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 puerpera does not guggle. | sent1: the haunch is abranchiate but it is not a kind of a pyrrhic. sent2: there exists something such that it is interplanetary thing that volatilizes. sent3: there is something such that it does volatilize. sent4: the fact that the macaw is not interplanetary hold. sent5: the haunch is abranchiate. sent6: if the haun... | ¬{C}{c} | sent1: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent3: (Ex): {B}x sent4: ¬{A}{b} sent5: {AA}{a} sent6: {B}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent7: (x): (¬{B}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{AA}{b} sent8: (x): (¬{A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{c} sent9: {B}{a} -> ¬{A}{b} sent10: {CP}{a} sent11: {A}{a} -> {C}{c} sent12: (Ex): ¬{A}x | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 9 | 0 | 9 | the puerpera guggles. | {C}{c} | 5 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the puerpera does not guggle. ; $context$ = sent1: the haunch is abranchiate but it is not a kind of a pyrrhic. sent2: there exists something such that it is interplanetary thing that volatilizes. sent3: there is something such that it does volatilize. sent4: the fact that the macaw is not interplanetary... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the macaw is not abranchiate if there is something such that it does not volatilize and is a pyrrhic. | [
"if the fact that the haunch is interplanetary is correct then the puerpera guggles."
] | [
"the macaw is not abranchiate if there is something such that it does not volatilize and is a pyrrhic."
] | the macaw is not abranchiate if there is something such that it does not volatilize and is a pyrrhic. | if the fact that the haunch is interplanetary is correct then the puerpera guggles. |
the lashing occurs and the fading occurs. | sent1: if the sewing happens the fact that not the feminizing pickpocket but the dipterousness occurs is not correct. sent2: if the chlamydialness occurs the residual occurs. sent3: the non-chlamydialness triggers that the skunk does not occur but the lash occurs. sent4: if the fumble does not occur both the oligarchic... | ({AB} & {B}) | sent1: {I} -> ¬(¬{G} & {F}) sent2: {A} -> {FO} sent3: ¬{A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent4: ¬{C} -> ({HJ} & {B}) sent5: ¬(¬{G} & {F}) -> ¬{E} sent6: (¬{FB} & {BN}) sent7: ¬{D} -> {C} sent8: (¬{BQ} & {FC}) sent9: ¬{E} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent10: ¬{D} -> ({B} & {C}) sent11: ¬{A} sent12: ¬{D} | [
"sent3 & sent11 -> int1: the skunk does not occur and the lash occurs.; int1 -> int2: the lash occurs.; sent10 & sent12 -> int3: the fading and the fumble occurs.; int3 -> int4: the fact that the fade happens is not false.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent3 & sent11 -> int1: (¬{AA} & {AB}); int1 -> int2: {AB}; sent10 & sent12 -> int3: ({B} & {C}); int3 -> int4: {B}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 | the residualness and the oligarchicness happens. | ({FO} & {HJ}) | 8 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the lashing occurs and the fading occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sewing happens the fact that not the feminizing pickpocket but the dipterousness occurs is not correct. sent2: if the chlamydialness occurs the residual occurs. sent3: the non-chlamydialness triggers that the skunk does not occur but t... | sent3 & sent11 -> int1: the skunk does not occur and the lash occurs.; int1 -> int2: the lash occurs.; sent10 & sent12 -> int3: the fading and the fumble occurs.; int3 -> int4: the fact that the fade happens is not false.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the non-chlamydialness triggers that the skunk does not occur but the lash occurs. | [
"the chlamydialness does not occur.",
"if the digitalness does not occur then the fading and the fumbling occurs.",
"the digitalness does not occur."
] | [
"The non-chlamydialness causes the lash to occur.",
"The non-chlamydialness causes the lashes to occur.",
"The non-chlamydialness causes the skunk to not occur."
] | The non-chlamydialness causes the lash to occur. | the chlamydialness does not occur. |
the lashing occurs and the fading occurs. | sent1: if the sewing happens the fact that not the feminizing pickpocket but the dipterousness occurs is not correct. sent2: if the chlamydialness occurs the residual occurs. sent3: the non-chlamydialness triggers that the skunk does not occur but the lash occurs. sent4: if the fumble does not occur both the oligarchic... | ({AB} & {B}) | sent1: {I} -> ¬(¬{G} & {F}) sent2: {A} -> {FO} sent3: ¬{A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent4: ¬{C} -> ({HJ} & {B}) sent5: ¬(¬{G} & {F}) -> ¬{E} sent6: (¬{FB} & {BN}) sent7: ¬{D} -> {C} sent8: (¬{BQ} & {FC}) sent9: ¬{E} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent10: ¬{D} -> ({B} & {C}) sent11: ¬{A} sent12: ¬{D} | [
"sent3 & sent11 -> int1: the skunk does not occur and the lash occurs.; int1 -> int2: the lash occurs.; sent10 & sent12 -> int3: the fading and the fumble occurs.; int3 -> int4: the fact that the fade happens is not false.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent3 & sent11 -> int1: (¬{AA} & {AB}); int1 -> int2: {AB}; sent10 & sent12 -> int3: ({B} & {C}); int3 -> int4: {B}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 | the residualness and the oligarchicness happens. | ({FO} & {HJ}) | 8 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the lashing occurs and the fading occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sewing happens the fact that not the feminizing pickpocket but the dipterousness occurs is not correct. sent2: if the chlamydialness occurs the residual occurs. sent3: the non-chlamydialness triggers that the skunk does not occur but t... | sent3 & sent11 -> int1: the skunk does not occur and the lash occurs.; int1 -> int2: the lash occurs.; sent10 & sent12 -> int3: the fading and the fumble occurs.; int3 -> int4: the fact that the fade happens is not false.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the non-chlamydialness triggers that the skunk does not occur but the lash occurs. | [
"the chlamydialness does not occur.",
"if the digitalness does not occur then the fading and the fumbling occurs.",
"the digitalness does not occur."
] | [
"The non-chlamydialness causes the lash to occur.",
"The non-chlamydialness causes the lashes to occur.",
"The non-chlamydialness causes the skunk to not occur."
] | The non-chlamydialness causes the lashes to occur. | if the digitalness does not occur then the fading and the fumbling occurs. |
the lashing occurs and the fading occurs. | sent1: if the sewing happens the fact that not the feminizing pickpocket but the dipterousness occurs is not correct. sent2: if the chlamydialness occurs the residual occurs. sent3: the non-chlamydialness triggers that the skunk does not occur but the lash occurs. sent4: if the fumble does not occur both the oligarchic... | ({AB} & {B}) | sent1: {I} -> ¬(¬{G} & {F}) sent2: {A} -> {FO} sent3: ¬{A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent4: ¬{C} -> ({HJ} & {B}) sent5: ¬(¬{G} & {F}) -> ¬{E} sent6: (¬{FB} & {BN}) sent7: ¬{D} -> {C} sent8: (¬{BQ} & {FC}) sent9: ¬{E} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent10: ¬{D} -> ({B} & {C}) sent11: ¬{A} sent12: ¬{D} | [
"sent3 & sent11 -> int1: the skunk does not occur and the lash occurs.; int1 -> int2: the lash occurs.; sent10 & sent12 -> int3: the fading and the fumble occurs.; int3 -> int4: the fact that the fade happens is not false.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent3 & sent11 -> int1: (¬{AA} & {AB}); int1 -> int2: {AB}; sent10 & sent12 -> int3: ({B} & {C}); int3 -> int4: {B}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 | the residualness and the oligarchicness happens. | ({FO} & {HJ}) | 8 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the lashing occurs and the fading occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sewing happens the fact that not the feminizing pickpocket but the dipterousness occurs is not correct. sent2: if the chlamydialness occurs the residual occurs. sent3: the non-chlamydialness triggers that the skunk does not occur but t... | sent3 & sent11 -> int1: the skunk does not occur and the lash occurs.; int1 -> int2: the lash occurs.; sent10 & sent12 -> int3: the fading and the fumble occurs.; int3 -> int4: the fact that the fade happens is not false.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the non-chlamydialness triggers that the skunk does not occur but the lash occurs. | [
"the chlamydialness does not occur.",
"if the digitalness does not occur then the fading and the fumbling occurs.",
"the digitalness does not occur."
] | [
"The non-chlamydialness causes the lash to occur.",
"The non-chlamydialness causes the lashes to occur.",
"The non-chlamydialness causes the skunk to not occur."
] | The non-chlamydialness causes the skunk to not occur. | the digitalness does not occur. |
that either the figuration happens or the stunting Satureja does not occur or both does not hold. | sent1: if the stunting Peabody does not occur and the increasing does not occur then the stunting Satureja does not occur. sent2: that the increase occurs triggers that the stunting Peabody does not occur. sent3: if the consorting Tyrolean occurs then the stunting Peabody does not occur and the increase does not occur.... | ¬({A} v ¬{B}) | sent1: (¬{C} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{B} sent2: {D} -> ¬{C} sent3: {E} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent4: ¬{B} -> {C} sent5: {A} -> {C} | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that either the figuration happens or the stunting Satureja does not occur or both.; assump1 & sent5 & sent4 -> int1: the stunting Peabody occurs.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"void -> assump1: ({A} v ¬{B}); assump1 & sent5 & sent4 -> int1: {C};"
] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 | either the figuration occurs or the stunting Satureja does not occur or both. | ({A} v ¬{B}) | 7 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that either the figuration happens or the stunting Satureja does not occur or both does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the stunting Peabody does not occur and the increasing does not occur then the stunting Satureja does not occur. sent2: that the increase occurs triggers that the stunting Peabody doe... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | if the figuration happens then the stunting Peabody occurs. | [
"if the stunting Satureja does not occur the stunting Peabody occurs."
] | [
"if the figuration happens then the stunting Peabody occurs."
] | if the figuration happens then the stunting Peabody occurs. | if the stunting Satureja does not occur the stunting Peabody occurs. |
both the portrayal and the stunting self-reproach happens. | sent1: the stunting Ugric does not occur but the stunting self-reproach occurs. sent2: that both the attempt and the unhealthiness happens is true. sent3: the selection occurs if the riparianness occurs. sent4: the twenty-one occurs and/or the going-over occurs. sent5: if the twenty-one happens then the portrayal occur... | ({C} & {D}) | sent1: (¬{E} & {D}) sent2: ({DI} & {F}) sent3: {BF} -> {L} sent4: ({A} v {B}) sent5: {A} -> {C} sent6: {B} -> {C} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent8: ¬{E} | [
"sent4 & sent5 & sent6 -> int1: the portrayal happens.; sent1 -> int2: the stunting self-reproach happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent4 & sent5 & sent6 -> int1: {C}; sent1 -> int2: {D}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 | that the portrayal occurs and the stunting self-reproach happens is wrong. | ¬({C} & {D}) | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = both the portrayal and the stunting self-reproach happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the stunting Ugric does not occur but the stunting self-reproach occurs. sent2: that both the attempt and the unhealthiness happens is true. sent3: the selection occurs if the riparianness occurs. sent4: the twenty-one occurs... | sent4 & sent5 & sent6 -> int1: the portrayal happens.; sent1 -> int2: the stunting self-reproach happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the twenty-one occurs and/or the going-over occurs. | [
"if the twenty-one happens then the portrayal occurs.",
"that the portrayal occurs is caused by that the going-over happens.",
"the stunting Ugric does not occur but the stunting self-reproach occurs."
] | [
"The going-over occurs or the twenty-one occurs.",
"The twenty-one occurs or the going-over occurs.",
"The going-over occurs or the twenty-one happens."
] | The going-over occurs or the twenty-one occurs. | if the twenty-one happens then the portrayal occurs. |
both the portrayal and the stunting self-reproach happens. | sent1: the stunting Ugric does not occur but the stunting self-reproach occurs. sent2: that both the attempt and the unhealthiness happens is true. sent3: the selection occurs if the riparianness occurs. sent4: the twenty-one occurs and/or the going-over occurs. sent5: if the twenty-one happens then the portrayal occur... | ({C} & {D}) | sent1: (¬{E} & {D}) sent2: ({DI} & {F}) sent3: {BF} -> {L} sent4: ({A} v {B}) sent5: {A} -> {C} sent6: {B} -> {C} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent8: ¬{E} | [
"sent4 & sent5 & sent6 -> int1: the portrayal happens.; sent1 -> int2: the stunting self-reproach happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent4 & sent5 & sent6 -> int1: {C}; sent1 -> int2: {D}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 | that the portrayal occurs and the stunting self-reproach happens is wrong. | ¬({C} & {D}) | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = both the portrayal and the stunting self-reproach happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the stunting Ugric does not occur but the stunting self-reproach occurs. sent2: that both the attempt and the unhealthiness happens is true. sent3: the selection occurs if the riparianness occurs. sent4: the twenty-one occurs... | sent4 & sent5 & sent6 -> int1: the portrayal happens.; sent1 -> int2: the stunting self-reproach happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the twenty-one occurs and/or the going-over occurs. | [
"if the twenty-one happens then the portrayal occurs.",
"that the portrayal occurs is caused by that the going-over happens.",
"the stunting Ugric does not occur but the stunting self-reproach occurs."
] | [
"The going-over occurs or the twenty-one occurs.",
"The twenty-one occurs or the going-over occurs.",
"The going-over occurs or the twenty-one happens."
