorts ... | (¬{D}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) | sent1: ¬{B}{b} -> (¬{D}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent2: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({EC}x & ¬{DU}x) sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) | [
"sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the correspondent does consort Szilard and does not breathe is false.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the bister is not a Poecilocapsus.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent5 & sent3 -> int1: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent4 & int1 -> int2: ¬{B}{b}; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | if that the bondwoman is not a Poecilocapsus is not wrong the fact that it is both vesicular and not a pollinium is wrong. | ¬{B}{c} -> ¬({EC}{c} & ¬{DU}{c}) | 1 | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a kind of a vermouth. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bister is not a Poecilocapsus the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a vermouth. sent2: if something is not a Poecilocapsus the fact that it is vesicular and it is not a pollinium is incorrect. sent3: the c... | sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the correspondent does consort Szilard and does not breathe is false.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the bister is not a Poecilocapsus.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe does not hold if it is not minimalist. | [
"the correspondent is not a kind of a minimalist.",
"if the fact that the correspondent consorts Szilard but it does not breathe is not right then the bister is not a Poecilocapsus.",
"if the bister is not a Poecilocapsus the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a vermouth."
] | [
"If it is not minimalist, the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe.",
"If it is not minimalist, the correspondent consorts with Szilard and does not breathe.",
"If it's not minimalist, the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe."
] | If it's not minimalist, the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe. | if the bister is not a Poecilocapsus the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a vermouth. |
the elastic happens. | sent1: if the relevantness does not occur and the exploiting does not occur then the consorting bullfighter does not occur. sent2: that the Parisianness does not occur causes that the relevantness does not occur and the exploiting does not occur. sent3: if the down-bow does not occur the outing does not occur. sent4: t... | {E} | sent1: (¬{P} & ¬{Q}) -> ¬{O} sent2: ¬{R} -> (¬{P} & ¬{Q}) sent3: ¬{K} -> ¬{J} sent4: {M} -> (¬{K} & {L}) sent5: {C} -> ¬({B} & ¬{A}) sent6: (¬{EG} v ¬{EJ}) sent7: {HB} -> {DO} sent8: (¬{C} v ¬{B}) -> {D} sent9: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {C}) sent10: ({C} v ¬{B}) sent11: {G} -> ¬{F} sent12: {IB} -> {IO} sent13: {FO} sent14: {D} ->... | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 | the elastic does not occur. | ¬{E} | 15 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the elastic happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the relevantness does not occur and the exploiting does not occur then the consorting bullfighter does not occur. sent2: that the Parisianness does not occur causes that the relevantness does not occur and the exploiting does not occur. sent3: if the down-bow ... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | either that the allurement does not occur or that the considering zinfandel does not occur or both prevents that the unalterableness does not occur. | [
"if the bismuthicness occurs then that the pas occurs is true."
] | [
"either that the allurement does not occur or that the considering zinfandel does not occur or both prevents that the unalterableness does not occur."
] | either that the allurement does not occur or that the considering zinfandel does not occur or both prevents that the unalterableness does not occur. | if the bismuthicness occurs then that the pas occurs is true. |
the gum occurs. | sent1: the gum does not occur if that the gum occurs but the considering nympholepsy does not occur is wrong. sent2: the feminizing Copland does not occur and the considering nympholepsy does not occur if the path occurs. sent3: if the feminizing Copland does not occur not the gum but the surveying happens. sent4: the ... | {C} | sent1: ¬({C} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} sent2: {E} -> (¬{B} & ¬{D}) sent3: ¬{B} -> (¬{C} & {A}) sent4: {FU} sent5: ({A} & {B}) sent6: {BS} sent7: {B} -> {C} sent8: ¬{C} -> ({A} v ¬{B}) | [
"sent5 -> int1: the feminizing Copland occurs.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent5 -> int1: {B}; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 6 | the gum does not occur. | ¬{C} | 7 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the gum occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the gum does not occur if that the gum occurs but the considering nympholepsy does not occur is wrong. sent2: the feminizing Copland does not occur and the considering nympholepsy does not occur if the path occurs. sent3: if the feminizing Copland does not occur not t... | sent5 -> int1: the feminizing Copland occurs.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the surveying and the feminizing Copland occurs. | [
"that the gumming happens is triggered by that the feminizing Copland occurs."
] | [
"the surveying and the feminizing Copland occurs."
] | the surveying and the feminizing Copland occurs. | that the gumming happens is triggered by that the feminizing Copland occurs. |
the fact that the cardinalship occurs and the preening occurs is not true. | sent1: the preening happens. sent2: that the cardinalship occurs and the preening occurs is not right if that the implicationalness does not occur hold. sent3: if the fact that the preening does not occur hold the mitoticness occurs and the cardinalship happens. sent4: that both the implicationalness and the full-timen... | ¬({A} & {B}) | sent1: {B} sent2: ¬{C} -> ¬({A} & {B}) sent3: ¬{B} -> ({GD} & {A}) sent4: ¬{F} -> ({C} & {E}) sent5: ({C} & {D}) -> ¬{B} sent6: (¬{H} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{F} sent7: {A} | [
"sent7 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent7 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5 | that the cardinalship happens and the preening occurs does not hold. | ¬({A} & {B}) | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the cardinalship occurs and the preening occurs is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the preening happens. sent2: that the cardinalship occurs and the preening occurs is not right if that the implicationalness does not occur hold. sent3: if the fact that the preening does not occur hold the mi... | sent7 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the cardinalship occurs. | [
"the preening happens."
] | [
"the cardinalship occurs."
] | the cardinalship occurs. | the preening happens. |
the Chickasaw is not therapeutics. | sent1: that something is therapeutics if the fact that it is not a bootleg and it is therapeutics is not true is correct. sent2: the subcontractor is not nebulous if the fact that the minaret is robotic and is not a kind of a thumbtack is not correct. sent3: if something bootlegs then it is non-therapeutics. sent4: som... | ¬{C}{a} | sent1: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{C}x) -> {C}x sent2: ¬({F}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent3: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}x sent4: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x & {D}x) sent5: ({B}{a} v {JB}{a}) sent6: {A}{a} -> ¬{C}{a} sent7: {C}{b} -> (¬{B}{a} & {CF}{a}) sent8: {B}{a} sent9: (x): ({A}x v {B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent10: (¬{B}{a} & {CF}{a}) -> {CF}{hm} sent11:... | [
"sent8 -> int1: either the Chickasaw does bootleg or it is etiological or both.; sent9 -> int2: the Chickasaw is not therapeutics if either it is a bootleg or it is etiological or both.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent8 -> int1: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}); sent9 -> int2: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 | the flight is a kind of a bootleg and/or is a Florentine. | ({A}{hm} v {CF}{hm}) | 8 | [
"sent4 -> int3: if that the subcontractor is not nebulous is correct that it is therapeutics and it is a tam is right.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Chickasaw is not therapeutics. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is therapeutics if the fact that it is not a bootleg and it is therapeutics is not true is correct. sent2: the subcontractor is not nebulous if the fact that the minaret is robotic and is not a kind of a thumbtack is not correct. sent... | sent8 -> int1: either the Chickasaw does bootleg or it is etiological or both.; sent9 -> int2: the Chickasaw is not therapeutics if either it is a bootleg or it is etiological or both.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the Chickasaw is etiological. | [
"if something is a kind of a bootleg and/or it is etiological it is non-therapeutics."
] | [
"the Chickasaw is etiological."
] | the Chickasaw is etiological. | if something is a kind of a bootleg and/or it is etiological it is non-therapeutics. |
the tern is not a march and is a kind of a roadworthiness. | sent1: something considers hypo if it does consider townie. sent2: there exists something such that it gangs and it is not a kind of a put-put. sent3: the tern is not a kind of a march if that it is cheliceral thing that is not a salutatorian is wrong. sent4: that the tern is cheliceral and it is a salutatorian is wron... | (¬{B}{a} & {A}{a}) | sent1: (x): {F}x -> {E}x sent2: (Ex): ({K}x & ¬{J}x) sent3: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent4: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent5: {B}{j} -> ¬{HD}{j} sent6: (x): ({K}x & ¬{J}x) -> ¬{H}{d} sent7: {D}{b} -> ¬({C}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) sent8: {C}{a} -> {A}{a} sent9: ¬{CG}{a} sent10: {E}{c} -> {E}{b} sent11: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent12:... | [
"sent8 & sent16 -> int1: the tern is a roadworthiness.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent8 & sent16 -> int1: {A}{a};"
] | UNKNOWN | 2 | null | 15 | 0 | 15 | the fact that the tern is not a march but it is a roadworthiness does not hold. | ¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a}) | 9 | [
"sent13 -> int2: the Democrat is not a kind of a Coerebidae.; sent12 -> int3: the fact that the Democrat does not consort Sternotherus is right.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the Democrat is not a kind of a Coerebidae and does not consort Sternotherus.; int4 -> int5: the fact that that everything is not a kind of a Coerebi... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the tern is not a march and is a kind of a roadworthiness. ; $context$ = sent1: something considers hypo if it does consider townie. sent2: there exists something such that it gangs and it is not a kind of a put-put. sent3: the tern is not a kind of a march if that it is cheliceral thing that is not a sa... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | if the tern encourages then it is a roadworthiness. | [
"the tern encourages."
] | [
"if the tern encourages then it is a roadworthiness."
] | if the tern encourages then it is a roadworthiness. | the tern encourages. |
that the indapamide is not precordial is not wrong. | sent1: if the sgraffito feminizes future then it does not consort capacitance and/or it is not private. sent2: something is precordial if it does not cat and/or is not a private. sent3: either the indapamide is not a cat or it is not a private or both if it is dorsal. sent4: the indapamide is dorsal. | ¬{B}{a} | sent1: {CI}{gk} -> (¬{BH}{gk} v ¬{AB}{gk}) sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent3: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: {A}{a} | [
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: either the indapamide is not a cat or it is not a private or both.; sent2 -> int2: if either the indapamide is not a kind of a cat or it is not private or both it is precordial.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}); sent2 -> int2: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = that the indapamide is not precordial is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sgraffito feminizes future then it does not consort capacitance and/or it is not private. sent2: something is precordial if it does not cat and/or is not a private. sent3: either the indapamide is not a cat or it is not a pri... | sent3 & sent4 -> int1: either the indapamide is not a cat or it is not a private or both.; sent2 -> int2: if either the indapamide is not a kind of a cat or it is not private or both it is precordial.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | either the indapamide is not a cat or it is not a private or both if it is dorsal. | [
"the indapamide is dorsal.",
"something is precordial if it does not cat and/or is not a private."
] | [
"The indapamide is either a cat or a private animal.",
"The indapamide is either a private or a cat."
] | The indapamide is either a cat or a private animal. | the indapamide is dorsal. |
that the indapamide is not precordial is not wrong. | sent1: if the sgraffito feminizes future then it does not consort capacitance and/or it is not private. sent2: something is precordial if it does not cat and/or is not a private. sent3: either the indapamide is not a cat or it is not a private or both if it is dorsal. sent4: the indapamide is dorsal. | ¬{B}{a} | sent1: {CI}{gk} -> (¬{BH}{gk} v ¬{AB}{gk}) sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent3: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: {A}{a} | [
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: either the indapamide is not a cat or it is not a private or both.; sent2 -> int2: if either the indapamide is not a kind of a cat or it is not private or both it is precordial.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}); sent2 -> int2: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = that the indapamide is not precordial is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sgraffito feminizes future then it does not consort capacitance and/or it is not private. sent2: something is precordial if it does not cat and/or is not a private. sent3: either the indapamide is not a cat or it is not a pri... | sent3 & sent4 -> int1: either the indapamide is not a cat or it is not a private or both.; sent2 -> int2: if either the indapamide is not a kind of a cat or it is not private or both it is precordial.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | either the indapamide is not a cat or it is not a private or both if it is dorsal. | [
"the indapamide is dorsal.",
"something is precordial if it does not cat and/or is not a private."
] | [
"The indapamide is either a cat or a private animal.",
"The indapamide is either a private or a cat."
] | The indapamide is either a private or a cat. | something is precordial if it does not cat and/or is not a private. |
the caboose is not a effeminacy. | sent1: either the allspice is a Arlington or it is agreeable or both if it is not a Caligula. sent2: the fergusonite is skeletal. sent3: that the fact that the allspice does not feminize Buffalo and is a kind of a horizontality is incorrect is not wrong. sent4: the fact that the allspice is not a Caligula is correct if... | ¬{D}{c} | sent1: ¬{I}{e} -> ({H}{e} v {G}{e}) sent2: {A}{a} sent3: ¬(¬{J}{e} & {K}{e}) sent4: ¬(¬{J}{e} & {K}{e}) -> ¬{I}{e} sent5: {FP}{a} sent6: {C}{b} -> {D}{c} sent7: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent8: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent9: {C}{a} -> {B}{b} sent10: {B}{b} -> {C}{a} sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x v {B}x) sent12: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({A}x & {... | [
"sent8 -> int1: the fergusonite is immediate.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the wheeze is macrobiotics.; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent8 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent7 & int1 -> int2: {C}{b}; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 | the fetter is immediate and it is minor. | ({B}{fs} & {S}{fs}) | 4 | [
"sent12 -> int3: if the fetter is not a effeminacy then it is skeletal and is immediate.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the caboose is not a effeminacy. ; $context$ = sent1: either the allspice is a Arlington or it is agreeable or both if it is not a Caligula. sent2: the fergusonite is skeletal. sent3: that the fact that the allspice does not feminize Buffalo and is a kind of a horizontality is incorrect is not wrong. sen... | sent8 -> int1: the fergusonite is immediate.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the wheeze is macrobiotics.; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fergusonite is not non-skeletal but immediate. | [
"if the fergusonite is immediate the wheeze is macrobiotics.",
"the caboose is a kind of a effeminacy if the wheeze is macrobiotics."
] | [
"The fergusonite is immediate.",
"The fergusonite is immediate and non-skeletal."
] | The fergusonite is immediate. | if the fergusonite is immediate the wheeze is macrobiotics. |
the caboose is not a effeminacy. | sent1: either the allspice is a Arlington or it is agreeable or both if it is not a Caligula. sent2: the fergusonite is skeletal. sent3: that the fact that the allspice does not feminize Buffalo and is a kind of a horizontality is incorrect is not wrong. sent4: the fact that the allspice is not a Caligula is correct if... | ¬{D}{c} | sent1: ¬{I}{e} -> ({H}{e} v {G}{e}) sent2: {A}{a} sent3: ¬(¬{J}{e} & {K}{e}) sent4: ¬(¬{J}{e} & {K}{e}) -> ¬{I}{e} sent5: {FP}{a} sent6: {C}{b} -> {D}{c} sent7: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent8: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent9: {C}{a} -> {B}{b} sent10: {B}{b} -> {C}{a} sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x v {B}x) sent12: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({A}x & {... | [
"sent8 -> int1: the fergusonite is immediate.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the wheeze is macrobiotics.; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent8 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent7 & int1 -> int2: {C}{b}; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 | the fetter is immediate and it is minor. | ({B}{fs} & {S}{fs}) | 4 | [
"sent12 -> int3: if the fetter is not a effeminacy then it is skeletal and is immediate.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the caboose is not a effeminacy. ; $context$ = sent1: either the allspice is a Arlington or it is agreeable or both if it is not a Caligula. sent2: the fergusonite is skeletal. sent3: that the fact that the allspice does not feminize Buffalo and is a kind of a horizontality is incorrect is not wrong. sen... | sent8 -> int1: the fergusonite is immediate.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the wheeze is macrobiotics.; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fergusonite is not non-skeletal but immediate. | [
"if the fergusonite is immediate the wheeze is macrobiotics.",
"the caboose is a kind of a effeminacy if the wheeze is macrobiotics."
] | [
"The fergusonite is immediate.",
"The fergusonite is immediate and non-skeletal."
] | The fergusonite is immediate and non-skeletal. | the caboose is a kind of a effeminacy if the wheeze is macrobiotics. |
the fact that both the non-stablingness and the loop occurs is false. | sent1: if the using occurs that the stunting rya does not occur and the consorting Gnosticism happens is incorrect. sent2: the fact that the feminizing WTV does not occur and the vocal happens does not hold. sent3: if the consolidation happens then the fact that not the label but the incompatibleness occurs is not righ... | ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) | sent1: {EL} -> ¬(¬{GB} & {HI}) sent2: ¬(¬{HT} & {DF}) sent3: {GO} -> ¬(¬{GQ} & {U}) sent4: {A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent5: {HI} -> ¬(¬{IO} & {GJ}) sent6: {AG} -> ¬(¬{U} & {HI}) sent7: ¬{L} -> (¬{J} & {K}) sent8: {HE} sent9: ¬{J} -> (¬{H} & {I}) sent10: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{BK} & {CF}) sent11: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent12: {A} -> ¬(¬... | [
"sent12 & sent18 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent12 & sent18 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 19 | 0 | 19 | both the non-stablingness and the looping occurs. | (¬{AA} & {AB}) | 5 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that both the non-stablingness and the loop occurs is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the using occurs that the stunting rya does not occur and the consorting Gnosticism happens is incorrect. sent2: the fact that the feminizing WTV does not occur and the vocal happens does not hold. sent3: if the... | sent12 & sent18 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that both the non-stablingness and the looping happens is not true if the parking happens. | [
"the parking occurs."
] | [
"that both the non-stablingness and the looping happens is not true if the parking happens."
] | that both the non-stablingness and the looping happens is not true if the parking happens. | the parking occurs. |
the Czechoslovakian is not a siskin. | sent1: something is a kind of a banner and it stunts Gospel if it does not feminize lowland. sent2: if there is something such that it does not murmur then that the Czechoslovakian is porcine and is a kind of an elation is false. sent3: that the Czechoslovakian is journalistic is right. sent4: something is not a murmur... | ¬{B}{aa} | sent1: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x & {D}x) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: {IA}{aa} sent4: (x): {C}x -> (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{J}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent7: {AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent8: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent10: (Ex): {DP}x sent11: (x): ¬{AA}... | [
"sent9 -> int1: if the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not an elation is incorrect then it is a siskin.; sent6 & sent16 -> int2: the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not an elation is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent9 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent6 & sent16 -> int2: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 13 | the fact that the VLDL is a siskin and does not stunt loaf does not hold. | ¬({B}{bj} & ¬{J}{bj}) | 4 | [
"sent5 -> int3: if the VLDL does not murmur that it is a kind of a siskin and it does not stunt loaf does not hold.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Czechoslovakian is not a siskin. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a kind of a banner and it stunts Gospel if it does not feminize lowland. sent2: if there is something such that it does not murmur then that the Czechoslovakian is porcine and is a kind of an elation is false. sent3: that the Czechosl... | sent9 -> int1: if the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not an elation is incorrect then it is a siskin.; sent6 & sent16 -> int2: the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not an elation is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if that something is porcine but it is not an elation is not correct then it is a kind of a siskin. | [
"something is not a murmur.",
"the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not a kind of an elation is not true if there is something such that it is not a murmur."
] | [
"If that is porcine, but not an elation, then it is a kind of Siskin.",
"If that is porcine, but it is not an elation, then it is a kind of Siskin."