] | The twenty-one occurs or the going-over occurs. | that the portrayal occurs is caused by that the going-over happens. |
both the portrayal and the stunting self-reproach happens. | sent1: the stunting Ugric does not occur but the stunting self-reproach occurs. sent2: that both the attempt and the unhealthiness happens is true. sent3: the selection occurs if the riparianness occurs. sent4: the twenty-one occurs and/or the going-over occurs. sent5: if the twenty-one happens then the portrayal occur... | ({C} & {D}) | sent1: (¬{E} & {D}) sent2: ({DI} & {F}) sent3: {BF} -> {L} sent4: ({A} v {B}) sent5: {A} -> {C} sent6: {B} -> {C} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent8: ¬{E} | [
"sent4 & sent5 & sent6 -> int1: the portrayal happens.; sent1 -> int2: the stunting self-reproach happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent4 & sent5 & sent6 -> int1: {C}; sent1 -> int2: {D}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 | that the portrayal occurs and the stunting self-reproach happens is wrong. | ¬({C} & {D}) | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = both the portrayal and the stunting self-reproach happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the stunting Ugric does not occur but the stunting self-reproach occurs. sent2: that both the attempt and the unhealthiness happens is true. sent3: the selection occurs if the riparianness occurs. sent4: the twenty-one occurs... | sent4 & sent5 & sent6 -> int1: the portrayal happens.; sent1 -> int2: the stunting self-reproach happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the twenty-one occurs and/or the going-over occurs. | [
"if the twenty-one happens then the portrayal occurs.",
"that the portrayal occurs is caused by that the going-over happens.",
"the stunting Ugric does not occur but the stunting self-reproach occurs."
] | [
"The going-over occurs or the twenty-one occurs.",
"The twenty-one occurs or the going-over occurs.",
"The going-over occurs or the twenty-one happens."
] | The going-over occurs or the twenty-one happens. | the stunting Ugric does not occur but the stunting self-reproach occurs. |
the shamanistness does not occur. | sent1: if the Tasmanianness happens and the considering totipotency does not occur then the faro does not occur. sent2: the fact that the jack-o'-lantern does not occur and the cotillion does not occur is not right if the faro does not occur. sent3: the jack-o'-lantern happens. sent4: the shamanistness happens if the j... | ¬{B} | sent1: ({E} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{D} sent2: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{C}) sent3: {A} sent4: {A} -> {B} sent5: {CU} -> {IC} | [
"sent4 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent4 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 | the shamanistness does not occur. | ¬{B} | 7 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the shamanistness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Tasmanianness happens and the considering totipotency does not occur then the faro does not occur. sent2: the fact that the jack-o'-lantern does not occur and the cotillion does not occur is not right if the faro does not occur. sent3: the jac... | sent4 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the shamanistness happens if the jack-o'-lantern occurs. | [
"the jack-o'-lantern happens."
] | [
"the shamanistness happens if the jack-o'-lantern occurs."
] | the shamanistness happens if the jack-o'-lantern occurs. | the jack-o'-lantern happens. |
the vagary does not occur. | sent1: that the democratization does not occur is correct. sent2: the belemniticness happens. sent3: the brainwave happens. sent4: the tough happens and the Jeffersonianness occurs. sent5: that the vagary occurs is prevented by that the depreciation occurs and the brainwave occurs. sent6: the depreciation happens. sent... | ¬{C} | sent1: ¬{ES} sent2: {CH} sent3: {B} sent4: ({DN} & {EK}) sent5: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent6: {A} sent7: {AE} | [
"sent6 & sent3 -> int1: both the depreciation and the brainwave happens.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent6 & sent3 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the vagary does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the democratization does not occur is correct. sent2: the belemniticness happens. sent3: the brainwave happens. sent4: the tough happens and the Jeffersonianness occurs. sent5: that the vagary occurs is prevented by that the depreciation occurs and the... | sent6 & sent3 -> int1: both the depreciation and the brainwave happens.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the depreciation happens. | [
"the brainwave happens.",
"that the vagary occurs is prevented by that the depreciation occurs and the brainwave occurs."
] | [
"The depreciation happens.",
"The depreciation occurs."
] | The depreciation happens. | the brainwave happens. |
the vagary does not occur. | sent1: that the democratization does not occur is correct. sent2: the belemniticness happens. sent3: the brainwave happens. sent4: the tough happens and the Jeffersonianness occurs. sent5: that the vagary occurs is prevented by that the depreciation occurs and the brainwave occurs. sent6: the depreciation happens. sent... | ¬{C} | sent1: ¬{ES} sent2: {CH} sent3: {B} sent4: ({DN} & {EK}) sent5: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent6: {A} sent7: {AE} | [
"sent6 & sent3 -> int1: both the depreciation and the brainwave happens.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent6 & sent3 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the vagary does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the democratization does not occur is correct. sent2: the belemniticness happens. sent3: the brainwave happens. sent4: the tough happens and the Jeffersonianness occurs. sent5: that the vagary occurs is prevented by that the depreciation occurs and the... | sent6 & sent3 -> int1: both the depreciation and the brainwave happens.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the depreciation happens. | [
"the brainwave happens.",
"that the vagary occurs is prevented by that the depreciation occurs and the brainwave occurs."
] | [
"The depreciation happens.",
"The depreciation occurs."
] | The depreciation occurs. | that the vagary occurs is prevented by that the depreciation occurs and the brainwave occurs. |
the tither is not a kind of a Jacobs. | sent1: there is something such that it is not exaugural. sent2: the albite does not consort halon if that the tither is a Jacobs and it is Stravinskyan does not hold. sent3: something consorts halon but it is not a Jacobs. sent4: there is something such that it is not a fellow. sent5: the tither is a kind of a Polynesi... | ¬{A}{a} | sent1: (Ex): ¬{AR}x sent2: ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{hp} sent3: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{A}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{F}x sent5: ({IU}{a} & ¬{IK}{a}) sent6: ({EC}{a} & ¬{IN}{a}) sent7: ({E}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent8: (Ex): {CB}x sent9: (Ex): ({AB}x & ¬{A}x) sent10: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent11: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sen... | [
"sent10 -> int1: something does consort halon but it is not a front.; int1 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent10 -> int1: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x); int1 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 17 | the albite does not consort halon. | ¬{AA}{hp} | 7 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the tither is not a kind of a Jacobs. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is not exaugural. sent2: the albite does not consort halon if that the tither is a Jacobs and it is Stravinskyan does not hold. sent3: something consorts halon but it is not a Jacobs. sent4: there is something such... | sent10 -> int1: something does consort halon but it is not a front.; int1 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the halon does consort halon but it does not front. | [
"if something that does consort halon does not front then the tither is not a Jacobs."
] | [
"the halon does consort halon but it does not front."
] | the halon does consort halon but it does not front. | if something that does consort halon does not front then the tither is not a Jacobs. |
the crape is not a kind of a Sinology. | sent1: that something is non-belemnitic thing that is sportive does not hold if the fact that it is thermionics is not false. sent2: if the fact that the crape is not non-alkaline and/or it is a kind of a Arno is not correct the commuter is not a Sinology. sent3: the reticule is not sportive if the fact that the mammal... | ¬{A}{a} | sent1: (x): {E}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) sent2: ¬({AB}{a} v {AA}{a}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent3: ¬(¬{D}{d} & {C}{d}) -> ¬{C}{c} sent4: ¬{D}{a} -> (¬{B}{cu} v {C}{cu}) sent5: ¬({AA}{aa} v {A}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬{AA}x sent7: ¬({A}{aa} v {AA}{aa}) -> ¬{AB}{a} sent8: ¬{AA}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬({AG}x v {CI}x) sent10: (x): ¬({EN}x v {BR}x) se... | [
"sent11 -> int1: that the commuter is a Arno and/or it is alkaline is false.; sent12 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent11 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}); sent12 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 | the crape is a Sinology. | {A}{a} | 6 | [
"sent1 -> int2: if the mammal is thermionics the fact that it is a kind of non-belemnitic thing that is sportive is not correct.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the crape is not a kind of a Sinology. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is non-belemnitic thing that is sportive does not hold if the fact that it is thermionics is not false. sent2: if the fact that the crape is not non-alkaline and/or it is a kind of a Arno is not correct the commuter is not a Sinol... | sent11 -> int1: that the commuter is a Arno and/or it is alkaline is false.; sent12 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there is nothing such that it either is a kind of a Arno or is alkaline or both. | [
"if that the commuter is a Arno or it is alkaline or both is not correct the crape is not a kind of a Sinology."
] | [
"there is nothing such that it either is a kind of a Arno or is alkaline or both."
] | there is nothing such that it either is a kind of a Arno or is alkaline or both. | if that the commuter is a Arno or it is alkaline or both is not correct the crape is not a kind of a Sinology. |
the blister is a undershrub. | sent1: if the fact that something is not a Mali and it is not a kind of a river is not true it is a kind of a wonder. sent2: the ex-spouse is not taxable. sent3: something completes and it does feminize emphysema if it is not taxable. sent4: if the eclair is a kind of a Togolese that the blister is a kind of a Mali and... | {C}{b} | sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: ¬{H}{d} sent3: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({G}x & {F}x) sent4: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent5: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent6: {AA}{a} sent7: {A}{bm} sent8: (x): {O}x -> {E}x sent9: {G}{b} sent10: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent11: {A}{a} sent12: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}... | [
"sent12 & sent11 -> int1: that that the blister is not a Mali and is not a river hold is wrong.; sent1 -> int2: that the blister does wonder is true if that it is not a Mali and not a river is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the blister wonders.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent12 & sent11 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}); sent1 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> {B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {B}{b};"
] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 | the blister is not a kind of a undershrub. | ¬{C}{b} | 9 | [
"sent13 -> int4: if the blister is Togolese but it does not wonder then it is not a undershrub.; sent3 -> int5: the ex-spouse is a kind of completed thing that feminizes emphysema if it is not taxable.; int5 & sent2 -> int6: the ex-spouse completes and it feminizes emphysema.; int6 -> int7: the ex-spouse feminizes ... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the blister is a undershrub. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is not a Mali and it is not a kind of a river is not true it is a kind of a wonder. sent2: the ex-spouse is not taxable. sent3: something completes and it does feminize emphysema if it is not taxable. sent4: if the eclair is a k... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | that the fact that the blister is both not a Mali and not a river is wrong is right if the eclair is Togolese. | [
"the eclair is a Togolese.",
"if the fact that something is not a Mali and it is not a kind of a river is not true it is a kind of a wonder."
] | [
"The fact that the blister is not a river and the eclair is not a river is correct.",
"If the eclair is Togolese, then the fact that the blister is not a river is correct."
] | The fact that the blister is not a river and the eclair is not a river is correct. | the eclair is a Togolese. |
the blister is a undershrub. | sent1: if the fact that something is not a Mali and it is not a kind of a river is not true it is a kind of a wonder. sent2: the ex-spouse is not taxable. sent3: something completes and it does feminize emphysema if it is not taxable. sent4: if the eclair is a kind of a Togolese that the blister is a kind of a Mali and... | {C}{b} | sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: ¬{H}{d} sent3: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({G}x & {F}x) sent4: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent5: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent6: {AA}{a} sent7: {A}{bm} sent8: (x): {O}x -> {E}x sent9: {G}{b} sent10: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent11: {A}{a} sent12: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}... | [
"sent12 & sent11 -> int1: that that the blister is not a Mali and is not a river hold is wrong.; sent1 -> int2: that the blister does wonder is true if that it is not a Mali and not a river is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the blister wonders.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent12 & sent11 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}); sent1 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> {B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {B}{b};"
] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 | the blister is not a kind of a undershrub. | ¬{C}{b} | 9 | [
"sent13 -> int4: if the blister is Togolese but it does not wonder then it is not a undershrub.; sent3 -> int5: the ex-spouse is a kind of completed thing that feminizes emphysema if it is not taxable.; int5 & sent2 -> int6: the ex-spouse completes and it feminizes emphysema.; int6 -> int7: the ex-spouse feminizes ... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the blister is a undershrub. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is not a Mali and it is not a kind of a river is not true it is a kind of a wonder. sent2: the ex-spouse is not taxable. sent3: something completes and it does feminize emphysema if it is not taxable. sent4: if the eclair is a k... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | that the fact that the blister is both not a Mali and not a river is wrong is right if the eclair is Togolese. | [
"the eclair is a Togolese.",
"if the fact that something is not a Mali and it is not a kind of a river is not true it is a kind of a wonder."
] | [
"The fact that the blister is not a river and the eclair is not a river is correct.",
"If the eclair is Togolese, then the fact that the blister is not a river is correct."
] | If the eclair is Togolese, then the fact that the blister is not a river is correct. | if the fact that something is not a Mali and it is not a kind of a river is not true it is a kind of a wonder. |
there is something such that if it is not a kind of a brinkmanship then the fact that that it does not feminize lasher and is not gymnosophical is true is false. | sent1: if that the ketosteroid belays is not false then that it is not a kind of a brinkmanship and it is not orthopedic is incorrect. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a Dolichonyx then that it is not a Becket and does not gazump does not hold. sent3: if something is not a brinkmanship then that it ... | (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) | sent1: {GC}{db} -> ¬(¬{A}{db} & ¬{IK}{db}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{AE}x -> ¬(¬{EI}x & ¬{HK}x) sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{JF}x & ¬{IL}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{HO}x -> (¬{HP}x & ¬{FF}x) sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬{EP}x -> ¬(¬{AM}x & ¬{DJ}x) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ... | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 2 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 | if the fact that the Kichai is not a brinkmanship is not incorrect the fact that it is not a cogitation and it is not a database is not right. | ¬{A}{hs} -> ¬(¬{JF}{hs} & ¬{IL}{hs}) | 1 | [
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a kind of a brinkmanship then the fact that that it does not feminize lasher and is not gymnosophical is true is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the ketosteroid belays is not false then that it is not a kind of a brinkmanship and it is not orthopedic is incor... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | if something is not a brinkmanship then that that it does feminize lasher and it is not gymnosophical is correct is wrong. | [
"the fact that the applique does feminize fencing and is not chordal is false if it does not feminize lasher."
] | [
"if something is not a brinkmanship then that that it does feminize lasher and it is not gymnosophical is correct is wrong."
] | if something is not a brinkmanship then that that it does feminize lasher and it is not gymnosophical is correct is wrong. | the fact that the applique does feminize fencing and is not chordal is false if it does not feminize lasher. |
the pyx is not conventional. | sent1: the fact that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is wrong. sent2: the backswimmer is a aggravator if the hookah consorts khoum. sent3: something is conventional if it is systematics. sent4: the hookah is not a Numidian if the fact that the fact that it is not a dekaliter and is Numidian i... | ¬{C}{c} | sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: {AA}{a} -> {B}{b} sent3: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent4: ¬(¬{G}{a} & {F}{a}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{B}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) -> {C}{b} sent6: {B}{b} -> {A}{c} sent7: (Ex): {G}x sent8: ¬{F}{a} -> ({E}{a} & {D}{a}) sent9: (x): {D}x -> {B}x sent10: ¬(¬{AB}{c} & {A}{c}) sent11: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) se... | [
"sent12 & sent1 -> int1: the backswimmer is a aggravator.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the pyx is systematics.; sent3 -> int3: the pyx is conventional if it is not non-systematics.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent12 & sent1 -> int1: {B}{b}; int1 & sent6 -> int2: {A}{c}; sent3 -> int3: {A}{c} -> {C}{c}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 10 | the pyx is not conventional. | ¬{C}{c} | 8 | [
"sent9 -> int4: the hookah is a aggravator if the fact that it does consort Goma is not false.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the pyx is not conventional. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is wrong. sent2: the backswimmer is a aggravator if the hookah consorts khoum. sent3: something is conventional if it is systematics. sent4: the hookah is not a Numidian if the fact ... | sent12 & sent1 -> int1: the backswimmer is a aggravator.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the pyx is systematics.; sent3 -> int3: the pyx is conventional if it is not non-systematics.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is not correct then the backswimmer is a kind of a aggravator. | [
"the fact that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is wrong.",
"if the backswimmer is a aggravator the pyx is systematics.",
"something is conventional if it is systematics."
] | [
"The backswimmer is a kind of aggravator if the hookah does not consort khoum.",
"The back swimmer is a kind of aggravator if the hookah does not consort khoum.",
"The backswimmer is a kind of aggravator if the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not intended."
] | The backswimmer is a kind of aggravator if the hookah does not consort khoum. | the fact that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is wrong. |
the pyx is not conventional. | sent1: the fact that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is wrong. sent2: the backswimmer is a aggravator if the hookah consorts khoum. sent3: something is conventional if it is systematics. sent4: the hookah is not a Numidian if the fact that the fact that it is not a dekaliter and is Numidian i... | ¬{C}{c} | sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: {AA}{a} -> {B}{b} sent3: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent4: ¬(¬{G}{a} & {F}{a}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{B}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) -> {C}{b} sent6: {B}{b} -> {A}{c} sent7: (Ex): {G}x sent8: ¬{F}{a} -> ({E}{a} & {D}{a}) sent9: (x): {D}x -> {B}x sent10: ¬(¬{AB}{c} & {A}{c}) sent11: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) se... | [
"sent12 & sent1 -> int1: the backswimmer is a aggravator.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the pyx is systematics.; sent3 -> int3: the pyx is conventional if it is not non-systematics.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent12 & sent1 -> int1: {B}{b}; int1 & sent6 -> int2: {A}{c}; sent3 -> int3: {A}{c} -> {C}{c}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 10 | the pyx is not conventional. | ¬{C}{c} | 8 | [
"sent9 -> int4: the hookah is a aggravator if the fact that it does consort Goma is not false.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the pyx is not conventional. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is wrong. sent2: the backswimmer is a aggravator if the hookah consorts khoum. sent3: something is conventional if it is systematics. sent4: the hookah is not a Numidian if the fact ... | sent12 & sent1 -> int1: the backswimmer is a aggravator.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the pyx is systematics.; sent3 -> int3: the pyx is conventional if it is not non-systematics.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is not correct then the backswimmer is a kind of a aggravator. | [
"the fact that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is wrong.",
"if the backswimmer is a aggravator the pyx is systematics.",
"something is conventional if it is systematics."
] | [
"The backswimmer is a kind of aggravator if the hookah does not consort khoum.",
"The back swimmer is a kind of aggravator if the hookah does not consort khoum.",
"The backswimmer is a kind of aggravator if the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not intended."
] | The back swimmer is a kind of aggravator if the hookah does not consort khoum. | if the backswimmer is a aggravator the pyx is systematics. |
the pyx is not conventional. | sent1: the fact that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is wrong. sent2: the backswimmer is a aggravator if the hookah consorts khoum. sent3: something is conventional if it is systematics. sent4: the hookah is not a Numidian if the fact that the fact that it is not a dekaliter and is Numidian i... | ¬{C}{c} | sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: {AA}{a} -> {B}{b} sent3: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent4: ¬(¬{G}{a} & {F}{a}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{B}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) -> {C}{b} sent6: {B}{b} -> {A}{c} sent7: (Ex): {G}x sent8: ¬{F}{a} -> ({E}{a} & {D}{a}) sent9: (x): {D}x -> {B}x sent10: ¬(¬{AB}{c} & {A}{c}) sent11: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) se... | [
"sent12 & sent1 -> int1: the backswimmer is a aggravator.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the pyx is systematics.; sent3 -> int3: the pyx is conventional if it is not non-systematics.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent12 & sent1 -> int1: {B}{b}; int1 & sent6 -> int2: {A}{c}; sent3 -> int3: {A}{c} -> {C}{c}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 10 | the pyx is not conventional. | ¬{C}{c} | 8 | [
"sent9 -> int4: the hookah is a aggravator if the fact that it does consort Goma is not false.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the pyx is not conventional. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is wrong. sent2: the backswimmer is a aggravator if the hookah consorts khoum. sent3: something is conventional if it is systematics. sent4: the hookah is not a Numidian if the fact ... | sent12 & sent1 -> int1: the backswimmer is a aggravator.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the pyx is systematics.; sent3 -> int3: the pyx is conventional if it is not non-systematics.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is not correct then the backswimmer is a kind of a aggravator. | [
"the fact that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is wrong.",
"if the backswimmer is a aggravator the pyx is systematics.",
"something is conventional if it is systematics."
] | [
"The backswimmer is a kind of aggravator if the hookah does not consort khoum.",
"The back swimmer is a kind of aggravator if the hookah does not consort khoum.",
"The backswimmer is a kind of aggravator if the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not intended."
] | The backswimmer is a kind of aggravator if the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not intended. | something is conventional if it is systematics. |
the fact that the flagellant is a kind of nautical thing that is not flinty is not true. | sent1: that the flagellant is nautical and it is flinty does not hold if the Cyril is not nautical. sent2: something is not a kind of a backband if it is a kind of a Anhingidae. sent3: the fact that the Cyril is not denotative is not incorrect if a flinty thing is not a kind of a snakebite. sent4: something does wash a... | ¬({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) | sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent2: (x): {H}x -> ¬{F}x sent3: (x): ({B}x & ¬{DS}x) -> ¬{FB}{a} sent4: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: ¬{B}{a} sent6: ¬{F}{a} -> ¬({G}{a} & {E}{a}) sent7: {I}{c} -> {H}{a} sent8: (x): ({JA}x & ¬{AA}x) -> ¬{T}{b} sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent10: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x & {D}x... | [
"sent13 & sent16 -> int1: the Cyril is not nautical.; sent9 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent13 & sent16 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; sent9 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 15 | 0 | 15 | the flagellant is nautical and not flinty. | ({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) | 8 | [
"sent17 -> int2: if the flagellant is outdoors then it is nautical and it is not flinty.; sent10 -> int3: the fact that the flagellant is outdoors thing that stunts Islam is right if it is not recessionary.; sent2 -> int4: if the Cyril is a Anhingidae then it is not a backband.; sent7 & sent11 -> int5: the Cyril is... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the flagellant is a kind of nautical thing that is not flinty is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: that the flagellant is nautical and it is flinty does not hold if the Cyril is not nautical. sent2: something is not a kind of a backband if it is a kind of a Anhingidae. sent3: the fact that the... | sent13 & sent16 -> int1: the Cyril is not nautical.; sent9 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it is a wash that is unargumentative. | [
"if a wash is not argumentative then the Cyril is not nautical.",
"if the Cyril is not nautical then that the flagellant is nautical but it is not flinty is not true."
] | [
"There is a wash that is unargumentative.",
"There is something that is unargumentative."
] | There is a wash that is unargumentative. | if a wash is not argumentative then the Cyril is not nautical. |
the fact that the flagellant is a kind of nautical thing that is not flinty is not true. | sent1: that the flagellant is nautical and it is flinty does not hold if the Cyril is not nautical. sent2: something is not a kind of a backband if it is a kind of a Anhingidae. sent3: the fact that the Cyril is not denotative is not incorrect if a flinty thing is not a kind of a snakebite. sent4: something does wash a... | ¬({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) | sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent2: (x): {H}x -> ¬{F}x sent3: (x): ({B}x & ¬{DS}x) -> ¬{FB}{a} sent4: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: ¬{B}{a} sent6: ¬{F}{a} -> ¬({G}{a} & {E}{a}) sent7: {I}{c} -> {H}{a} sent8: (x): ({JA}x & ¬{AA}x) -> ¬{T}{b} sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent10: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x & {D}x... | [
"sent13 & sent16 -> int1: the Cyril is not nautical.; sent9 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent13 & sent16 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; sent9 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 15 | 0 | 15 | the flagellant is nautical and not flinty. | ({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) | 8 | [
"sent17 -> int2: if the flagellant is outdoors then it is nautical and it is not flinty.; sent10 -> int3: the fact that the flagellant is outdoors thing that stunts Islam is right if it is not recessionary.; sent2 -> int4: if the Cyril is a Anhingidae then it is not a backband.; sent7 & sent11 -> int5: the Cyril is... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the flagellant is a kind of nautical thing that is not flinty is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: that the flagellant is nautical and it is flinty does not hold if the Cyril is not nautical. sent2: something is not a kind of a backband if it is a kind of a Anhingidae. sent3: the fact that the... | sent13 & sent16 -> int1: the Cyril is not nautical.; sent9 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it is a wash that is unargumentative. | [
"if a wash is not argumentative then the Cyril is not nautical.",
"if the Cyril is not nautical then that the flagellant is nautical but it is not flinty is not true."
] | [
"There is a wash that is unargumentative.",
"There is something that is unargumentative."
] | There is something that is unargumentative. | if the Cyril is not nautical then that the flagellant is nautical but it is not flinty is not true. |
the alderman is a scallop. | sent1: either the alderman is nonarboreal or it does scallop or both. sent2: the porcupinefish is not nonarboreal and/or renders. sent3: the laver feminizes flashing if the flat is a knawel. sent4: the spironolactone is not a priority and does not feminize flashing if the motorcycle does not feminize sociologist. sent5... | {B}{b} | sent1: ({AA}{b} v {B}{b}) sent2: (¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent3: {F}{f} -> {D}{e} sent4: ¬{E}{d} -> (¬{C}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent5: (x): (¬{E}x v {F}x) -> ¬{E}x sent6: (¬{EP}{b} v {B}{b}) sent7: (¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent8: (¬{C}{d} v ¬{E}{d}) -> ¬{C}{c} sent9: (¬{B}{b} v {AB}{b}) sent10: {AA}{ja} sent11: (¬{B}{a} v {A... | [
"sent7 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent7 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 15 | the alderman is not a kind of a scallop. | ¬{B}{b} | 7 | [
"sent5 -> int1: the motorcycle does not feminize sociologist if either it does not feminize sociologist or it is a knawel or both.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the alderman is a scallop. ; $context$ = sent1: either the alderman is nonarboreal or it does scallop or both. sent2: the porcupinefish is not nonarboreal and/or renders. sent3: the laver feminizes flashing if the flat is a knawel. sent4: the spironolactone is not a priority and does not feminize flashin... | sent7 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if either the porcupinefish is not nonarboreal or it does render or both the alderman scallops. | [
"the porcupinefish is not nonarboreal and/or renders."
] | [
"if either the porcupinefish is not nonarboreal or it does render or both the alderman scallops."
] | if either the porcupinefish is not nonarboreal or it does render or both the alderman scallops. | the porcupinefish is not nonarboreal and/or renders. |
the selvage is Nordic. | sent1: the hull is not a kind of a Hyaenidae if there is something such that it is bifilar and/or does not test. sent2: the Nasturtium is not Nordic. sent3: that the fact that the selvage is Nordic is not wrong is incorrect if there exists something such that it is a lincomycin. sent4: the fact that the Nasturtium is a... | {A}{a} | sent1: (x): ({I}x v ¬{H}x) -> ¬{F}{b} sent2: ¬{A}{aa} sent3: (x): {AB}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬({AB}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent5: ¬{K}{e} -> ({G}{c} & {J}{c}) sent6: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {A}x) sent7: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{AB}{a} sent8: ¬{K}{e} sent9: ¬({AB}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent10: (x): ¬({JA}x & {CR}x) sent11: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{a... | [
"sent13 -> int1: that the Nasturtium stunts Nasturtium but it is not a lincomycin is incorrect.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it stunts Nasturtium and it is not a lincomycin is not right.; int2 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent13 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x); int2 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 16 | the seamount is not Nordic. | ¬{A}{jh} | 7 | [
"sent14 -> int3: either something is bifilar or it is not a tested or both.; int3 & sent1 -> int4: the hull is not a Hyaenidae.; sent17 & int4 -> int5: the hull is not a spermatocyte and it is not disintegrative.; sent12 & int5 -> int6: the selvage is not many.; sent5 & sent8 -> int7: the businesswoman is not non-l... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the selvage is Nordic. ; $context$ = sent1: the hull is not a kind of a Hyaenidae if there is something such that it is bifilar and/or does not test. sent2: the Nasturtium is not Nordic. sent3: that the fact that the selvage is Nordic is not wrong is incorrect if there exists something such that it is a ... | sent13 -> int1: that the Nasturtium stunts Nasturtium but it is not a lincomycin is incorrect.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it stunts Nasturtium and it is not a lincomycin is not right.; int2 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there is nothing that does stunt Nasturtium and is not a lincomycin. | [
"if there exists something such that that it stunts Nasturtium and it is not a lincomycin is not correct the selvage is not Nordic."