] | If that is porcine, but not an elation, then it is a kind of Siskin. | something is not a murmur. |
the Czechoslovakian is not a siskin. | sent1: something is a kind of a banner and it stunts Gospel if it does not feminize lowland. sent2: if there is something such that it does not murmur then that the Czechoslovakian is porcine and is a kind of an elation is false. sent3: that the Czechoslovakian is journalistic is right. sent4: something is not a murmur... | ¬{B}{aa} | sent1: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x & {D}x) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: {IA}{aa} sent4: (x): {C}x -> (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{J}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent7: {AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent8: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent10: (Ex): {DP}x sent11: (x): ¬{AA}... | [
"sent9 -> int1: if the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not an elation is incorrect then it is a siskin.; sent6 & sent16 -> int2: the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not an elation is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent9 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent6 & sent16 -> int2: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 13 | the fact that the VLDL is a siskin and does not stunt loaf does not hold. | ¬({B}{bj} & ¬{J}{bj}) | 4 | [
"sent5 -> int3: if the VLDL does not murmur that it is a kind of a siskin and it does not stunt loaf does not hold.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Czechoslovakian is not a siskin. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a kind of a banner and it stunts Gospel if it does not feminize lowland. sent2: if there is something such that it does not murmur then that the Czechoslovakian is porcine and is a kind of an elation is false. sent3: that the Czechosl... | sent9 -> int1: if the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not an elation is incorrect then it is a siskin.; sent6 & sent16 -> int2: the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not an elation is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if that something is porcine but it is not an elation is not correct then it is a kind of a siskin. | [
"something is not a murmur.",
"the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not a kind of an elation is not true if there is something such that it is not a murmur."
] | [
"If that is porcine, but not an elation, then it is a kind of Siskin.",
"If that is porcine, but it is not an elation, then it is a kind of Siskin."
] | If that is porcine, but it is not an elation, then it is a kind of Siskin. | the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not a kind of an elation is not true if there is something such that it is not a murmur. |
the unmilitariness happens. | sent1: the lowercaseness and the feminizing keystroke occurs. sent2: the stunting foothold occurs. sent3: that the radiopaqueness occurs results in that the nonobservance does not occur and the relation does not occur. sent4: that the branching occurs and the consorting narrator occurs is brought about by that the rela... | {C} | sent1: ({FK} & {HN}) sent2: {BA} sent3: {M} -> (¬{L} & ¬{K}) sent4: ¬{K} -> ({I} & {J}) sent5: ({A} & {B}) sent6: {A} sent7: ({Q} & {P}) -> ¬{N} sent8: (¬{A} & {B}) -> {AS} sent9: {I} -> (¬{G} & ¬{H}) sent10: ({GH} & {AO}) sent11: ¬{F} -> (¬{E} & ¬{D}) sent12: {B} -> {C} sent13: ¬{D} -> (¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent14: (¬{N} & ¬{... | [
"sent5 -> int1: the renovation happens.; int1 & sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent5 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 18 | 0 | 18 | the unmilitariness does not occur. | ¬{C} | 13 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the unmilitariness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the lowercaseness and the feminizing keystroke occurs. sent2: the stunting foothold occurs. sent3: that the radiopaqueness occurs results in that the nonobservance does not occur and the relation does not occur. sent4: that the branching occurs and the con... | sent5 -> int1: the renovation happens.; int1 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the consorting coverage happens and the renovation happens. | [
"if the renovation occurs the unmilitariness occurs."
] | [
"the consorting coverage happens and the renovation happens."
] | the consorting coverage happens and the renovation happens. | if the renovation occurs the unmilitariness occurs. |
the fact that the spaceflight does not occur is true. | sent1: the dilution occurs. sent2: the fact that the dilution does not occur and the spaceflight does not occur is not true if the Tahitianness does not occur. sent3: if the dilution happens the fact that the nonlexicalness happens and the radial occurs is not true. sent4: the consorting tribuneship does not occur. sen... | ¬{B} | sent1: {A} sent2: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent3: {A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent4: ¬{GD} sent5: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent6: {AB} -> ¬{B} sent7: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent8: {HQ} | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 2 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 | the fact that the spaceflight occurs is not false. | {B} | 5 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the spaceflight does not occur is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the dilution occurs. sent2: the fact that the dilution does not occur and the spaceflight does not occur is not true if the Tahitianness does not occur. sent3: if the dilution happens the fact that the nonlexicalness happens and t... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | that both the nonlexicalness and the radial occurs does not hold. | [
"if the dilution happens the fact that the nonlexicalness happens and the radial occurs is not true."
] | [
"that both the nonlexicalness and the radial occurs does not hold."
] | that both the nonlexicalness and the radial occurs does not hold. | if the dilution happens the fact that the nonlexicalness happens and the radial occurs is not true. |
there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is not a range and it is innumerate is not wrong is not true. | sent1: the fact that the thyrotropin considers billfish and is unobjectionable does not hold. sent2: something does not range but it is innumerate. sent3: the fact that that the thyrotropin is quartzose and it is not non-innumerate is true does not hold. sent4: the Iowan is not quartzose. sent5: the fact that the thyro... | (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) | sent1: ¬({HR}{b} & {DG}{b}) sent2: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: ¬({A}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent4: ¬{A}{ao} sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent6: ¬{AA}{a} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{IO}x & {IJ}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: ¬({AB}{b} & {A}{b}) sent11: ¬{A}{a} | [
"sent5 & sent11 -> int1: that the thyrotropin is not a kind of a range but it is innumerate does not hold.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent5 & sent11 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is not a range and it is innumerate is not wrong is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the thyrotropin considers billfish and is unobjectionable does not hold. sent2: something does not range but it is innumerate. sent3: the fact t... | sent5 & sent11 -> int1: that the thyrotropin is not a kind of a range but it is innumerate does not hold.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fact that the thyrotropin is not a range but it is innumerate is false if the moor is not quartzose. | [
"the moor is not quartzose."
] | [
"the fact that the thyrotropin is not a range but it is innumerate is false if the moor is not quartzose."
] | the fact that the thyrotropin is not a range but it is innumerate is false if the moor is not quartzose. | the moor is not quartzose. |
the nosewheel hoofs. | sent1: if something does not stunt pickpocket and it is not a drupelet the nosewheel does not hoof. sent2: if the niece consorts quibble then the cloud does consorts quibble. sent3: the cloud is not a drupelet. sent4: The pickpocket does not stunt cloud. sent5: something that caprioles and is not neurophysiological is ... | {C}{b} | sent1: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}{b} sent2: {G}{c} -> {G}{a} sent3: ¬{B}{a} sent4: ¬{AA}{aa} sent5: (x): ({E}x & ¬{F}x) -> {D}x sent6: ¬{A}{b} sent7: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent8: ¬{A}{a} sent9: {G}{a} -> ({E}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) sent10: (Ex): ¬{IE}x sent11: (x): {D}x -> {B}x | [
"sent8 & sent3 -> int1: the cloud does not stunt pickpocket and is not a drupelet.; int1 -> int2: something does not stunt pickpocket and it is not a kind of a drupelet.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent8 & sent3 -> int1: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x); int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 | the nosewheel is a hoofing. | {C}{b} | 6 | [
"sent7 -> int3: the nosewheel is a hoofing if the fact that it does not stunt pickpocket is incorrect.; sent11 -> int4: if the nosewheel is a lusterware it is a drupelet.; sent5 -> int5: if the nosewheel is a capriole and is not neurophysiological then it is a lusterware.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the nosewheel hoofs. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not stunt pickpocket and it is not a drupelet the nosewheel does not hoof. sent2: if the niece consorts quibble then the cloud does consorts quibble. sent3: the cloud is not a drupelet. sent4: The pickpocket does not stunt cloud. sent5: somethin... | sent8 & sent3 -> int1: the cloud does not stunt pickpocket and is not a drupelet.; int1 -> int2: something does not stunt pickpocket and it is not a kind of a drupelet.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the cloud does not stunt pickpocket. | [
"the cloud is not a drupelet.",
"if something does not stunt pickpocket and it is not a drupelet the nosewheel does not hoof."
] | [
"The cloud doesn't stunt pickpockets.",
"The cloud doesn't stunt pickpocketing."
] | The cloud doesn't stunt pickpockets. | the cloud is not a drupelet. |
the nosewheel hoofs. | sent1: if something does not stunt pickpocket and it is not a drupelet the nosewheel does not hoof. sent2: if the niece consorts quibble then the cloud does consorts quibble. sent3: the cloud is not a drupelet. sent4: The pickpocket does not stunt cloud. sent5: something that caprioles and is not neurophysiological is ... | {C}{b} | sent1: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}{b} sent2: {G}{c} -> {G}{a} sent3: ¬{B}{a} sent4: ¬{AA}{aa} sent5: (x): ({E}x & ¬{F}x) -> {D}x sent6: ¬{A}{b} sent7: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent8: ¬{A}{a} sent9: {G}{a} -> ({E}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) sent10: (Ex): ¬{IE}x sent11: (x): {D}x -> {B}x | [
"sent8 & sent3 -> int1: the cloud does not stunt pickpocket and is not a drupelet.; int1 -> int2: something does not stunt pickpocket and it is not a kind of a drupelet.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent8 & sent3 -> int1: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x); int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 | the nosewheel is a hoofing. | {C}{b} | 6 | [
"sent7 -> int3: the nosewheel is a hoofing if the fact that it does not stunt pickpocket is incorrect.; sent11 -> int4: if the nosewheel is a lusterware it is a drupelet.; sent5 -> int5: if the nosewheel is a capriole and is not neurophysiological then it is a lusterware.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the nosewheel hoofs. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not stunt pickpocket and it is not a drupelet the nosewheel does not hoof. sent2: if the niece consorts quibble then the cloud does consorts quibble. sent3: the cloud is not a drupelet. sent4: The pickpocket does not stunt cloud. sent5: somethin... | sent8 & sent3 -> int1: the cloud does not stunt pickpocket and is not a drupelet.; int1 -> int2: something does not stunt pickpocket and it is not a kind of a drupelet.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the cloud does not stunt pickpocket. | [
"the cloud is not a drupelet.",
"if something does not stunt pickpocket and it is not a drupelet the nosewheel does not hoof."
] | [
"The cloud doesn't stunt pickpockets.",
"The cloud doesn't stunt pickpocketing."