] | [
"there is nothing that does stunt Nasturtium and is not a lincomycin."
] | there is nothing that does stunt Nasturtium and is not a lincomycin. | if there exists something such that that it stunts Nasturtium and it is not a lincomycin is not correct the selvage is not Nordic. |
the caveat happens and the stunting straitjacket happens. | sent1: the feminizing tetranychid happens. sent2: the consorting custom-made occurs. sent3: the spiccato and the caveat happens if the fact that the stunting straitjacket does not occur is correct. sent4: the considering holotype does not occur if the fact that both the considering holotype and the retorting occurs doe... | ({A} & {B}) | sent1: {EN} sent2: {EP} sent3: ¬{B} -> ({JD} & {A}) sent4: ¬({C} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent5: {B} sent6: {JG} sent7: {BF} sent8: {GC} sent9: {A} sent10: ¬{D} -> {C} sent11: {CO} sent12: {F} -> (¬{D} & {E}) sent13: ¬{D} -> ¬({C} & {E}) sent14: {HF} sent15: {HK} sent16: ({GE} & {GJ}) sent17: {C} -> ¬{B} sent18: ¬{I} -> ({G} & {... | [
"sent9 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent9 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 18 | 0 | 18 | the spiccato happens. | {JD} | 9 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the caveat happens and the stunting straitjacket happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the feminizing tetranychid happens. sent2: the consorting custom-made occurs. sent3: the spiccato and the caveat happens if the fact that the stunting straitjacket does not occur is correct. sent4: the considering holotype doe... | sent9 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the caveat occurs. | [
"the stunting straitjacket occurs."
] | [
"the caveat occurs."
] | the caveat occurs. | the stunting straitjacket occurs. |
that the flibbertigibbet does not feminize slander is not wrong. | sent1: the flibbertigibbet does feminize slander and it is a kind of a dare if it is not a VCR. sent2: the Warren dares. sent3: the czarina is a VCR and a septum. sent4: the pussycat dares. sent5: the pussycat is a kind of a VCR. sent6: that the flibbertigibbet is a VCR is not wrong. sent7: the flibbertigibbet is a dar... | ¬{C}{b} | sent1: ¬{B}{b} -> ({C}{b} & {A}{b}) sent2: {A}{t} sent3: ({B}{dg} & {HN}{dg}) sent4: {A}{a} sent5: {B}{a} sent6: {B}{b} sent7: {A}{b} sent8: ({A}{df} & {IM}{df}) sent9: {C}{a} sent10: {A}{hh} | [
"sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the pussycat is both a dare and a VCR.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent4 & sent5 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a});"
] | UNKNOWN | 2 | null | 8 | 0 | 8 | the flibbertigibbet does feminize slander. | {C}{b} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the flibbertigibbet does not feminize slander is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the flibbertigibbet does feminize slander and it is a kind of a dare if it is not a VCR. sent2: the Warren dares. sent3: the czarina is a VCR and a septum. sent4: the pussycat dares. sent5: the pussycat is a kind of a V... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the pussycat dares. | [
"the pussycat is a kind of a VCR."
] | [
"the pussycat dares."
] | the pussycat dares. | the pussycat is a kind of a VCR. |
the applique does not feminize applique. | sent1: there exists something such that it is a glorification. sent2: that the applique does stunt GNP if the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient is not wrong. sent3: the applique feminizes applique if it does stunt GNP. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a glorification the applique consorts T... | ¬{E}{a} | sent1: (Ex): {A}x sent2: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{a} sent3: {D}{a} -> {E}{a} sent4: (x): {A}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent5: (x): {DA}x -> {GG}x sent6: ¬{C}{a} | [
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the applique does consort Trema but it is not mutafacient.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the applique stunts GNP.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 & sent2 -> int2: {D}{a}; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | the applique is a ELISA if it does consort bur. | {DA}{a} -> {GG}{a} | 1 | [
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the applique does not feminize applique. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is a glorification. sent2: that the applique does stunt GNP if the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient is not wrong. sent3: the applique feminizes applique if it does stunt GNP. sent4: if there ex... | sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the applique does consort Trema but it is not mutafacient.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the applique stunts GNP.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it is a glorification. | [
"if there exists something such that it is a glorification the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient.",
"that the applique does stunt GNP if the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient is not wrong.",
"the applique feminizes applique if it does stunt GNP."
] | [
"There is something that is a glorification.",
"There is a glorification that exists.",
"There is a thing that is a glorification."
] | There is something that is a glorification. | if there exists something such that it is a glorification the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient. |
the applique does not feminize applique. | sent1: there exists something such that it is a glorification. sent2: that the applique does stunt GNP if the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient is not wrong. sent3: the applique feminizes applique if it does stunt GNP. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a glorification the applique consorts T... | ¬{E}{a} | sent1: (Ex): {A}x sent2: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{a} sent3: {D}{a} -> {E}{a} sent4: (x): {A}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent5: (x): {DA}x -> {GG}x sent6: ¬{C}{a} | [
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the applique does consort Trema but it is not mutafacient.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the applique stunts GNP.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 & sent2 -> int2: {D}{a}; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | the applique is a ELISA if it does consort bur. | {DA}{a} -> {GG}{a} | 1 | [
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the applique does not feminize applique. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is a glorification. sent2: that the applique does stunt GNP if the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient is not wrong. sent3: the applique feminizes applique if it does stunt GNP. sent4: if there ex... | sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the applique does consort Trema but it is not mutafacient.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the applique stunts GNP.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it is a glorification. | [
"if there exists something such that it is a glorification the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient.",
"that the applique does stunt GNP if the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient is not wrong.",
"the applique feminizes applique if it does stunt GNP."
] | [
"There is something that is a glorification.",
"There is a glorification that exists.",
"There is a thing that is a glorification."
] | There is a glorification that exists. | that the applique does stunt GNP if the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient is not wrong. |
the applique does not feminize applique. | sent1: there exists something such that it is a glorification. sent2: that the applique does stunt GNP if the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient is not wrong. sent3: the applique feminizes applique if it does stunt GNP. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a glorification the applique consorts T... | ¬{E}{a} | sent1: (Ex): {A}x sent2: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{a} sent3: {D}{a} -> {E}{a} sent4: (x): {A}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent5: (x): {DA}x -> {GG}x sent6: ¬{C}{a} | [
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the applique does consort Trema but it is not mutafacient.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the applique stunts GNP.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 & sent2 -> int2: {D}{a}; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | the applique is a ELISA if it does consort bur. | {DA}{a} -> {GG}{a} | 1 | [
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the applique does not feminize applique. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is a glorification. sent2: that the applique does stunt GNP if the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient is not wrong. sent3: the applique feminizes applique if it does stunt GNP. sent4: if there ex... | sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the applique does consort Trema but it is not mutafacient.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the applique stunts GNP.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it is a glorification. | [
"if there exists something such that it is a glorification the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient.",
"that the applique does stunt GNP if the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient is not wrong.",
"the applique feminizes applique if it does stunt GNP."
] | [
"There is something that is a glorification.",
"There is a glorification that exists.",
"There is a thing that is a glorification."
] | There is a thing that is a glorification. | the applique feminizes applique if it does stunt GNP. |
the chap does not feminize rubbing. | sent1: that the chap does not feminize rubbing is not incorrect if the asteroid is both a ninon and Kafkaesque. sent2: something is a sunscreen but it is not a Spartan. sent3: that the dideoxyinosine is a sunscreen and it is a Spartan is false. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a sunscreen ... | ¬{E}{b} | sent1: ({C}{a} & {D}{a}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent2: (Ex): ({F}x & ¬{G}x) sent3: ¬({F}{c} & {G}{c}) sent4: (x): ¬({F}x & ¬{G}x) -> {D}{a} sent5: ¬({F}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) sent6: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent7: {B}{a} sent8: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) | [
"sent6 -> int1: the asteroid is collapsible.; sent5 -> int2: there is something such that that it is a sunscreen and is not a Spartan does not hold.; int2 & sent4 -> int3: the asteroid is not non-Kafkaesque.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent6 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent5 -> int2: (Ex): ¬({F}x & ¬{G}x); int2 & sent4 -> int3: {D}{a};"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 | the chap does feminize rubbing. | {E}{b} | 5 | [
"sent8 -> int4: that the asteroid is not collapsible and not a proprietress is incorrect if it is not a ninon.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the chap does not feminize rubbing. ; $context$ = sent1: that the chap does not feminize rubbing is not incorrect if the asteroid is both a ninon and Kafkaesque. sent2: something is a sunscreen but it is not a Spartan. sent3: that the dideoxyinosine is a sunscreen and it is a Spartan is false. sent4: if ... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the asteroid is collapsible a proprietress. | [
"that the dideoxyinosine is a sunscreen that is not a kind of a Spartan is incorrect.",
"if there exists something such that the fact that it is a sunscreen that is not a Spartan is wrong the asteroid is Kafkaesque."
] | [
"The asteroid has a collapsible proprietress.",
"The asteroid has a proprietress."
] | The asteroid has a collapsible proprietress. | that the dideoxyinosine is a sunscreen that is not a kind of a Spartan is incorrect. |
the chap does not feminize rubbing. | sent1: that the chap does not feminize rubbing is not incorrect if the asteroid is both a ninon and Kafkaesque. sent2: something is a sunscreen but it is not a Spartan. sent3: that the dideoxyinosine is a sunscreen and it is a Spartan is false. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a sunscreen ... | ¬{E}{b} | sent1: ({C}{a} & {D}{a}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent2: (Ex): ({F}x & ¬{G}x) sent3: ¬({F}{c} & {G}{c}) sent4: (x): ¬({F}x & ¬{G}x) -> {D}{a} sent5: ¬({F}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) sent6: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent7: {B}{a} sent8: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) | [
"sent6 -> int1: the asteroid is collapsible.; sent5 -> int2: there is something such that that it is a sunscreen and is not a Spartan does not hold.; int2 & sent4 -> int3: the asteroid is not non-Kafkaesque.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent6 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent5 -> int2: (Ex): ¬({F}x & ¬{G}x); int2 & sent4 -> int3: {D}{a};"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 | the chap does feminize rubbing. | {E}{b} | 5 | [
"sent8 -> int4: that the asteroid is not collapsible and not a proprietress is incorrect if it is not a ninon.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the chap does not feminize rubbing. ; $context$ = sent1: that the chap does not feminize rubbing is not incorrect if the asteroid is both a ninon and Kafkaesque. sent2: something is a sunscreen but it is not a Spartan. sent3: that the dideoxyinosine is a sunscreen and it is a Spartan is false. sent4: if ... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the asteroid is collapsible a proprietress. | [
"that the dideoxyinosine is a sunscreen that is not a kind of a Spartan is incorrect.",
"if there exists something such that the fact that it is a sunscreen that is not a Spartan is wrong the asteroid is Kafkaesque."
] | [
"The asteroid has a collapsible proprietress.",
"The asteroid has a proprietress."
] | The asteroid has a proprietress. | if there exists something such that the fact that it is a sunscreen that is not a Spartan is wrong the asteroid is Kafkaesque. |
the kainite is a kind of a fascicle. | sent1: there is something such that the fact that it is a hole-in-the-wall and is not a monte is wrong. sent2: that the kainite is non-diurnal thing that is not a Caprella does not hold if the grader is not a kind of a fascicle. sent3: something is not a fascicle if that it either does not differ or is Dionysian or bot... | {A}{a} | sent1: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬(¬{CT}{a} & ¬{JF}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{C}x v {B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent4: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({D}x & {C}x) sent5: ¬(¬{A}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{A}x) sent7: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{AB}{a} sent8: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{AA}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: (x):... | [
"sent11 -> int1: that the lovage is not a kind of a hole-in-the-wall and it is not a monte does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a hole-in-the-wall and it is not a kind of a monte is not true.; int2 & sent16 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent11 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x); int2 & sent16 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 | that the kainite is a fascicle is not wrong. | {A}{a} | 7 | [
"sent14 -> int3: if the fact that the kainite is not a fascicle and not Dionysian is incorrect it is a fascicle.; sent17 -> int4: if the kainite does not differ the fact that it is both not a fascicle and not Dionysian is wrong.; sent4 -> int5: the fact that the grader is avian and it differs is wrong if that it is... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the kainite is a kind of a fascicle. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that the fact that it is a hole-in-the-wall and is not a monte is wrong. sent2: that the kainite is non-diurnal thing that is not a Caprella does not hold if the grader is not a kind of a fascicle. sent3: something is not a... | sent11 -> int1: that the lovage is not a kind of a hole-in-the-wall and it is not a monte does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a hole-in-the-wall and it is not a kind of a monte is not true.; int2 & sent16 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists nothing such that it is not a hole-in-the-wall and it is not a monte. | [
"the kainite is not a kind of a fascicle if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a hole-in-the-wall and is not a monte is not true."
] | [
"there exists nothing such that it is not a hole-in-the-wall and it is not a monte."
] | there exists nothing such that it is not a hole-in-the-wall and it is not a monte. | the kainite is not a kind of a fascicle if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a hole-in-the-wall and is not a monte is not true. |
the whisk does stunt jackfruit. | sent1: the screen is a billyo and it is a nailbrush if there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent2: that the homebrew is not the absolute if that the homebrew is auroral and it does consort screen does not hold is not wrong. sent3: the fact that the wretch does not feminize mill but it is triclinic ... | {B}{a} | sent1: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({F}{b} & {G}{b}) sent2: ¬({D}{aa} & {C}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent3: ¬(¬{DP}{fs} & {HJ}{fs}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): ({C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{B}x sent6: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {AG}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: ¬{C}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent9: ¬(¬{BU}{ca} & {AB}{ca}) sent10: ... | [
"sent15 -> int1: the fact that the homebrew is not a kind of a diet but it is no-go is wrong if the fact that it is not a kind of an absolute is not incorrect.; sent2 & sent19 -> int2: the homebrew is non-absolute.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the homebrew does not diet but it is no-go is false.; int3 & sent... | PROVED | [
"sent15 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent2 & sent19 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 | that the whisk does not stunt jackfruit hold. | ¬{B}{a} | 7 | [
"sent5 -> int4: if the whisk consorts screen but it is not an absolute it does not stunt jackfruit.; sent12 -> int5: if the screen is a billyo then it is both not auroral and a sulfamethoxazole.; sent10 & sent1 -> int6: the screen is a kind of a billyo and is a kind of a nailbrush.; int6 -> int7: that the screen is... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the whisk does stunt jackfruit. ; $context$ = sent1: the screen is a billyo and it is a nailbrush if there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent2: that the homebrew is not the absolute if that the homebrew is auroral and it does consort screen does not hold is not wrong. sent3: the fac... | sent15 -> int1: the fact that the homebrew is not a kind of a diet but it is no-go is wrong if the fact that it is not a kind of an absolute is not incorrect.; sent2 & sent19 -> int2: the homebrew is non-absolute.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the homebrew does not diet but it is no-go is false.; int3 & sent4 -> ... | DeductionInstance | if something is not absolute that it is not a diet and it is no-go does not hold. | [
"that the homebrew is not the absolute if that the homebrew is auroral and it does consort screen does not hold is not wrong.",
"the fact that the homebrew is auroral and does consort screen is not right.",
"the whisk does stunt jackfruit if that the homebrew does not diet but it is no-go does not hold."
] | [
"It isn't a diet if it isn't a no-go and it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if",
"It's not a diet if it isn't a diet and it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet and it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it... | It isn't a diet if it isn't a no-go and it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if | that the homebrew is not the absolute if that the homebrew is auroral and it does consort screen does not hold is not wrong. |
the whisk does stunt jackfruit. | sent1: the screen is a billyo and it is a nailbrush if there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent2: that the homebrew is not the absolute if that the homebrew is auroral and it does consort screen does not hold is not wrong. sent3: the fact that the wretch does not feminize mill but it is triclinic ... | {B}{a} | sent1: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({F}{b} & {G}{b}) sent2: ¬({D}{aa} & {C}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent3: ¬(¬{DP}{fs} & {HJ}{fs}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): ({C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{B}x sent6: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {AG}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: ¬{C}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent9: ¬(¬{BU}{ca} & {AB}{ca}) sent10: ... | [
"sent15 -> int1: the fact that the homebrew is not a kind of a diet but it is no-go is wrong if the fact that it is not a kind of an absolute is not incorrect.; sent2 & sent19 -> int2: the homebrew is non-absolute.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the homebrew does not diet but it is no-go is false.; int3 & sent... | PROVED | [
"sent15 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent2 & sent19 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 | that the whisk does not stunt jackfruit hold. | ¬{B}{a} | 7 | [
"sent5 -> int4: if the whisk consorts screen but it is not an absolute it does not stunt jackfruit.; sent12 -> int5: if the screen is a billyo then it is both not auroral and a sulfamethoxazole.; sent10 & sent1 -> int6: the screen is a kind of a billyo and is a kind of a nailbrush.; int6 -> int7: that the screen is... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the whisk does stunt jackfruit. ; $context$ = sent1: the screen is a billyo and it is a nailbrush if there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent2: that the homebrew is not the absolute if that the homebrew is auroral and it does consort screen does not hold is not wrong. sent3: the fac... | sent15 -> int1: the fact that the homebrew is not a kind of a diet but it is no-go is wrong if the fact that it is not a kind of an absolute is not incorrect.; sent2 & sent19 -> int2: the homebrew is non-absolute.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the homebrew does not diet but it is no-go is false.; int3 & sent4 -> ... | DeductionInstance | if something is not absolute that it is not a diet and it is no-go does not hold. | [
"that the homebrew is not the absolute if that the homebrew is auroral and it does consort screen does not hold is not wrong.",
"the fact that the homebrew is auroral and does consort screen is not right.",
"the whisk does stunt jackfruit if that the homebrew does not diet but it is no-go does not hold."
] | [
"It isn't a diet if it isn't a no-go and it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if",
"It's not a diet if it isn't a diet and it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet and it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it... | It's not a diet if it isn't a diet and it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet and it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn | the fact that the homebrew is auroral and does consort screen is not right. |
the whisk does stunt jackfruit. | sent1: the screen is a billyo and it is a nailbrush if there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent2: that the homebrew is not the absolute if that the homebrew is auroral and it does consort screen does not hold is not wrong. sent3: the fact that the wretch does not feminize mill but it is triclinic ... | {B}{a} | sent1: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({F}{b} & {G}{b}) sent2: ¬({D}{aa} & {C}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent3: ¬(¬{DP}{fs} & {HJ}{fs}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): ({C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{B}x sent6: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {AG}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: ¬{C}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent9: ¬(¬{BU}{ca} & {AB}{ca}) sent10: ... | [
"sent15 -> int1: the fact that the homebrew is not a kind of a diet but it is no-go is wrong if the fact that it is not a kind of an absolute is not incorrect.; sent2 & sent19 -> int2: the homebrew is non-absolute.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the homebrew does not diet but it is no-go is false.; int3 & sent... | PROVED | [
"sent15 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent2 & sent19 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 | that the whisk does not stunt jackfruit hold. | ¬{B}{a} | 7 | [
"sent5 -> int4: if the whisk consorts screen but it is not an absolute it does not stunt jackfruit.; sent12 -> int5: if the screen is a billyo then it is both not auroral and a sulfamethoxazole.; sent10 & sent1 -> int6: the screen is a kind of a billyo and is a kind of a nailbrush.; int6 -> int7: that the screen is... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the whisk does stunt jackfruit. ; $context$ = sent1: the screen is a billyo and it is a nailbrush if there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent2: that the homebrew is not the absolute if that the homebrew is auroral and it does consort screen does not hold is not wrong. sent3: the fac... | sent15 -> int1: the fact that the homebrew is not a kind of a diet but it is no-go is wrong if the fact that it is not a kind of an absolute is not incorrect.; sent2 & sent19 -> int2: the homebrew is non-absolute.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the homebrew does not diet but it is no-go is false.; int3 & sent4 -> ... | DeductionInstance | if something is not absolute that it is not a diet and it is no-go does not hold. | [
"that the homebrew is not the absolute if that the homebrew is auroral and it does consort screen does not hold is not wrong.",
"the fact that the homebrew is auroral and does consort screen is not right.",
"the whisk does stunt jackfruit if that the homebrew does not diet but it is no-go does not hold."
] | [
"It isn't a diet if it isn't a no-go and it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if",
"It's not a diet if it isn't a diet and it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet and it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it... | It's not a diet if it isn't a diet and it isn't a diet and it isn't a diet and it isn't a diet and it isn't a diet and it isn't a diet and it isn't a diet and it isn | the whisk does stunt jackfruit if that the homebrew does not diet but it is no-go does not hold. |
the armet stunts chloroplast. | sent1: if the clinic does consort wrestling then the armet stunts chloroplast. sent2: the chloroplast stunts armet if the businesswoman does consider tachymeter. sent3: everything is meager. sent4: if the tureen is not meager that the clinic does not consort NY and/or consorts wrestling is not false. sent5: the clinic ... | {C}{b} | sent1: {A}{a} -> {C}{b} sent2: {L}{g} -> {K}{f} sent3: (x): {D}x sent4: ¬{D}{c} -> (¬{B}{a} v {A}{a}) sent5: ({C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent6: {C}{a} sent7: ({L}{g} v {M}{g}) sent8: ¬{E}{d} -> ¬{D}{c} sent9: {B}{a} sent10: ({A}{ba} & {HF}{ba}) sent11: (x): (¬{G}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{E}x sent12: ({IA}{b} & {CK}{b}) sent13: (x): ¬(¬{K}... | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 2 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 | the armet does not stunt chloroplast. | ¬{C}{b} | 11 | [
"sent11 -> int1: the evacuee is not existential if it is not asterismal and it is not crucial.; sent20 -> int2: the necker is mortal if it is a narrow.; sent13 -> int3: if the fact that the necker does not stunt armet and is a Nelumbonaceae does not hold then it is narrow.; sent7 & sent2 & sent18 -> int4: the chlor... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the armet stunts chloroplast. ; $context$ = sent1: if the clinic does consort wrestling then the armet stunts chloroplast. sent2: the chloroplast stunts armet if the businesswoman does consider tachymeter. sent3: everything is meager. sent4: if the tureen is not meager that the clinic does not consort NY... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the clinic does consort NY and does stunt chloroplast. | [
"everything is meager."
] | [
"the clinic does consort NY and does stunt chloroplast."
] | the clinic does consort NY and does stunt chloroplast. | everything is meager. |
the nun is Gibraltarian. | sent1: the nun is not a heroic. sent2: that the LAN is not pyroligneous and it is not a heroic is false if it is not fishy. sent3: if the LAN is a kind of Gibraltarian thing that does not consider knife-handle then the nun is not a Gibraltarian. sent4: that that the milord is not fishy and does not consort sailboat is ... | {B}{b} | sent1: ¬{AB}{b} sent2: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent3: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent4: ¬(¬{A}{bs} & ¬{J}{bs}) sent5: ¬{A}{a} | [
"sent2 & sent5 -> int1: that the LAN is not pyroligneous and it is not a heroic is not right.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent2 & sent5 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a});"
] | UNKNOWN | 2 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 | the nun is not a kind of a Gibraltarian. | ¬{B}{b} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the nun is Gibraltarian. ; $context$ = sent1: the nun is not a heroic. sent2: that the LAN is not pyroligneous and it is not a heroic is false if it is not fishy. sent3: if the LAN is a kind of Gibraltarian thing that does not consider knife-handle then the nun is not a Gibraltarian. sent4: that that the... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | that the LAN is not pyroligneous and it is not a heroic is false if it is not fishy. | [
"the LAN is not fishy."
] | [
"that the LAN is not pyroligneous and it is not a heroic is false if it is not fishy."
] | that the LAN is not pyroligneous and it is not a heroic is false if it is not fishy. | the LAN is not fishy. |
the fact that the stonecrop stunts gauss is not wrong. | sent1: if that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy and it does not stunt goosander is not right it does not stunt gauss. sent2: the gyrfalcon does not stunt goosander if the stonecrop does not stunt goosander and stunts gauss. sent3: The Eddy stunts stonecrop. sent4: if the stonecrop stunts goosander then it does not stu... | {C}{a} | sent1: ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent2: (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{B}{df} sent3: {AB}{ab} sent4: {B}{a} -> ¬{C}{a} sent5: ¬{A}{jg} sent6: (Ex): (¬{M}x v ¬{L}x) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{IC}{df} sent8: {I}{a} sent9: {I}{a} -> (¬{B}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) sent10: {A}{a} sent11: (x): ¬{K}x -> ¬(¬{J}x & {I}x) sent12: (x): (¬{M}x v ... | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy and does not stunt goosander.; assump1 -> int1: that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy is correct.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy and it does not stunt goo... | DISPROVED | [
"void -> assump1: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}); assump1 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; int1 & sent10 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}); int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 | the stonecrop does stunt gauss. | {C}{a} | 10 | [
"sent22 -> int4: if the tomtit is a kind of a surveyor it does not stunt arsenide and is not a soar.; sent21 -> int5: if the squirter is not anorectal it is enzymatic thing that does not stunt bootleg.; sent11 -> int6: the fact that the quadraphony is both not a Ajuga and anorectal is not true if it is not a reduct... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the stonecrop stunts gauss is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy and it does not stunt goosander is not right it does not stunt gauss. sent2: the gyrfalcon does not stunt goosander if the stonecrop does not stunt goosander and stunts gauss. sent3: The ... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy and does not stunt goosander.; assump1 -> int1: that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy is correct.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy and it does not stunt goosande... | DeductionInstance | the stonecrop stunts Eddy. | [
"if that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy and it does not stunt goosander is not right it does not stunt gauss."
] | [
"the stonecrop stunts Eddy."
] | the stonecrop stunts Eddy. | if that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy and it does not stunt goosander is not right it does not stunt gauss. |
the chela does not stunt comfrey. | sent1: if the legs does not stunt comfrey then the chela does feminize legs. sent2: the chela is ontogenetic and feminizes legs. sent3: the fact that the legs does stunt comfrey is not false if the chela does not feminize legs. sent4: the ovenbird stunts comfrey. sent5: the legs is a Xerox if the fact that the chela do... | ¬{AB}{b} | sent1: ¬{AB}{a} -> {A}{b} sent2: ({AR}{b} & {A}{b}) sent3: ¬{A}{b} -> {AB}{a} sent4: {AB}{cu} sent5: ¬{A}{b} -> {AA}{a} sent6: ({CH}{hc} & {AA}{hc}) sent7: {AA}{a} sent8: {AB}{a} sent9: ¬{A}{a} sent10: {DN}{a} sent11: ¬{AA}{b} -> ({AB}{a} & {A}{a}) sent12: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent13: ¬{GD}{a} sent14: ({AL}{b... | [
"sent12 & sent9 -> int1: the chela is a Xerox and stunts comfrey.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent12 & sent9 -> int1: ({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 14 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the chela does not stunt comfrey. ; $context$ = sent1: if the legs does not stunt comfrey then the chela does feminize legs. sent2: the chela is ontogenetic and feminizes legs. sent3: the fact that the legs does stunt comfrey is not false if the chela does not feminize legs. sent4: the ovenbird stunts co... | sent12 & sent9 -> int1: the chela is a Xerox and stunts comfrey.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the chela is a Xerox and stunts comfrey if the legs does not feminize legs. | [
"the legs does not feminize legs."