] | The cloud doesn't stunt pickpocketing. | if something does not stunt pickpocket and it is not a drupelet the nosewheel does not hoof. |
the fact that the aphaniticness happens is not false. | sent1: the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect if the sacking occurs. sent2: the launch is caused by that the casualty happens. sent3: if that the mousetrap happens hold then the Norman occurs. sent4: if the indentation occurs then the aphaniticness happens. sent5: the nonionicness occurs. sent6: if th... | {D} | sent1: {A} -> {B} sent2: {IS} -> {ES} sent3: {I} -> {DG} sent4: {C} -> {D} sent5: {AK} sent6: {DB} -> {IU} sent7: {B} -> {C} sent8: {AN} -> {GM} sent9: {A} sent10: ¬{E} -> ¬({D} & {C}) sent11: {AA} | [
"sent1 & sent9 -> int1: the schematization happens.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the indentation occurs.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent9 -> int1: {B}; sent7 & int1 -> int2: {C}; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 | the immunocompetentness happens. | {FC} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the aphaniticness happens is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect if the sacking occurs. sent2: the launch is caused by that the casualty happens. sent3: if that the mousetrap happens hold then the Norman occurs. sent4: if the indentation ... | sent1 & sent9 -> int1: the schematization happens.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the indentation occurs.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect if the sacking occurs. | [
"the sacking occurs.",
"the indentation occurs if the schematization occurs.",
"if the indentation occurs then the aphaniticness happens."
] | [
"If the sack occurs, the schematization is not incorrect.",
"If the sack occurs, the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect.",
"If the sack occurs, it's not incorrect that the schematization occurs."
] | If the sack occurs, the schematization is not incorrect. | the sacking occurs. |
the fact that the aphaniticness happens is not false. | sent1: the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect if the sacking occurs. sent2: the launch is caused by that the casualty happens. sent3: if that the mousetrap happens hold then the Norman occurs. sent4: if the indentation occurs then the aphaniticness happens. sent5: the nonionicness occurs. sent6: if th... | {D} | sent1: {A} -> {B} sent2: {IS} -> {ES} sent3: {I} -> {DG} sent4: {C} -> {D} sent5: {AK} sent6: {DB} -> {IU} sent7: {B} -> {C} sent8: {AN} -> {GM} sent9: {A} sent10: ¬{E} -> ¬({D} & {C}) sent11: {AA} | [
"sent1 & sent9 -> int1: the schematization happens.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the indentation occurs.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent9 -> int1: {B}; sent7 & int1 -> int2: {C}; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 | the immunocompetentness happens. | {FC} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the aphaniticness happens is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect if the sacking occurs. sent2: the launch is caused by that the casualty happens. sent3: if that the mousetrap happens hold then the Norman occurs. sent4: if the indentation ... | sent1 & sent9 -> int1: the schematization happens.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the indentation occurs.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect if the sacking occurs. | [
"the sacking occurs.",
"the indentation occurs if the schematization occurs.",
"if the indentation occurs then the aphaniticness happens."
] | [
"If the sack occurs, the schematization is not incorrect.",
"If the sack occurs, the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect.",
"If the sack occurs, it's not incorrect that the schematization occurs."
] | If the sack occurs, the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect. | the indentation occurs if the schematization occurs. |
the fact that the aphaniticness happens is not false. | sent1: the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect if the sacking occurs. sent2: the launch is caused by that the casualty happens. sent3: if that the mousetrap happens hold then the Norman occurs. sent4: if the indentation occurs then the aphaniticness happens. sent5: the nonionicness occurs. sent6: if th... | {D} | sent1: {A} -> {B} sent2: {IS} -> {ES} sent3: {I} -> {DG} sent4: {C} -> {D} sent5: {AK} sent6: {DB} -> {IU} sent7: {B} -> {C} sent8: {AN} -> {GM} sent9: {A} sent10: ¬{E} -> ¬({D} & {C}) sent11: {AA} | [
"sent1 & sent9 -> int1: the schematization happens.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the indentation occurs.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent9 -> int1: {B}; sent7 & int1 -> int2: {C}; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 | the immunocompetentness happens. | {FC} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the aphaniticness happens is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect if the sacking occurs. sent2: the launch is caused by that the casualty happens. sent3: if that the mousetrap happens hold then the Norman occurs. sent4: if the indentation ... | sent1 & sent9 -> int1: the schematization happens.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the indentation occurs.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect if the sacking occurs. | [
"the sacking occurs.",
"the indentation occurs if the schematization occurs.",
"if the indentation occurs then the aphaniticness happens."
] | [
"If the sack occurs, the schematization is not incorrect.",
"If the sack occurs, the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect.",
"If the sack occurs, it's not incorrect that the schematization occurs."
] | If the sack occurs, it's not incorrect that the schematization occurs. | if the indentation occurs then the aphaniticness happens. |
that the zamia is not a nymphet but it is uveal is not correct. | sent1: the zamia is a details but it is not a Martian. sent2: the Devon is a kind of a details. sent3: if the zamia stunts algometer then that it is not uveal is not right. sent4: the zamia stunts algometer. sent5: The algometer stunts zamia. sent6: if the zamia does detail but it is not a Martian it is not a nymphet. ... | ¬(¬{C}{a} & {B}{a}) | sent1: ({E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent2: {E}{go} sent3: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent4: {A}{a} sent5: {AA}{aa} sent6: ({E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬(¬{F}x v {G}x) sent8: {B}{a} -> {JC}{a} sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{D}{fr} sent10: ¬(¬{F}{b} v {G}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent11: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x & {B}x) | [
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the zamia is uveal.; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: the zamia is not a kind of a nymphet.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: ¬{C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 | the dad is not Martian. | ¬{D}{fr} | 6 | [
"sent11 -> int3: the zamia is a nymphet and it is uveal if it is not a kind of a details.; sent7 -> int4: if the stoma is not a disguise then that it does not extrapolate and/or it does consider restharrow is not correct.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the zamia is not a nymphet but it is uveal is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the zamia is a details but it is not a Martian. sent2: the Devon is a kind of a details. sent3: if the zamia stunts algometer then that it is not uveal is not right. sent4: the zamia stunts algometer. sent5: The algomete... | sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the zamia is uveal.; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: the zamia is not a kind of a nymphet.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the zamia stunts algometer then that it is not uveal is not right. | [
"the zamia stunts algometer.",
"if the zamia does detail but it is not a Martian it is not a nymphet.",
"the zamia is a details but it is not a Martian."
] | [
"If the zamia does stunts then it is not right.",
"If the Zamia does stunts then it is not right.",
"If the Zamia does stunts, then it is not right."
] | If the zamia does stunts then it is not right. | the zamia stunts algometer. |
that the zamia is not a nymphet but it is uveal is not correct. | sent1: the zamia is a details but it is not a Martian. sent2: the Devon is a kind of a details. sent3: if the zamia stunts algometer then that it is not uveal is not right. sent4: the zamia stunts algometer. sent5: The algometer stunts zamia. sent6: if the zamia does detail but it is not a Martian it is not a nymphet. ... | ¬(¬{C}{a} & {B}{a}) | sent1: ({E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent2: {E}{go} sent3: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent4: {A}{a} sent5: {AA}{aa} sent6: ({E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬(¬{F}x v {G}x) sent8: {B}{a} -> {JC}{a} sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{D}{fr} sent10: ¬(¬{F}{b} v {G}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent11: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x & {B}x) | [
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the zamia is uveal.; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: the zamia is not a kind of a nymphet.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: ¬{C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 | the dad is not Martian. | ¬{D}{fr} | 6 | [
"sent11 -> int3: the zamia is a nymphet and it is uveal if it is not a kind of a details.; sent7 -> int4: if the stoma is not a disguise then that it does not extrapolate and/or it does consider restharrow is not correct.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the zamia is not a nymphet but it is uveal is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the zamia is a details but it is not a Martian. sent2: the Devon is a kind of a details. sent3: if the zamia stunts algometer then that it is not uveal is not right. sent4: the zamia stunts algometer. sent5: The algomete... | sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the zamia is uveal.; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: the zamia is not a kind of a nymphet.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the zamia stunts algometer then that it is not uveal is not right. | [
"the zamia stunts algometer.",
"if the zamia does detail but it is not a Martian it is not a nymphet.",
"the zamia is a details but it is not a Martian."
] | [
"If the zamia does stunts then it is not right.",
"If the Zamia does stunts then it is not right.",
"If the Zamia does stunts, then it is not right."
] | If the Zamia does stunts then it is not right. | if the zamia does detail but it is not a Martian it is not a nymphet. |
that the zamia is not a nymphet but it is uveal is not correct. | sent1: the zamia is a details but it is not a Martian. sent2: the Devon is a kind of a details. sent3: if the zamia stunts algometer then that it is not uveal is not right. sent4: the zamia stunts algometer. sent5: The algometer stunts zamia. sent6: if the zamia does detail but it is not a Martian it is not a nymphet. ... | ¬(¬{C}{a} & {B}{a}) | sent1: ({E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent2: {E}{go} sent3: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent4: {A}{a} sent5: {AA}{aa} sent6: ({E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬(¬{F}x v {G}x) sent8: {B}{a} -> {JC}{a} sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{D}{fr} sent10: ¬(¬{F}{b} v {G}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent11: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x & {B}x) | [
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the zamia is uveal.; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: the zamia is not a kind of a nymphet.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: ¬{C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 | the dad is not Martian. | ¬{D}{fr} | 6 | [
"sent11 -> int3: the zamia is a nymphet and it is uveal if it is not a kind of a details.; sent7 -> int4: if the stoma is not a disguise then that it does not extrapolate and/or it does consider restharrow is not correct.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the zamia is not a nymphet but it is uveal is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the zamia is a details but it is not a Martian. sent2: the Devon is a kind of a details. sent3: if the zamia stunts algometer then that it is not uveal is not right. sent4: the zamia stunts algometer. sent5: The algomete... | sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the zamia is uveal.; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: the zamia is not a kind of a nymphet.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the zamia stunts algometer then that it is not uveal is not right. | [
"the zamia stunts algometer.",
"if the zamia does detail but it is not a Martian it is not a nymphet.",
"the zamia is a details but it is not a Martian."