] | [
"the chela is a Xerox and stunts comfrey if the legs does not feminize legs."
] | the chela is a Xerox and stunts comfrey if the legs does not feminize legs. | the legs does not feminize legs. |
the teller does not consider girasol. | sent1: if something considers NASA then it is not mechanical. sent2: there is nothing that is not a Hecht and is recreational. sent3: the Wiffle is not a kind of a carry if the fact that it is non-polychromatic and it is a anaphase is wrong. sent4: if the fact that something is not a kind of a Hecht but it is recreatio... | ¬{B}{aa} | sent1: (x): {BG}x -> ¬{DN}x sent2: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {E}x) sent3: ¬(¬{CL}{iq} & {ET}{iq}) -> ¬{AA}{iq} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {E}x) -> ¬{E}x sent5: ¬({GB}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent7: ¬{BP}{aa} sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{HQ}{aa} & {AF}{aa}) sent9: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {GG}{aa}) sent10: ¬({BS}{aa} & {HD}{aa}) s... | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 2 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 | the teller does consider girasol. | {B}{aa} | 8 | [
"sent4 -> int1: if the fact that the Helix is not a Hecht but it is recreational is wrong it is not recreational.; sent2 -> int2: that the Helix is not a Hecht but it is recreational is not correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the Helix is not recreational is not false.; int3 -> int4: everything is not recr... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the teller does not consider girasol. ; $context$ = sent1: if something considers NASA then it is not mechanical. sent2: there is nothing that is not a Hecht and is recreational. sent3: the Wiffle is not a kind of a carry if the fact that it is non-polychromatic and it is a anaphase is wrong. sent4: if t... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the teller does not feminize tripod. | [
"if something considers NASA then it is not mechanical."
] | [
"the teller does not feminize tripod."
] | the teller does not feminize tripod. | if something considers NASA then it is not mechanical. |
the determining does not occur. | sent1: that the victualling and the yawing happens is brought about by the non-evergreenness. sent2: the stunting tyramine happens. sent3: that the feint happens and the dovetail occurs is brought about by that the feminizing porkchop does not occur. sent4: the fact that the evolutionariness does not occur and the stun... | ¬{B} | sent1: ¬{G} -> ({F} & {E}) sent2: {A} sent3: ¬{L} -> ({K} & {J}) sent4: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{A}) sent5: {A} -> {B} sent6: (¬{G} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{E} sent7: ¬{E} -> ¬{D} sent8: {J} -> (¬{I} & ¬{H}) sent9: ({N} & {M}) -> ¬{L} sent10: {GF} sent11: ¬{H} -> (¬{G} & ¬{F}) sent12: {T} -> {HJ} sent13: ¬(¬{C} & {D}) -> ¬{B} sent14: ¬{... | [
"sent5 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent5 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 1 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 13 | the determining does not occur. | ¬{B} | 13 | [
"sent14 & sent15 -> int1: the suspension happens and the reopening occurs.; int1 -> int2: the suspension occurs.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the determining does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the victualling and the yawing happens is brought about by the non-evergreenness. sent2: the stunting tyramine happens. sent3: that the feint happens and the dovetail occurs is brought about by that the feminizing porkchop does not occur. sent4: t... | sent5 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the stunting tyramine causes that the determining occurs. | [
"the stunting tyramine happens."
] | [
"the stunting tyramine causes that the determining occurs."
] | the stunting tyramine causes that the determining occurs. | the stunting tyramine happens. |
the stem is not non-freelance. | sent1: if there is something such that it does not reheat the stem does consider wheeled. sent2: the stem does consider wheeled. sent3: everything is not probabilistic. sent4: there exists something such that it reheats. sent5: if there exists something such that it does not reheat then the stem considers wheeled and i... | {C}{a} | sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> {B}{a} sent2: {B}{a} sent3: (x): ¬{D}x sent4: (Ex): {A}x sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent6: {C}{cd} | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 2 | null | 5 | 0 | 5 | the stem is not freelance. | ¬{C}{a} | 6 | [
"sent3 -> int1: the watermelon is not probabilistic.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the stem is not non-freelance. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that it does not reheat the stem does consider wheeled. sent2: the stem does consider wheeled. sent3: everything is not probabilistic. sent4: there exists something such that it reheats. sent5: if there exists something such t... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | if there is something such that it does not reheat the stem does consider wheeled. | [
"everything is not probabilistic."
] | [
"if there is something such that it does not reheat the stem does consider wheeled."
] | if there is something such that it does not reheat the stem does consider wheeled. | everything is not probabilistic. |
the pentastomid is not a toe-in. | sent1: the pentastomid is not a toe-in if the Teton frames. sent2: the fact that the Teton is a toe-in and it is a Desmodontidae is not true if it is not a kind of a frame. sent3: the Teton is a girasol if there is something such that that it is not a girasol and it does not kick is false. sent4: if that the fact that ... | ¬{B}{b} | sent1: {AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬({B}{a} & {A}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) -> {C}{a} sent4: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent5: ¬{A}{a} sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) | [
"sent6 & sent5 -> int1: the fact that the Teton considers zinfandel and does not frame does not hold.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent6 & sent5 -> int1: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3 | the pentastomid is a toe-in. | {B}{b} | 11 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the pentastomid is not a toe-in. ; $context$ = sent1: the pentastomid is not a toe-in if the Teton frames. sent2: the fact that the Teton is a toe-in and it is a Desmodontidae is not true if it is not a kind of a frame. sent3: the Teton is a girasol if there is something such that that it is not a giraso... | sent6 & sent5 -> int1: the fact that the Teton considers zinfandel and does not frame does not hold.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the Teton is not a Desmodontidae that it considers zinfandel and it is not a kind of a frame is not correct. | [
"the Teton is not a Desmodontidae.",
"if that the fact that that the Teton considers zinfandel and is not a frame hold is not true is correct then the pentastomid is not a kind of a toe-in."
] | [
"If the Teton is not a Desmodontidae, and it is not a kind of frame, then it is not correct.",
"If the Teton is not a Desmodontidae and it is not a kind of frame, then it is not correct."
] | If the Teton is not a Desmodontidae, and it is not a kind of frame, then it is not correct. | the Teton is not a Desmodontidae. |
the pentastomid is not a toe-in. | sent1: the pentastomid is not a toe-in if the Teton frames. sent2: the fact that the Teton is a toe-in and it is a Desmodontidae is not true if it is not a kind of a frame. sent3: the Teton is a girasol if there is something such that that it is not a girasol and it does not kick is false. sent4: if that the fact that ... | ¬{B}{b} | sent1: {AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬({B}{a} & {A}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) -> {C}{a} sent4: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent5: ¬{A}{a} sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) | [
"sent6 & sent5 -> int1: the fact that the Teton considers zinfandel and does not frame does not hold.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent6 & sent5 -> int1: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3 | the pentastomid is a toe-in. | {B}{b} | 11 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the pentastomid is not a toe-in. ; $context$ = sent1: the pentastomid is not a toe-in if the Teton frames. sent2: the fact that the Teton is a toe-in and it is a Desmodontidae is not true if it is not a kind of a frame. sent3: the Teton is a girasol if there is something such that that it is not a giraso... | sent6 & sent5 -> int1: the fact that the Teton considers zinfandel and does not frame does not hold.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the Teton is not a Desmodontidae that it considers zinfandel and it is not a kind of a frame is not correct. | [
"the Teton is not a Desmodontidae.",
"if that the fact that that the Teton considers zinfandel and is not a frame hold is not true is correct then the pentastomid is not a kind of a toe-in."
] | [
"If the Teton is not a Desmodontidae, and it is not a kind of frame, then it is not correct.",
"If the Teton is not a Desmodontidae and it is not a kind of frame, then it is not correct."
] | If the Teton is not a Desmodontidae and it is not a kind of frame, then it is not correct. | if that the fact that that the Teton considers zinfandel and is not a frame hold is not true is correct then the pentastomid is not a kind of a toe-in. |
the gate is a Chabad. | sent1: the gate is a Chabad if the fact that the gammon is polyvalent or is not a Mayan or both is not correct. sent2: if that the gammon is polyvalent and/or not a Chabad is not right the gate is a Mayan. sent3: there is nothing such that it does stunt Caucasian or is not a misfit or both. sent4: there is nothing that... | {A}{a} | sent1: ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {A}{a} sent2: ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{A}{aa}) -> {AB}{a} sent3: (x): ¬({AR}x v ¬{HU}x) sent4: (x): ¬({E}x v ¬{BB}x) sent5: (x): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent6: ¬({A}{b} v ¬{II}{b}) sent7: ¬({HM}{ad} v ¬{FB}{ad}) sent8: {AB}{aa} sent9: ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {A}{a} sent10: ¬({A}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sen... | [
"sent5 -> int1: the fact that the gammon is polyvalent and/or it is not a Mayan does not hold.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent5 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}); sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 10 | the gate is not a Chabad. | ¬{A}{a} | 5 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the gate is a Chabad. ; $context$ = sent1: the gate is a Chabad if the fact that the gammon is polyvalent or is not a Mayan or both is not correct. sent2: if that the gammon is polyvalent and/or not a Chabad is not right the gate is a Mayan. sent3: there is nothing such that it does stunt Caucasian or is... | sent5 -> int1: the fact that the gammon is polyvalent and/or it is not a Mayan does not hold.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there is nothing such that it is polyvalent and/or it is not a kind of a Mayan. | [
"the gate is a Chabad if the fact that the gammon is polyvalent or is not a Mayan or both is not correct."
] | [
"there is nothing such that it is polyvalent and/or it is not a kind of a Mayan."
] | there is nothing such that it is polyvalent and/or it is not a kind of a Mayan. | the gate is a Chabad if the fact that the gammon is polyvalent or is not a Mayan or both is not correct. |
that the sunglasses is not a blowout is true. | sent1: the sunglasses is noncaloric and partitive. sent2: the pudge is uveal. sent3: if something consorts screen and is uveal the aerie is a Meir. sent4: if the aerie does consort screen the sunglasses is a blowout. sent5: the aerie is not a theology if there exists something such that it is not a stroma and/or it is ... | ¬{E}{b} | sent1: ({JD}{b} & {CE}{b}) sent2: {B}{aa} sent3: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} sent4: {A}{a} -> {E}{b} sent5: (x): (¬{F}x v {E}x) -> ¬{D}{a} sent6: ¬{B}{a} -> ({E}{b} & {A}{b}) sent7: {D}{a} -> ¬{E}{b} sent8: ({B}{aa} v {D}{aa}) sent9: ({B}{b} v {E}{b}) sent10: ({A}{aa} & {B}{aa}) sent11: (Ex): {A}x sent12: (x): (¬{C}x ... | [
"sent10 -> int1: the fact that something consorts screen and it is uveal is not wrong.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the aerie is a Meir.; int2 -> int3: the aerie is a theology or it is a Meir or both.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent10 -> int1: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x); int1 & sent3 -> int2: {C}{a}; int2 -> int3: ({D}{a} v {C}{a});"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 16 | 0 | 16 | the tither does not consort screen. | ¬{A}{eh} | 7 | [
"sent16 -> int4: the sunglasses is not a stroma.; int4 -> int5: either the sunglasses is not a stroma or it is a blowout or both.; int5 -> int6: there exists something such that it is not a stroma and/or it is a blowout.; int6 & sent5 -> int7: the aerie is not a kind of a theology.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the sunglasses is not a blowout is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the sunglasses is noncaloric and partitive. sent2: the pudge is uveal. sent3: if something consorts screen and is uveal the aerie is a Meir. sent4: if the aerie does consort screen the sunglasses is a blowout. sent5: the aerie is not a th... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the pudge does consort screen and it is uveal. | [
"if something consorts screen and is uveal the aerie is a Meir."
] | [
"the pudge does consort screen and it is uveal."
] | the pudge does consort screen and it is uveal. | if something consorts screen and is uveal the aerie is a Meir. |
the vambrace is not a neurosurgery or not a bunchberry or both. | sent1: the ewe is mitotic. sent2: the vambrace is a neurosurgery and/or it is not a bunchberry. sent3: the vambrace is a neurosurgery. sent4: if the man-eater is mitotic the vambrace is mitotic. sent5: if the fact that the fact that something is not mitotic or does load gyroscope or both is not wrong is not correct the... | (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) | sent1: {B}{c} sent2: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent3: {AA}{a} sent4: {B}{b} -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): ¬(¬{B}x v {A}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent6: ¬(¬{FA}{a} v ¬{HG}{a}) sent7: (¬{C}{c} & {D}{c}) sent8: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent9: {B}{c} -> {B}{b} sent10: {B}{a} -> {B}{c} sent11: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the vambrace is not a neurosurgery and/or it is not a bunchberry.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the man-eater is not mitotic.; sent9 & sent1 -> int2: the man-eater is mitotic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"void -> assump1: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}); sent8 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent9 & sent1 -> int2: {B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 | the vambrace is not a neurosurgery or it is not a kind of a bunchberry or both. | (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) | 6 | [
"sent5 -> int4: if the fact that the man-eater is not mitotic and/or does load gyroscope is false then it is not a bunchberry.; sent7 -> int5: the ewe is not synchronous.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it is not synchronous.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the vambrace is not a neurosurgery or not a bunchberry or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the ewe is mitotic. sent2: the vambrace is a neurosurgery and/or it is not a bunchberry. sent3: the vambrace is a neurosurgery. sent4: if the man-eater is mitotic the vambrace is mitotic. sent5: if the fact that the fact... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the vambrace is not a neurosurgery and/or it is not a bunchberry.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the man-eater is not mitotic.; sent9 & sent1 -> int2: the man-eater is mitotic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the man-eater is not mitotic if the vambrace is either not a neurosurgery or not a bunchberry or both. | [
"if the ewe is mitotic then the man-eater is mitotic.",
"the ewe is mitotic."