] | [
"If the zamia does stunts then it is not right.",
"If the Zamia does stunts then it is not right.",
"If the Zamia does stunts, then it is not right."
] | If the Zamia does stunts, then it is not right. | the zamia is a details but it is not a Martian. |
the fact that the effecter does logroll is not false. | sent1: there is something such that it is a fission. sent2: if that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not true the Montrachet stunt getaway. sent3: if the fact that something is a Islam but it does not stunt plexor is not correct it stunt plexor. sent4: if something that does n... | {E}{c} | sent1: (Ex): {EQ}x sent2: ¬({F}{b} v ¬{C}{b}) -> {C}{a} sent3: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {B}x sent4: (x): (¬{I}x & {J}x) -> ¬{H}{e} sent5: (Ex): (¬{I}x & {J}x) sent6: (x): ({B}x v ¬{E}x) -> ¬{E}x sent7: {C}{a} -> ¬({A}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}{a} v {C}{a}) sent9: {D}{b} -> {E}{c} sent10: {D}{c} sent11: (Ex... | [
"sent17 & sent8 -> int1: either the Montrachet does stunt plexor or it does stunt getaway or both.; int1 & sent18 & sent22 -> int2: the convolution is a ginseng.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent17 & sent8 -> int1: ({B}{a} v {C}{a}); int1 & sent18 & sent22 -> int2: {D}{b}; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 | the effecter does not logroll. | ¬{E}{c} | 10 | [
"sent6 -> int3: the effecter does not logroll if it does stunt plexor or does not logroll or both.; sent3 -> int4: the fact that the effecter stunts plexor is not false if the fact that it is a Islam and it does not stunts plexor is false.; sent5 & sent4 -> int5: the Timothy does not canter.; int5 -> int6: there is... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the effecter does logroll is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is a fission. sent2: if that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not true the Montrachet stunt getaway. sent3: if the fact that something is a Islam but it do... | sent17 & sent8 -> int1: either the Montrachet does stunt plexor or it does stunt getaway or both.; int1 & sent18 & sent22 -> int2: the convolution is a ginseng.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there is something such that it is not a kind of a Islam. | [
"if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Islam then the Montrachet stunts plexor and/or does stunt getaway.",
"if the Montrachet does stunt plexor the convolution is a ginseng.",
"if the fact that the Montrachet does stunt getaway is not false then the convolution is a ginseng.",
"that the e... | [
"It is not a kind of Islam, at least that is what SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SA... | It is not a kind of Islam, at least that is what SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGE... | if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Islam then the Montrachet stunts plexor and/or does stunt getaway. |
the fact that the effecter does logroll is not false. | sent1: there is something such that it is a fission. sent2: if that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not true the Montrachet stunt getaway. sent3: if the fact that something is a Islam but it does not stunt plexor is not correct it stunt plexor. sent4: if something that does n... | {E}{c} | sent1: (Ex): {EQ}x sent2: ¬({F}{b} v ¬{C}{b}) -> {C}{a} sent3: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {B}x sent4: (x): (¬{I}x & {J}x) -> ¬{H}{e} sent5: (Ex): (¬{I}x & {J}x) sent6: (x): ({B}x v ¬{E}x) -> ¬{E}x sent7: {C}{a} -> ¬({A}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}{a} v {C}{a}) sent9: {D}{b} -> {E}{c} sent10: {D}{c} sent11: (Ex... | [
"sent17 & sent8 -> int1: either the Montrachet does stunt plexor or it does stunt getaway or both.; int1 & sent18 & sent22 -> int2: the convolution is a ginseng.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent17 & sent8 -> int1: ({B}{a} v {C}{a}); int1 & sent18 & sent22 -> int2: {D}{b}; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 | the effecter does not logroll. | ¬{E}{c} | 10 | [
"sent6 -> int3: the effecter does not logroll if it does stunt plexor or does not logroll or both.; sent3 -> int4: the fact that the effecter stunts plexor is not false if the fact that it is a Islam and it does not stunts plexor is false.; sent5 & sent4 -> int5: the Timothy does not canter.; int5 -> int6: there is... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the effecter does logroll is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is a fission. sent2: if that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not true the Montrachet stunt getaway. sent3: if the fact that something is a Islam but it do... | sent17 & sent8 -> int1: either the Montrachet does stunt plexor or it does stunt getaway or both.; int1 & sent18 & sent22 -> int2: the convolution is a ginseng.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there is something such that it is not a kind of a Islam. | [
"if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Islam then the Montrachet stunts plexor and/or does stunt getaway.",
"if the Montrachet does stunt plexor the convolution is a ginseng.",
"if the fact that the Montrachet does stunt getaway is not false then the convolution is a ginseng.",
"that the e... | [
"It is not a kind of Islam, at least that is what SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SA... | It is not a kind of Islam, at least that's what SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGED... | if the Montrachet does stunt plexor the convolution is a ginseng. |
the fact that the effecter does logroll is not false. | sent1: there is something such that it is a fission. sent2: if that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not true the Montrachet stunt getaway. sent3: if the fact that something is a Islam but it does not stunt plexor is not correct it stunt plexor. sent4: if something that does n... | {E}{c} | sent1: (Ex): {EQ}x sent2: ¬({F}{b} v ¬{C}{b}) -> {C}{a} sent3: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {B}x sent4: (x): (¬{I}x & {J}x) -> ¬{H}{e} sent5: (Ex): (¬{I}x & {J}x) sent6: (x): ({B}x v ¬{E}x) -> ¬{E}x sent7: {C}{a} -> ¬({A}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}{a} v {C}{a}) sent9: {D}{b} -> {E}{c} sent10: {D}{c} sent11: (Ex... | [
"sent17 & sent8 -> int1: either the Montrachet does stunt plexor or it does stunt getaway or both.; int1 & sent18 & sent22 -> int2: the convolution is a ginseng.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent17 & sent8 -> int1: ({B}{a} v {C}{a}); int1 & sent18 & sent22 -> int2: {D}{b}; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 | the effecter does not logroll. | ¬{E}{c} | 10 | [
"sent6 -> int3: the effecter does not logroll if it does stunt plexor or does not logroll or both.; sent3 -> int4: the fact that the effecter stunts plexor is not false if the fact that it is a Islam and it does not stunts plexor is false.; sent5 & sent4 -> int5: the Timothy does not canter.; int5 -> int6: there is... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the effecter does logroll is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is a fission. sent2: if that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not true the Montrachet stunt getaway. sent3: if the fact that something is a Islam but it do... | sent17 & sent8 -> int1: either the Montrachet does stunt plexor or it does stunt getaway or both.; int1 & sent18 & sent22 -> int2: the convolution is a ginseng.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there is something such that it is not a kind of a Islam. | [
"if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Islam then the Montrachet stunts plexor and/or does stunt getaway.",
"if the Montrachet does stunt plexor the convolution is a ginseng.",
"if the fact that the Montrachet does stunt getaway is not false then the convolution is a ginseng.",
"that the e... | [
"It is not a kind of Islam, at least that is what SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SA... | It is not a kind of Islam, at least that is what SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA is SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALV... | if the fact that the Montrachet does stunt getaway is not false then the convolution is a ginseng. |
the fact that the effecter does logroll is not false. | sent1: there is something such that it is a fission. sent2: if that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not true the Montrachet stunt getaway. sent3: if the fact that something is a Islam but it does not stunt plexor is not correct it stunt plexor. sent4: if something that does n... | {E}{c} | sent1: (Ex): {EQ}x sent2: ¬({F}{b} v ¬{C}{b}) -> {C}{a} sent3: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {B}x sent4: (x): (¬{I}x & {J}x) -> ¬{H}{e} sent5: (Ex): (¬{I}x & {J}x) sent6: (x): ({B}x v ¬{E}x) -> ¬{E}x sent7: {C}{a} -> ¬({A}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}{a} v {C}{a}) sent9: {D}{b} -> {E}{c} sent10: {D}{c} sent11: (Ex... | [
"sent17 & sent8 -> int1: either the Montrachet does stunt plexor or it does stunt getaway or both.; int1 & sent18 & sent22 -> int2: the convolution is a ginseng.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent17 & sent8 -> int1: ({B}{a} v {C}{a}); int1 & sent18 & sent22 -> int2: {D}{b}; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 | the effecter does not logroll. | ¬{E}{c} | 10 | [
"sent6 -> int3: the effecter does not logroll if it does stunt plexor or does not logroll or both.; sent3 -> int4: the fact that the effecter stunts plexor is not false if the fact that it is a Islam and it does not stunts plexor is false.; sent5 & sent4 -> int5: the Timothy does not canter.; int5 -> int6: there is... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the effecter does logroll is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is a fission. sent2: if that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not true the Montrachet stunt getaway. sent3: if the fact that something is a Islam but it do... | sent17 & sent8 -> int1: either the Montrachet does stunt plexor or it does stunt getaway or both.; int1 & sent18 & sent22 -> int2: the convolution is a ginseng.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there is something such that it is not a kind of a Islam. | [
"if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Islam then the Montrachet stunts plexor and/or does stunt getaway.",
"if the Montrachet does stunt plexor the convolution is a ginseng.",
"if the fact that the Montrachet does stunt getaway is not false then the convolution is a ginseng.",
"that the e... | [
"It is not a kind of Islam, at least that is what SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SA... | It is not a kind of Islam, at least that is what SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA is SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALV... | that the effecter logrolls is not incorrect if the convolution is a ginseng. |
the subduer is a whirl. | sent1: if something does stunt Islam the fact that it is not a Okinawa and it does consort miscalculation is not true. sent2: the Kiowa does deviate if it is a thrower. sent3: the paste is a kind of a whirl. sent4: that the Kiowa is a thrower is correct. sent5: the finagler does not whirl. sent6: the Kiowa is categorem... | {C}{b} | sent1: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {B}x) sent2: {M}{d} -> {J}{d} sent3: {C}{ge} sent4: {M}{d} sent5: ¬{C}{a} sent6: {L}{d} sent7: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent8: {A}{b} -> {C}{b} sent9: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent10: {B}{b} -> {C}{b} sent11: {B}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent12: ¬(¬{G}{a} & {E}{a}) -> {E}{b} sent13: {C}{a} -> {C}{b} sent14: (x): {L... | [
"sent7 & sent15 -> int1: the finagler does consort miscalculation.; int1 & sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent7 & sent15 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 & sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 17 | the subduer does whirl. | {C}{b} | 5 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the subduer is a whirl. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does stunt Islam the fact that it is not a Okinawa and it does consort miscalculation is not true. sent2: the Kiowa does deviate if it is a thrower. sent3: the paste is a kind of a whirl. sent4: that the Kiowa is a thrower is correct. sent5: the f... | sent7 & sent15 -> int1: the finagler does consort miscalculation.; int1 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the finagler does consort miscalculation is not wrong if it is a Okinawa. | [
"the finagler is a Okinawa.",
"the subduer does not whirl if the finagler does consort miscalculation."