] | [
"If the vambrace is either a neurosurgery or a bunchberry, the man-eater is not mitotic.",
"If the vambrace is not a neurosurgery or a bunchberry, the man-eater is not mitotic."
] | If the vambrace is either a neurosurgery or a bunchberry, the man-eater is not mitotic. | if the ewe is mitotic then the man-eater is mitotic. |
the vambrace is not a neurosurgery or not a bunchberry or both. | sent1: the ewe is mitotic. sent2: the vambrace is a neurosurgery and/or it is not a bunchberry. sent3: the vambrace is a neurosurgery. sent4: if the man-eater is mitotic the vambrace is mitotic. sent5: if the fact that the fact that something is not mitotic or does load gyroscope or both is not wrong is not correct the... | (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) | sent1: {B}{c} sent2: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent3: {AA}{a} sent4: {B}{b} -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): ¬(¬{B}x v {A}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent6: ¬(¬{FA}{a} v ¬{HG}{a}) sent7: (¬{C}{c} & {D}{c}) sent8: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent9: {B}{c} -> {B}{b} sent10: {B}{a} -> {B}{c} sent11: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the vambrace is not a neurosurgery and/or it is not a bunchberry.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the man-eater is not mitotic.; sent9 & sent1 -> int2: the man-eater is mitotic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"void -> assump1: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}); sent8 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent9 & sent1 -> int2: {B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 | the vambrace is not a neurosurgery or it is not a kind of a bunchberry or both. | (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) | 6 | [
"sent5 -> int4: if the fact that the man-eater is not mitotic and/or does load gyroscope is false then it is not a bunchberry.; sent7 -> int5: the ewe is not synchronous.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it is not synchronous.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the vambrace is not a neurosurgery or not a bunchberry or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the ewe is mitotic. sent2: the vambrace is a neurosurgery and/or it is not a bunchberry. sent3: the vambrace is a neurosurgery. sent4: if the man-eater is mitotic the vambrace is mitotic. sent5: if the fact that the fact... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the vambrace is not a neurosurgery and/or it is not a bunchberry.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the man-eater is not mitotic.; sent9 & sent1 -> int2: the man-eater is mitotic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the man-eater is not mitotic if the vambrace is either not a neurosurgery or not a bunchberry or both. | [
"if the ewe is mitotic then the man-eater is mitotic.",
"the ewe is mitotic."
] | [
"If the vambrace is either a neurosurgery or a bunchberry, the man-eater is not mitotic.",
"If the vambrace is not a neurosurgery or a bunchberry, the man-eater is not mitotic."
] | If the vambrace is not a neurosurgery or a bunchberry, the man-eater is not mitotic. | the ewe is mitotic. |
the nonreciprocalness does not occur. | sent1: if the fact that the joyfulness does not occur is not incorrect that the nonreciprocalness does not occur and the constricting does not occur does not hold. sent2: if the stabling does not occur the fact that the battue but not the incidence happens does not hold. sent3: the fact that the fact that the destructi... | ¬{C} | sent1: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{A}) sent2: ¬{J} -> ¬({H} & ¬{I}) sent3: ¬{H} -> ¬({F} & ¬{G}) sent4: ¬{T} -> ({R} & {S}) sent5: ({A} v {B}) -> ¬{C} sent6: ({IO} v {CB}) sent7: {GB} sent8: ¬{F} -> ({E} & ¬{D}) sent9: ¬{P} -> ¬({O} & {N}) sent10: ¬({H} & ¬{I}) -> ¬{H} sent11: {R} -> (¬{P} & ¬{Q}) sent12: {A} -> ¬{C} sent13: ¬{... | [
"sent14 -> int1: the fact that the constricting happens and/or the joyfulness happens hold.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent14 -> int1: ({A} v {B}); sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 17 | the nonreciprocalness happens. | {C} | 19 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the nonreciprocalness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the joyfulness does not occur is not incorrect that the nonreciprocalness does not occur and the constricting does not occur does not hold. sent2: if the stabling does not occur the fact that the battue but not the incidence happ... | sent14 -> int1: the fact that the constricting happens and/or the joyfulness happens hold.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the joyfulness happens. | [
"the non-nonreciprocalness is brought about by the constricting and/or that the joyfulness happens."
] | [
"the joyfulness happens."
] | the joyfulness happens. | the non-nonreciprocalness is brought about by the constricting and/or that the joyfulness happens. |
the fact that that something is a Alhazen and it is gymnospermous is not wrong is not true. | sent1: the hydrocarbon is gymnospermous. sent2: if there is something such that it is not axillary the chloropicrin does not access chloropicrin. sent3: if the liman is not a shoreline the diploid is both not a antifeminist and mucinous. sent4: the chloropicrin is a Alhazen. sent5: something is gymnospermous if it is n... | ¬((Ex): ({A}x & {B}x)) | sent1: {B}{em} sent2: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬{F}{a} sent3: ¬{M}{e} -> (¬{J}{d} & {L}{d}) sent4: {A}{a} sent5: (x): (¬{A}x & {C}x) -> {B}x sent6: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({E}x & {D}x) sent7: ¬{J}{c} -> ({I}{c} & {H}{c}) sent8: (Ex): {A}x sent9: (Ex): ({DL}x & {DB}x) sent10: ({CR}{fn} & {B}{fn}) sent11: (Ex): {GI}x sent12: (Ex): ({CP}x &... | [
"sent4 & sent15 -> int1: the chloropicrin is a kind of a Alhazen and is gymnospermous.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent4 & sent15 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 | the couple is gymnospermous. | {B}{b} | 4 | [
"sent18 -> int2: if that the couple is not a kind of a Alhazen and is not satiate is not true it is a kind of a Alhazen.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that that something is a Alhazen and it is gymnospermous is not wrong is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the hydrocarbon is gymnospermous. sent2: if there is something such that it is not axillary the chloropicrin does not access chloropicrin. sent3: if the liman is not a shoreline the diploid is... | sent4 & sent15 -> int1: the chloropicrin is a kind of a Alhazen and is gymnospermous.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the chloropicrin is a Alhazen. | [
"the chloropicrin is gymnospermous."
] | [
"the chloropicrin is a Alhazen."
] | the chloropicrin is a Alhazen. | the chloropicrin is gymnospermous. |
the poppet is a dastard but it is not a Tibetan. | sent1: the poppet does circumnavigate JV. sent2: that the poppet is a dastard and is a Tibetan does not hold if it does circumnavigate JV. sent3: that that the stitch is a kind of a workroom and does not circumnavigate JV is incorrect is not incorrect. sent4: if the fact that the poppet is a plumbism is true the fact t... | ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | sent1: {A}{aa} sent2: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: ¬({EP}{bc} & ¬{A}{bc}) sent4: {JB}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{IG}{aa}) sent5: {A}{aa} -> ¬({HU}{aa} & ¬{GR}{aa}) sent6: {A}{ds} sent7: {BO}{aa} sent8: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: {CQ}{aa} -> ¬({CP}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent10: (x): {IN}x -> ¬({K}x & ¬{IQ}x) sent11... | [
"sent16 -> int1: the fact that the poppet is a dastard and is not a kind of a Tibetan is not correct if it circumnavigates JV.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent16 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 14 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the poppet is a dastard but it is not a Tibetan. ; $context$ = sent1: the poppet does circumnavigate JV. sent2: that the poppet is a dastard and is a Tibetan does not hold if it does circumnavigate JV. sent3: that that the stitch is a kind of a workroom and does not circumnavigate JV is incorrect is not ... | sent16 -> int1: the fact that the poppet is a dastard and is not a kind of a Tibetan is not correct if it circumnavigates JV.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that something is a dastard but it is not a kind of a Tibetan is not right if it circumnavigates JV. | [
"the poppet does circumnavigate JV."
] | [
"that something is a dastard but it is not a kind of a Tibetan is not right if it circumnavigates JV."
] | that something is a dastard but it is not a kind of a Tibetan is not right if it circumnavigates JV. | the poppet does circumnavigate JV. |
the servileness does not occur. | sent1: the niceness occurs. sent2: the variegating occurs if the isolating minster does not occur and the outbreak does not occur. sent3: the proverbialness does not occur and the rocket does not occur. sent4: the proverbialness does not occur. sent5: the servileness does not occur if that the .38-caliberness occurs an... | ¬{A} | sent1: {GG} sent2: (¬{M} & ¬{IP}) -> {JC} sent3: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent4: ¬{AA} sent5: ¬({C} v ¬{B}) -> ¬{A} sent6: ¬({D} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{D} sent7: ¬{D} -> ¬({C} v ¬{B}) sent8: {E} -> ¬({D} & ¬{F}) sent9: {B} -> {A} sent10: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent11: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} | [
"sent10 & sent3 -> int1: the demoralization happens.; int1 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent10 & sent3 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 8 | the servileness does not occur. | ¬{A} | 9 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the servileness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the niceness occurs. sent2: the variegating occurs if the isolating minster does not occur and the outbreak does not occur. sent3: the proverbialness does not occur and the rocket does not occur. sent4: the proverbialness does not occur. sent5: the ser... | sent10 & sent3 -> int1: the demoralization happens.; int1 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the proverbialness does not occur and the rocketing does not occur then the demoralization occurs. | [
"the proverbialness does not occur and the rocket does not occur.",
"if the demoralization occurs then that the servileness occurs is correct."
] | [
"The demoralization occurs if the rocketing does not happen.",
"The demoralization occurs if the rocketing does not occur."
] | The demoralization occurs if the rocketing does not happen. | the proverbialness does not occur and the rocket does not occur. |
the servileness does not occur. | sent1: the niceness occurs. sent2: the variegating occurs if the isolating minster does not occur and the outbreak does not occur. sent3: the proverbialness does not occur and the rocket does not occur. sent4: the proverbialness does not occur. sent5: the servileness does not occur if that the .38-caliberness occurs an... | ¬{A} | sent1: {GG} sent2: (¬{M} & ¬{IP}) -> {JC} sent3: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent4: ¬{AA} sent5: ¬({C} v ¬{B}) -> ¬{A} sent6: ¬({D} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{D} sent7: ¬{D} -> ¬({C} v ¬{B}) sent8: {E} -> ¬({D} & ¬{F}) sent9: {B} -> {A} sent10: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent11: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} | [
"sent10 & sent3 -> int1: the demoralization happens.; int1 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent10 & sent3 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 8 | the servileness does not occur. | ¬{A} | 9 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the servileness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the niceness occurs. sent2: the variegating occurs if the isolating minster does not occur and the outbreak does not occur. sent3: the proverbialness does not occur and the rocket does not occur. sent4: the proverbialness does not occur. sent5: the ser... | sent10 & sent3 -> int1: the demoralization happens.; int1 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the proverbialness does not occur and the rocketing does not occur then the demoralization occurs. | [
"the proverbialness does not occur and the rocket does not occur.",
"if the demoralization occurs then that the servileness occurs is correct."
] | [
"The demoralization occurs if the rocketing does not happen.",
"The demoralization occurs if the rocketing does not occur."
] | The demoralization occurs if the rocketing does not occur. | if the demoralization occurs then that the servileness occurs is correct. |
that the marsupialness occurs and the isolating antediluvian does not occur is correct. | sent1: the integration occurs if the propagation happens. sent2: that the featherbedding does not occur is prevented by the immatureness. sent3: that the integration and the augmentation occurs brings about that the loading waltzer does not occur. sent4: if the worldliness happens then the fact that the axialness but n... | ({AA} & ¬{AB}) | sent1: {F} -> {D} sent2: {J} -> {G} sent3: ({D} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent4: {A} -> ¬({FB} & ¬{I}) sent5: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent6: ¬({A} v ¬{C}) sent7: {L} -> {K} sent8: {A} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent9: ({O} & {L}) sent10: (¬{D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{C} sent11: ¬({A} v ¬{C}) -> ¬{B} sent12: ¬(¬{F} & {G}) -> ¬{E} sent13: {J} sent14: ¬{... | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the marsupial but not the isolating antediluvian occurs.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the brimlessness occurs.; sent11 & sent6 -> int2: the brimlessness does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"void -> assump1: ({AA} & ¬{AB}); sent5 & assump1 -> int1: {B}; sent11 & sent6 -> int2: ¬{B}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 12 | the marsupial but not the isolating antediluvian occurs. | ({AA} & ¬{AB}) | 8 | [
"sent2 & sent13 -> int4: the featherbedding occurs.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the marsupialness occurs and the isolating antediluvian does not occur is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the integration occurs if the propagation happens. sent2: that the featherbedding does not occur is prevented by the immatureness. sent3: that the integration and the augmentation occurs brings ab... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the marsupial but not the isolating antediluvian occurs.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the brimlessness occurs.; sent11 & sent6 -> int2: the brimlessness does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the brimlessness is caused by that the marsupialness but not the isolating antediluvian occurs. | [
"if the fact that either the worldliness occurs or the loading waltzer does not occur or both is not correct the brimlessness does not occur.",
"the fact that the worldliness happens or the loading waltzer does not occur or both does not hold."
] | [
"The isolating antediluvian does not cause the brimlessness.",
"The isolating antediluvian is not the cause of the brimlessness."