] | [
"If it is a Okinawa, the miscalculation is not wrong.",
"If it is a Okinawa, then the miscalculation is not wrong."
] | If it is a Okinawa, the miscalculation is not wrong. | the finagler is a Okinawa. |
the subduer is a whirl. | sent1: if something does stunt Islam the fact that it is not a Okinawa and it does consort miscalculation is not true. sent2: the Kiowa does deviate if it is a thrower. sent3: the paste is a kind of a whirl. sent4: that the Kiowa is a thrower is correct. sent5: the finagler does not whirl. sent6: the Kiowa is categorem... | {C}{b} | sent1: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {B}x) sent2: {M}{d} -> {J}{d} sent3: {C}{ge} sent4: {M}{d} sent5: ¬{C}{a} sent6: {L}{d} sent7: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent8: {A}{b} -> {C}{b} sent9: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent10: {B}{b} -> {C}{b} sent11: {B}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent12: ¬(¬{G}{a} & {E}{a}) -> {E}{b} sent13: {C}{a} -> {C}{b} sent14: (x): {L... | [
"sent7 & sent15 -> int1: the finagler does consort miscalculation.; int1 & sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent7 & sent15 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 & sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 17 | the subduer does whirl. | {C}{b} | 5 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the subduer is a whirl. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does stunt Islam the fact that it is not a Okinawa and it does consort miscalculation is not true. sent2: the Kiowa does deviate if it is a thrower. sent3: the paste is a kind of a whirl. sent4: that the Kiowa is a thrower is correct. sent5: the f... | sent7 & sent15 -> int1: the finagler does consort miscalculation.; int1 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the finagler does consort miscalculation is not wrong if it is a Okinawa. | [
"the finagler is a Okinawa.",
"the subduer does not whirl if the finagler does consort miscalculation."
] | [
"If it is a Okinawa, the miscalculation is not wrong.",
"If it is a Okinawa, then the miscalculation is not wrong."
] | If it is a Okinawa, then the miscalculation is not wrong. | the subduer does not whirl if the finagler does consort miscalculation. |
the Munchener does not exclaim. | sent1: that the gut is rheologic is correct if the haircut is happy. sent2: the gut is joyless if it is albinal and/or it is not happy. sent3: if the haircut is joyless the gut is thankless. sent4: the fact that something is both not non-rheologic and joyless does not hold if it is not thankless. sent5: the haircut is ... | ¬{D}{c} | sent1: {AB}{b} -> {A}{a} sent2: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent3: {B}{b} -> {C}{a} sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent5: {B}{a} -> ({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent6: {D}{ag} sent7: ({C}{b} & {A}{b}) -> {D}{c} sent8: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{D}x sent9: ¬{A}{b} sent10: (x): {F}x -> (¬{C}x v {E}x) sent11: {B}{a} -> ¬{A}{... | [
"sent2 & sent15 -> int1: the gut is joyless.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the haircut is thankless but it is not rheologic.; sent20 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent2 & sent15 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent5 & int1 -> int2: ({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}); sent20 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 | the Munchener does not exclaim. | ¬{D}{c} | 5 | [
"sent8 -> int3: the fact that if the fact that the Munchener is non-rheologic thing that is joyless is not right then the Munchener does not exclaim hold.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Munchener does not exclaim. ; $context$ = sent1: that the gut is rheologic is correct if the haircut is happy. sent2: the gut is joyless if it is albinal and/or it is not happy. sent3: if the haircut is joyless the gut is thankless. sent4: the fact that something is both not non-rheologic and joyless... | sent2 & sent15 -> int1: the gut is joyless.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the haircut is thankless but it is not rheologic.; sent20 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the gut is joyless if it is albinal and/or it is not happy. | [
"the gut is either albinal or not happy or both.",
"the haircut is thankless but it is not rheologic if the gut is joyless.",
"if the haircut is both thankless and not rheologic then the Munchener exclaims."
] | [
"The gut is not happy if it is albinal.",
"The gut is joyless if it is not happy.",
"If the gut is not happy, it is not joyless."
] | The gut is not happy if it is albinal. | the gut is either albinal or not happy or both. |
the Munchener does not exclaim. | sent1: that the gut is rheologic is correct if the haircut is happy. sent2: the gut is joyless if it is albinal and/or it is not happy. sent3: if the haircut is joyless the gut is thankless. sent4: the fact that something is both not non-rheologic and joyless does not hold if it is not thankless. sent5: the haircut is ... | ¬{D}{c} | sent1: {AB}{b} -> {A}{a} sent2: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent3: {B}{b} -> {C}{a} sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent5: {B}{a} -> ({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent6: {D}{ag} sent7: ({C}{b} & {A}{b}) -> {D}{c} sent8: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{D}x sent9: ¬{A}{b} sent10: (x): {F}x -> (¬{C}x v {E}x) sent11: {B}{a} -> ¬{A}{... | [
"sent2 & sent15 -> int1: the gut is joyless.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the haircut is thankless but it is not rheologic.; sent20 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent2 & sent15 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent5 & int1 -> int2: ({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}); sent20 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 | the Munchener does not exclaim. | ¬{D}{c} | 5 | [
"sent8 -> int3: the fact that if the fact that the Munchener is non-rheologic thing that is joyless is not right then the Munchener does not exclaim hold.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Munchener does not exclaim. ; $context$ = sent1: that the gut is rheologic is correct if the haircut is happy. sent2: the gut is joyless if it is albinal and/or it is not happy. sent3: if the haircut is joyless the gut is thankless. sent4: the fact that something is both not non-rheologic and joyless... | sent2 & sent15 -> int1: the gut is joyless.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the haircut is thankless but it is not rheologic.; sent20 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the gut is joyless if it is albinal and/or it is not happy. | [
"the gut is either albinal or not happy or both.",
"the haircut is thankless but it is not rheologic if the gut is joyless.",
"if the haircut is both thankless and not rheologic then the Munchener exclaims."
] | [
"The gut is not happy if it is albinal.",
"The gut is joyless if it is not happy.",
"If the gut is not happy, it is not joyless."
] | The gut is joyless if it is not happy. | the haircut is thankless but it is not rheologic if the gut is joyless. |
the Munchener does not exclaim. | sent1: that the gut is rheologic is correct if the haircut is happy. sent2: the gut is joyless if it is albinal and/or it is not happy. sent3: if the haircut is joyless the gut is thankless. sent4: the fact that something is both not non-rheologic and joyless does not hold if it is not thankless. sent5: the haircut is ... | ¬{D}{c} | sent1: {AB}{b} -> {A}{a} sent2: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent3: {B}{b} -> {C}{a} sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent5: {B}{a} -> ({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent6: {D}{ag} sent7: ({C}{b} & {A}{b}) -> {D}{c} sent8: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{D}x sent9: ¬{A}{b} sent10: (x): {F}x -> (¬{C}x v {E}x) sent11: {B}{a} -> ¬{A}{... | [
"sent2 & sent15 -> int1: the gut is joyless.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the haircut is thankless but it is not rheologic.; sent20 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent2 & sent15 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent5 & int1 -> int2: ({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}); sent20 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 | the Munchener does not exclaim. | ¬{D}{c} | 5 | [
"sent8 -> int3: the fact that if the fact that the Munchener is non-rheologic thing that is joyless is not right then the Munchener does not exclaim hold.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Munchener does not exclaim. ; $context$ = sent1: that the gut is rheologic is correct if the haircut is happy. sent2: the gut is joyless if it is albinal and/or it is not happy. sent3: if the haircut is joyless the gut is thankless. sent4: the fact that something is both not non-rheologic and joyless... | sent2 & sent15 -> int1: the gut is joyless.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the haircut is thankless but it is not rheologic.; sent20 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the gut is joyless if it is albinal and/or it is not happy. | [
"the gut is either albinal or not happy or both.",
"the haircut is thankless but it is not rheologic if the gut is joyless.",
"if the haircut is both thankless and not rheologic then the Munchener exclaims."
] | [
"The gut is not happy if it is albinal.",
"The gut is joyless if it is not happy.",
"If the gut is not happy, it is not joyless."
] | If the gut is not happy, it is not joyless. | if the haircut is both thankless and not rheologic then the Munchener exclaims. |
the hail does not occur. | sent1: the purging happens. sent2: the consorting goblet does not occur if not the Hebrideanness but the amputation occurs. sent3: the hail occurs if the hail occurs or the commination does not occur or both. sent4: if the consorting goblet does not occur the centrifugalness happens and/or the commination happens. sent... | ¬{C} | sent1: {B} sent2: (¬{I} & {H}) -> ¬{G} sent3: ({C} v ¬{E}) -> {C} sent4: ¬{G} -> ({F} v {E}) sent5: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) sent6: ¬(¬{A} & {B}) sent7: ¬(¬{EE} & ¬{JK}) -> ¬{EI} sent8: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{BP} sent9: ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{C} sent10: {C} -> ¬({A} & ¬{B}) sent11: ¬{D} -> ({A} & {B}) | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the diffusion does not occur and the purging does not occur.; assump1 -> int1: the purging does not occur.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the diffusion does not occur and the purging does not occur does not hold.; int3 & sent9 -> hyp... | PROVED | [
"void -> assump1: (¬{A} & ¬{B}); assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}; int1 & sent1 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}); int3 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 | the hailing occurs. | {C} | 8 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the hail does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the purging happens. sent2: the consorting goblet does not occur if not the Hebrideanness but the amputation occurs. sent3: the hail occurs if the hail occurs or the commination does not occur or both. sent4: if the consorting goblet does not occur the centri... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the diffusion does not occur and the purging does not occur.; assump1 -> int1: the purging does not occur.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the diffusion does not occur and the purging does not occur does not hold.; int3 & sent9 -> hypothes... | DeductionInstance | the purging happens. | [
"if that the diffusion does not occur and the purging does not occur does not hold the hail does not occur."
] | [
"the purging happens."
] | the purging happens. | if that the diffusion does not occur and the purging does not occur does not hold the hail does not occur. |
the rotor does not feminize gauss and it is not a kind of a purge. | sent1: the archespore does not purge. sent2: the rotor is not longing. sent3: the L-plate is a desert and nutritional. sent4: the symposiast is not a platyrrhine if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of platyrrhine thing that is azotemic is incorrect. sent5: the steakhouse is not a organelle. s... | (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) | sent1: ¬{AB}{a} sent2: ¬{A}{b} sent3: ({P}{i} & {Q}{i}) sent4: (x): ¬({J}x & {N}x) -> ¬{J}{e} sent5: ¬{O}{h} sent6: (¬{G}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) -> {E}{c} sent7: (x): ¬{H}x -> (¬{G}x & ¬{F}x) sent8: (x): {I}x -> ¬{H}{d} sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{b} sent10: ¬{D}{c} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent11: {K}{g} -> {I}{f} sent12: (x): ¬({L}... | [
"sent17 & sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent17 & sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 18 | 0 | 18 | that the rotor does not feminize gauss and it does not purge does not hold. | ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) | 5 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the rotor does not feminize gauss and it is not a kind of a purge. ; $context$ = sent1: the archespore does not purge. sent2: the rotor is not longing. sent3: the L-plate is a desert and nutritional. sent4: the symposiast is not a platyrrhine if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind... | sent17 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the rotor does not feminize gauss and is not a purge if the fact that the archespore is longing is wrong. | [
"the archespore is not longing."
] | [
"the rotor does not feminize gauss and is not a purge if the fact that the archespore is longing is wrong."
] | the rotor does not feminize gauss and is not a purge if the fact that the archespore is longing is wrong. | the archespore is not longing. |
the Laos does not consort Voltaren. | sent1: the domino consorts Voltaren. sent2: if the fact that the love-in-winter is not a Sitophylus or it is a night-line or both does not hold then the Tree is not Gauguinesque. sent3: if the Tree does consort Voltaren then the fact that the cursor consort Voltaren hold. sent4: the Laos does consort Voltaren if that t... | ¬{B}{b} | sent1: {B}{al} sent2: ¬(¬{G}{c} v {F}{c}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent3: {B}{a} -> {B}{br} sent4: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent5: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent6: {A}{be} sent7: {A}{a} sent8: (x): {H}x -> ¬(¬{G}x v {F}x) sent9: (x): (¬{A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{B}x | [
"sent4 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent4 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 7 | the Laos does not consort Voltaren. | ¬{B}{b} | 9 | [
"sent9 -> int1: the Laos does not consort Voltaren if it is a kind of non-Luxembourgian thing that is epistemic.; sent8 -> int2: that the powerbroker is either not a Sitophylus or a night-line or both is wrong if it is microcephalic.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Laos does not consort Voltaren. ; $context$ = sent1: the domino consorts Voltaren. sent2: if the fact that the love-in-winter is not a Sitophylus or it is a night-line or both does not hold then the Tree is not Gauguinesque. sent3: if the Tree does consort Voltaren then the fact that the cursor conso... | sent4 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the Laos does consort Voltaren if that the Tree is Luxembourgian is not false. | [
"the Tree is Luxembourgian."
] | [
"the Laos does consort Voltaren if that the Tree is Luxembourgian is not false."
] | the Laos does consort Voltaren if that the Tree is Luxembourgian is not false. | the Tree is Luxembourgian. |
there is something such that it is not an infinitesimal. | sent1: the vessel is irreverent if the dissociation is irreverent and not a mustelid. sent2: the cardigan does not consort inherence but it is a quest. sent3: the understudy does not fibrillate and is a self-insurance if the psychrometer is not a kind of a slum. sent4: the shortstop does not consort Majorana but it is ... | (Ex): ¬{AA}x | sent1: ({J}{g} & ¬{L}{g}) -> {J}{f} sent2: (¬{DC}{fe} & {AB}{fe}) sent3: ¬{F}{d} -> (¬{D}{c} & {E}{c}) sent4: (¬{BB}{a} & {EE}{a}) sent5: {A}{b} -> (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent6: {AA}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent7: ¬{G}{e} -> ¬{C}{c} sent8: {J}{f} -> {I}{f} sent9: (Ex): {AA}x sent10: ¬{C}{e} -> ¬{C}{c} sent11: (x): {A}x... | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 21 | 0 | 21 | the psycholinguist is not proportionate and is a kind of a quest. | (¬{DE}{ai} & {AB}{ai}) | 4 | [
"sent11 -> int1: the psycholinguist is not proportionate but it is a kind of a quest if it stunts freewheeling.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that it is not an infinitesimal. ; $context$ = sent1: the vessel is irreverent if the dissociation is irreverent and not a mustelid. sent2: the cardigan does not consort inherence but it is a quest. sent3: the understudy does not fibrillate and is a self-insurance if the psychrome... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it is a kind of an infinitesimal. | [
"the understudy does not fibrillate and is a self-insurance if the psychrometer is not a kind of a slum."
] | [
"there exists something such that it is a kind of an infinitesimal."
] | there exists something such that it is a kind of an infinitesimal. | the understudy does not fibrillate and is a self-insurance if the psychrometer is not a kind of a slum. |
the fact that the impression does smut and is not reverent is not right. | sent1: that something is a smut but it is not reverent is incorrect if the fact that it is a kind of a velveteen is correct. sent2: the respirator does not feminize bantering if there is something such that that it is a catalectic and it is a musicality does not hold. sent3: if something does feminize bantering then th... | ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) | sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: (x): ¬({C}x & {D}x) -> ¬{B}{fb} sent3: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AB}{a} sent5: ¬{AB}{a} sent6: ¬{A}{a} sent7: (x): (¬{A}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent8: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{A}x v ¬{AB}x) sent9: ¬{G}{a} -> ¬(¬{E}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) sent10: ({AL}{a} & ¬{CQ}{a}) sent11: ¬{AA}{c... | [
"sent14 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent14 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 1 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 13 | the fact that the impression is a smut but not reverent is wrong. | ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) | 7 | [
"sent1 -> int1: if the impression is a kind of a velveteen then that it is both a smut and not reverent is not correct.; sent3 -> int2: that the impression is a velveteen is not wrong if it feminizes bantering.; sent15 -> int3: if the impression is not a musicality then it does feminize bantering and is a catalecti... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the impression does smut and is not reverent is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is a smut but it is not reverent is incorrect if the fact that it is a kind of a velveteen is correct. sent2: the respirator does not feminize bantering if there is something such that that it is ... | sent14 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the impression does smut but it is irreverent if it is not a velveteen. | [
"the impression is not a velveteen."
] | [
"the impression does smut but it is irreverent if it is not a velveteen."
] | the impression does smut but it is irreverent if it is not a velveteen. | the impression is not a velveteen. |
the stunting tailback does not occur. | sent1: if the fact that the culmination does not occur is correct then the jeremiad but not the subscription occurs. sent2: that the Mongol does not occur is correct if the fact that the consorting epicarp does not occur but the citifying occurs is wrong. sent3: the unreasonableness does not occur. sent4: the fact that... | ¬{B} | sent1: ¬{F} -> ({E} & ¬{D}) sent2: ¬(¬{IF} & {FD}) -> ¬{BT} sent3: ¬{Q} sent4: {G} -> ¬(¬{H} & {F}) sent5: ¬{C} -> ({B} & {A}) sent6: ¬({B} v {A}) -> ¬{GQ} sent7: ¬(¬{HO} & {DM}) -> ¬{BB} sent8: ¬{A} sent9: ¬(¬{H} & {F}) -> ¬{F} sent10: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent11: ¬({GD} & {DT}) sent12: ¬{L} -> (¬{J} & {K}) sent13:... | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 2 | null | 14 | 0 | 14 | the stunting tailback occurs. | {B} | 12 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the stunting tailback does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the culmination does not occur is correct then the jeremiad but not the subscription occurs. sent2: that the Mongol does not occur is correct if the fact that the consorting epicarp does not occur but the citifying occurs is wron... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | if that the stunting tailback occurs and/or the spillover happens is not true then the stunting cyclooxygenase does not occur. | [
"that both the stunting tailback and the spillover occurs is brought about by that the stunting harvest-lice does not occur."
] | [
"if that the stunting tailback occurs and/or the spillover happens is not true then the stunting cyclooxygenase does not occur."
] | if that the stunting tailback occurs and/or the spillover happens is not true then the stunting cyclooxygenase does not occur. | that both the stunting tailback and the spillover occurs is brought about by that the stunting harvest-lice does not occur. |
the Newtonian is not an evolution. | sent1: there exists something such that it is christian. sent2: the slippage is not an evolution. sent3: if something is christian it is an evolution and it does not feminize allspice. sent4: if the baluster is cecal then the goethite does not feminize gauss and/or is not a mariticide. sent5: something is christian and... | ¬{A}{a} | sent1: (Ex): {C}x sent2: ¬{A}{ib} sent3: (x): {C}x -> ({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent4: {I}{f} -> (¬{H}{e} v ¬{J}{e}) sent5: (Ex): ({C}x & {D}x) sent6: (x): {G}x -> ¬({F}x & ¬{D}x) sent7: ¬{M}{h} -> ¬({L}{g} & ¬{K}{g}) sent8: (¬{C}{b} v {E}{b}) -> {C}{a} sent9: ¬({N}{h} & {O}{h}) sent10: ¬({N}{h} & {O}{h}) -> ¬{M}{h} sent11: (¬{H}... | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Newtonian is an evolution.; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the Newtonian does not feminize allspice is not false.; sent5 & sent13 -> int2: that the Newtonian feminizes allspice is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent5 & sent13 -> int2: {B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 14 | 0 | 14 | the Newtonian is an evolution. | {A}{a} | 13 | [
"sent3 -> int4: if the Newtonian is christian then it is an evolution and it does not feminize allspice.; sent6 -> int5: the fact that the allspice does freelance but it is not a reductionism is false if it is cleistogamous.; sent10 & sent9 -> int6: the archdeaconry does not feminize Apollo.; sent7 & int6 -> int7: ... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Newtonian is not an evolution. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is christian. sent2: the slippage is not an evolution. sent3: if something is christian it is an evolution and it does not feminize allspice. sent4: if the baluster is cecal then the goethite does not feminize gau... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Newtonian is an evolution.; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the Newtonian does not feminize allspice is not false.; sent5 & sent13 -> int2: that the Newtonian feminizes allspice is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED... | DeductionInstance | that the Newtonian does not feminize allspice is not wrong if it is an evolution. | [
"something is christian and is a reductionism.",
"the Newtonian feminizes allspice if a christian thing is a kind of a reductionism."
] | [
"If it is an evolution, theNewtonian does not feminize allspice.",
"If it is an evolution, then theNewtonian does not feminize allspice."
] | If it is an evolution, theNewtonian does not feminize allspice. | something is christian and is a reductionism. |
the Newtonian is not an evolution. | sent1: there exists something such that it is christian. sent2: the slippage is not an evolution. sent3: if something is christian it is an evolution and it does not feminize allspice. sent4: if the baluster is cecal then the goethite does not feminize gauss and/or is not a mariticide. sent5: something is christian and... | ¬{A}{a} | sent1: (Ex): {C}x sent2: ¬{A}{ib} sent3: (x): {C}x -> ({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent4: {I}{f} -> (¬{H}{e} v ¬{J}{e}) sent5: (Ex): ({C}x & {D}x) sent6: (x): {G}x -> ¬({F}x & ¬{D}x) sent7: ¬{M}{h} -> ¬({L}{g} & ¬{K}{g}) sent8: (¬{C}{b} v {E}{b}) -> {C}{a} sent9: ¬({N}{h} & {O}{h}) sent10: ¬({N}{h} & {O}{h}) -> ¬{M}{h} sent11: (¬{H}... | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Newtonian is an evolution.; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the Newtonian does not feminize allspice is not false.; sent5 & sent13 -> int2: that the Newtonian feminizes allspice is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent5 & sent13 -> int2: {B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 14 | 0 | 14 | the Newtonian is an evolution. | {A}{a} | 13 | [
"sent3 -> int4: if the Newtonian is christian then it is an evolution and it does not feminize allspice.; sent6 -> int5: the fact that the allspice does freelance but it is not a reductionism is false if it is cleistogamous.; sent10 & sent9 -> int6: the archdeaconry does not feminize Apollo.; sent7 & int6 -> int7: ... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Newtonian is not an evolution. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is christian. sent2: the slippage is not an evolution. sent3: if something is christian it is an evolution and it does not feminize allspice. sent4: if the baluster is cecal then the goethite does not feminize gau... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Newtonian is an evolution.; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the Newtonian does not feminize allspice is not false.; sent5 & sent13 -> int2: that the Newtonian feminizes allspice is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED... | DeductionInstance | that the Newtonian does not feminize allspice is not wrong if it is an evolution. | [
"something is christian and is a reductionism.",
"the Newtonian feminizes allspice if a christian thing is a kind of a reductionism."
] | [
"If it is an evolution, theNewtonian does not feminize allspice.",
"If it is an evolution, then theNewtonian does not feminize allspice."
] | If it is an evolution, then theNewtonian does not feminize allspice. | the Newtonian feminizes allspice if a christian thing is a kind of a reductionism. |
there exists something such that the fact that it is not a exosphere and/or is a handline is not right. | sent1: something stunts cephaloglycin and it is appropriative if the fact that it does not stunt ten-spot is right. sent2: the annotator is a kind of a exosphere if the Lesbian is a kind of a handline. sent3: that the Lesbian is not a kind of a glowworm and is not cryptanalytic is not correct. sent4: that the annotator... | (Ex): ¬(¬{A}x v {B}x) | sent1: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({D}x & {E}x) sent2: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: ¬(¬{BK}{b} & {AA}{b}) sent5: (Ex): (¬{I}x & ¬{K}x) sent6: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent7: (Ex): ¬({BE}x v {C}x) sent8: {A}{a} -> {AB}{ir} sent9: (¬{H}{d} v {J}{d}) sent10: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent11: (x): (¬{H}x v {J}x) -> ¬{... | [
"sent13 & sent3 -> int1: the Lesbian is a handline.; sent22 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the annotator is not a exosphere and/or it is a kind of a handline is not right.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent13 & sent3 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent22 & int1 -> int2: ¬(¬{A}{b} v {B}{b}); int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 | the colonel is cryptanalytic. | {AB}{ir} | 10 | [
"sent14 -> int3: that if the Lesbian is not vertebral that the Lesbian is a exosphere and a handline is true is right.; sent1 -> int4: if that that the annotator stunts ten-spot is not true hold then it stunts cephaloglycin and it is appropriative.; sent5 & sent18 -> int5: the radiopharmaceutical feminizes Witwater... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that the fact that it is not a exosphere and/or is a handline is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: something stunts cephaloglycin and it is appropriative if the fact that it does not stunt ten-spot is right. sent2: the annotator is a kind of a exosphere if the Lesbian is a kind ... | sent13 & sent3 -> int1: the Lesbian is a handline.; sent22 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the annotator is not a exosphere and/or it is a kind of a handline is not right.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the fact that the Lesbian is not a glowworm and it is not cryptanalytic does not hold then it is a handline. | [
"that the Lesbian is not a kind of a glowworm and is not cryptanalytic is not correct.",
"if the Lesbian is a handline then the fact that the annotator is not a exosphere and/or is a handline is incorrect."
] | [
"If the Lesbian is not a glowworm and it is not cryptanalytic, then it is a handline.",
"It is a handline if the Lesbian is not a glowworm and it is not cryptanalytic."
] | If the Lesbian is not a glowworm and it is not cryptanalytic, then it is a handline. | that the Lesbian is not a kind of a glowworm and is not cryptanalytic is not correct. |
there exists something such that the fact that it is not a exosphere and/or is a handline is not right. | sent1: something stunts cephaloglycin and it is appropriative if the fact that it does not stunt ten-spot is right. sent2: the annotator is a kind of a exosphere if the Lesbian is a kind of a handline. sent3: that the Lesbian is not a kind of a glowworm and is not cryptanalytic is not correct. sent4: that the annotator... | (Ex): ¬(¬{A}x v {B}x) | sent1: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({D}x & {E}x) sent2: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: ¬(¬{BK}{b} & {AA}{b}) sent5: (Ex): (¬{I}x & ¬{K}x) sent6: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent7: (Ex): ¬({BE}x v {C}x) sent8: {A}{a} -> {AB}{ir} sent9: (¬{H}{d} v {J}{d}) sent10: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent11: (x): (¬{H}x v {J}x) -> ¬{... | [
"sent13 & sent3 -> int1: the Lesbian is a handline.; sent22 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the annotator is not a exosphere and/or it is a kind of a handline is not right.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent13 & sent3 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent22 & int1 -> int2: ¬(¬{A}{b} v {B}{b}); int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 | the colonel is cryptanalytic. | {AB}{ir} | 10 | [
"sent14 -> int3: that if the Lesbian is not vertebral that the Lesbian is a exosphere and a handline is true is right.; sent1 -> int4: if that that the annotator stunts ten-spot is not true hold then it stunts cephaloglycin and it is appropriative.; sent5 & sent18 -> int5: the radiopharmaceutical feminizes Witwater... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that the fact that it is not a exosphere and/or is a handline is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: something stunts cephaloglycin and it is appropriative if the fact that it does not stunt ten-spot is right. sent2: the annotator is a kind of a exosphere if the Lesbian is a kind ... | sent13 & sent3 -> int1: the Lesbian is a handline.; sent22 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the annotator is not a exosphere and/or it is a kind of a handline is not right.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the fact that the Lesbian is not a glowworm and it is not cryptanalytic does not hold then it is a handline. | [
"that the Lesbian is not a kind of a glowworm and is not cryptanalytic is not correct.",
"if the Lesbian is a handline then the fact that the annotator is not a exosphere and/or is a handline is incorrect."
] | [
"If the Lesbian is not a glowworm and it is not cryptanalytic, then it is a handline.",
"It is a handline if the Lesbian is not a glowworm and it is not cryptanalytic."
] | It is a handline if the Lesbian is not a glowworm and it is not cryptanalytic. | if the Lesbian is a handline then the fact that the annotator is not a exosphere and/or is a handline is incorrect. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.