] | The isolating antediluvian does not cause the brimlessness. | if the fact that either the worldliness occurs or the loading waltzer does not occur or both is not correct the brimlessness does not occur. |
that the marsupialness occurs and the isolating antediluvian does not occur is correct. | sent1: the integration occurs if the propagation happens. sent2: that the featherbedding does not occur is prevented by the immatureness. sent3: that the integration and the augmentation occurs brings about that the loading waltzer does not occur. sent4: if the worldliness happens then the fact that the axialness but n... | ({AA} & ¬{AB}) | sent1: {F} -> {D} sent2: {J} -> {G} sent3: ({D} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent4: {A} -> ¬({FB} & ¬{I}) sent5: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent6: ¬({A} v ¬{C}) sent7: {L} -> {K} sent8: {A} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent9: ({O} & {L}) sent10: (¬{D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{C} sent11: ¬({A} v ¬{C}) -> ¬{B} sent12: ¬(¬{F} & {G}) -> ¬{E} sent13: {J} sent14: ¬{... | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the marsupial but not the isolating antediluvian occurs.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the brimlessness occurs.; sent11 & sent6 -> int2: the brimlessness does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"void -> assump1: ({AA} & ¬{AB}); sent5 & assump1 -> int1: {B}; sent11 & sent6 -> int2: ¬{B}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 12 | the marsupial but not the isolating antediluvian occurs. | ({AA} & ¬{AB}) | 8 | [
"sent2 & sent13 -> int4: the featherbedding occurs.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the marsupialness occurs and the isolating antediluvian does not occur is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the integration occurs if the propagation happens. sent2: that the featherbedding does not occur is prevented by the immatureness. sent3: that the integration and the augmentation occurs brings ab... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the marsupial but not the isolating antediluvian occurs.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the brimlessness occurs.; sent11 & sent6 -> int2: the brimlessness does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the brimlessness is caused by that the marsupialness but not the isolating antediluvian occurs. | [
"if the fact that either the worldliness occurs or the loading waltzer does not occur or both is not correct the brimlessness does not occur.",
"the fact that the worldliness happens or the loading waltzer does not occur or both does not hold."
] | [
"The isolating antediluvian does not cause the brimlessness.",
"The isolating antediluvian is not the cause of the brimlessness."
] | The isolating antediluvian is not the cause of the brimlessness. | the fact that the worldliness happens or the loading waltzer does not occur or both does not hold. |
the bosom is not a kind of a repair. | sent1: something repairs if it is not obtuse. sent2: if the fact that the bosom is a kind of a repair and it is phonic is true the turning is not a complaisance. sent3: the turning is not a kind of a repair if the bosom is a complaisance but it is not phonic. sent4: the sylph is not phonic. sent5: the bosom is not phon... | ¬{D}{c} | sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> {D}x sent2: ({D}{c} & {C}{c}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: ({B}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent4: ¬{C}{a} sent5: ¬{C}{c} sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> {B}{a} sent7: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent8: ({B}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent9: ¬{D}{a} sent10: ({C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent11: ({B}{b} & {D}{b}) -> ¬{C}{c} | [
"sent7 & sent6 -> int1: the sylph is a complaisance.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent7 & sent6 -> int1: {B}{a};"
] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 8 | 0 | 8 | the bosom is a repair. | {D}{c} | 4 | [
"sent1 -> int2: the fact that the bosom does repair is correct if it is not obtuse.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the bosom is not a kind of a repair. ; $context$ = sent1: something repairs if it is not obtuse. sent2: if the fact that the bosom is a kind of a repair and it is phonic is true the turning is not a complaisance. sent3: the turning is not a kind of a repair if the bosom is a complaisance but it is not ph... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | something is not obtuse. | [
"the sylph is a complaisance if there exists something such that it is non-obtuse."
] | [
"something is not obtuse."
] | something is not obtuse. | the sylph is a complaisance if there exists something such that it is non-obtuse. |
the circumnavigating scrambled does not occur. | sent1: if the fact that the solelessness but not the strangulation happens is wrong then the mikvah occurs. sent2: that the hurl occurs and the inactivity happens causes that the remit does not occur. sent3: the nones does not occur if the traditionalism does not occur. sent4: that either the solelessness does not occu... | ¬{F} | sent1: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) -> {HI} sent2: ({C} & {D}) -> ¬{E} sent3: ¬{EN} -> ¬{EQ} sent4: (¬{A} v ¬{B}) sent5: ¬{E} -> ¬{F} sent6: ¬{B} -> {C} sent7: ¬(¬{H} & ¬{G}) -> {F} sent8: ¬{ER} -> {DP} sent9: ¬{IG} -> {CI} sent10: {IE} sent11: ¬{A} -> {C} sent12: (¬{IC} v ¬{AH}) sent13: {CM} sent14: ¬{CQ} | [
"sent4 & sent11 & sent6 -> int1: the hurling happens.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent4 & sent11 & sent6 -> int1: {C};"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 9 | 0 | 9 | the assist and the mikvah happens. | ({CM} & {HI}) | 8 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the circumnavigating scrambled does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the solelessness but not the strangulation happens is wrong then the mikvah occurs. sent2: that the hurl occurs and the inactivity happens causes that the remit does not occur. sent3: the nones does not occur if the trad... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | that either the solelessness does not occur or the strangulation does not occur or both hold. | [
"if the solelessness does not occur the fact that the hurling occurs is true.",
"if the strangulation does not occur the hurl occurs."
] | [
"Either the solelessness does not occur or the strangulation does not occur.",
"The solelessness does not occur or the strangulation does not occur."
] | Either the solelessness does not occur or the strangulation does not occur. | if the solelessness does not occur the fact that the hurling occurs is true. |
the circumnavigating scrambled does not occur. | sent1: if the fact that the solelessness but not the strangulation happens is wrong then the mikvah occurs. sent2: that the hurl occurs and the inactivity happens causes that the remit does not occur. sent3: the nones does not occur if the traditionalism does not occur. sent4: that either the solelessness does not occu... | ¬{F} | sent1: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) -> {HI} sent2: ({C} & {D}) -> ¬{E} sent3: ¬{EN} -> ¬{EQ} sent4: (¬{A} v ¬{B}) sent5: ¬{E} -> ¬{F} sent6: ¬{B} -> {C} sent7: ¬(¬{H} & ¬{G}) -> {F} sent8: ¬{ER} -> {DP} sent9: ¬{IG} -> {CI} sent10: {IE} sent11: ¬{A} -> {C} sent12: (¬{IC} v ¬{AH}) sent13: {CM} sent14: ¬{CQ} | [
"sent4 & sent11 & sent6 -> int1: the hurling happens.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent4 & sent11 & sent6 -> int1: {C};"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 9 | 0 | 9 | the assist and the mikvah happens. | ({CM} & {HI}) | 8 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the circumnavigating scrambled does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the solelessness but not the strangulation happens is wrong then the mikvah occurs. sent2: that the hurl occurs and the inactivity happens causes that the remit does not occur. sent3: the nones does not occur if the trad... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | that either the solelessness does not occur or the strangulation does not occur or both hold. | [
"if the solelessness does not occur the fact that the hurling occurs is true.",
"if the strangulation does not occur the hurl occurs."
] | [
"Either the solelessness does not occur or the strangulation does not occur.",
"The solelessness does not occur or the strangulation does not occur."
] | The solelessness does not occur or the strangulation does not occur. | if the strangulation does not occur the hurl occurs. |
the hydraulicsness occurs. | sent1: if the fact that the leaking happens and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong then the hydraulicsness happens. sent2: the leaking does not occur. sent3: the autobiographicalness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the leak occurs and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong if ... | {B} | sent1: ¬({AA} v ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent2: ¬{AA} sent3: ¬{A} sent4: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} v ¬{AB}) | [
"sent4 & sent3 -> int1: that the leak happens and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is not right.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent4 & sent3 -> int1: ¬({AA} v ¬{AB}); int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the hydraulicsness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the leaking happens and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong then the hydraulicsness happens. sent2: the leaking does not occur. sent3: the autobiographicalness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the leak occurs and/or ... | sent4 & sent3 -> int1: that the leak happens and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is not right.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fact that the leak occurs and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong if the autobiographicalness does not occur. | [
"the autobiographicalness does not occur.",
"if the fact that the leaking happens and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong then the hydraulicsness happens."
] | [
"If the autobiographicalness does not occur, the leak is wrong.",
"If the autobiographicalness does not occur, then the leak is wrong."
] | If the autobiographicalness does not occur, the leak is wrong. | the autobiographicalness does not occur. |
the hydraulicsness occurs. | sent1: if the fact that the leaking happens and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong then the hydraulicsness happens. sent2: the leaking does not occur. sent3: the autobiographicalness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the leak occurs and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong if ... | {B} | sent1: ¬({AA} v ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent2: ¬{AA} sent3: ¬{A} sent4: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} v ¬{AB}) | [
"sent4 & sent3 -> int1: that the leak happens and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is not right.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent4 & sent3 -> int1: ¬({AA} v ¬{AB}); int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the hydraulicsness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the leaking happens and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong then the hydraulicsness happens. sent2: the leaking does not occur. sent3: the autobiographicalness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the leak occurs and/or ... | sent4 & sent3 -> int1: that the leak happens and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is not right.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fact that the leak occurs and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong if the autobiographicalness does not occur. | [
"the autobiographicalness does not occur.",
"if the fact that the leaking happens and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong then the hydraulicsness happens."
] | [
"If the autobiographicalness does not occur, the leak is wrong.",
"If the autobiographicalness does not occur, then the leak is wrong."
] | If the autobiographicalness does not occur, then the leak is wrong. | if the fact that the leaking happens and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong then the hydraulicsness happens. |
the psephologist is a convertible and is a snuffler. | sent1: if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible. sent2: something is a snuffler if it overdoses. sent3: if there is something such that it is not convertible then that the psephologist is a kind of a convertible and it is a snuffler does not hold. sent4: that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid an... | ({A}{b} & {C}{b}) | sent1: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent2: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent5: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent6: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) -> {D}{b} sent7: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent8: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} | [
"sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the Sharpie is busy.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the psephologist is a kind of a convertible.; sent2 -> int3: the psephologist is a snuffler if it overdoses.; sent6 & sent7 -> int4: the psephologist does overdose.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the psephologist is a snuffler.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis;"
... | PROVED | [
"sent8 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 & sent1 -> int2: {A}{b}; sent2 -> int3: {D}{b} -> {C}{b}; sent6 & sent7 -> int4: {D}{b}; int3 & int4 -> int5: {C}{b}; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | the fact that the psephologist is both convertible and a snuffler does not hold. | ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) | 9 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the psephologist is a convertible and is a snuffler. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible. sent2: something is a snuffler if it overdoses. sent3: if there is something such that it is not convertible then that the psephologist is a kind of a convertible and i... | sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the Sharpie is busy.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the psephologist is a kind of a convertible.; sent2 -> int3: the psephologist is a snuffler if it overdoses.; sent6 & sent7 -> int4: the psephologist does overdose.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the psephologist is a snuffler.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROV... | DeductionInstance | the Sharpie busies if the fact that it is not a kind of a timid and is a Epipremnum is not true. | [
"that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid and is a kind of a Epipremnum does not hold.",
"if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible.",
"something is a snuffler if it overdoses.",
"if the fact that that the psephologist is both not a Homarus and not unmown is not right hold the fact that i... | [
"If the fact that it is not timid and is a Epipremnum is not true, then the Sharpie busies.",
"If the fact that it is not timid and is a Epipremnum is true, then the Sharpie busies.",
"If the fact that it is not a kind of timid and is a Epipremnum is not true, then the Sharpie busies.",
"The fact that the Sha... | If the fact that it is not timid and is a Epipremnum is not true, then the Sharpie busies. | that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid and is a kind of a Epipremnum does not hold. |
the psephologist is a convertible and is a snuffler. | sent1: if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible. sent2: something is a snuffler if it overdoses. sent3: if there is something such that it is not convertible then that the psephologist is a kind of a convertible and it is a snuffler does not hold. sent4: that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid an... | ({A}{b} & {C}{b}) | sent1: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent2: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent5: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent6: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) -> {D}{b} sent7: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent8: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} | [
"sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the Sharpie is busy.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the psephologist is a kind of a convertible.; sent2 -> int3: the psephologist is a snuffler if it overdoses.; sent6 & sent7 -> int4: the psephologist does overdose.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the psephologist is a snuffler.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis;"
... | PROVED | [
"sent8 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 & sent1 -> int2: {A}{b}; sent2 -> int3: {D}{b} -> {C}{b}; sent6 & sent7 -> int4: {D}{b}; int3 & int4 -> int5: {C}{b}; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | the fact that the psephologist is both convertible and a snuffler does not hold. | ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) | 9 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the psephologist is a convertible and is a snuffler. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible. sent2: something is a snuffler if it overdoses. sent3: if there is something such that it is not convertible then that the psephologist is a kind of a convertible and i... | sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the Sharpie is busy.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the psephologist is a kind of a convertible.; sent2 -> int3: the psephologist is a snuffler if it overdoses.; sent6 & sent7 -> int4: the psephologist does overdose.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the psephologist is a snuffler.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROV... | DeductionInstance | the Sharpie busies if the fact that it is not a kind of a timid and is a Epipremnum is not true. | [
"that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid and is a kind of a Epipremnum does not hold.",
"if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible.",
"something is a snuffler if it overdoses.",
"if the fact that that the psephologist is both not a Homarus and not unmown is not right hold the fact that i... | [
"If the fact that it is not timid and is a Epipremnum is not true, then the Sharpie busies.",
"If the fact that it is not timid and is a Epipremnum is true, then the Sharpie busies.",
"If the fact that it is not a kind of timid and is a Epipremnum is not true, then the Sharpie busies.",
"The fact that the Sha... | If the fact that it is not timid and is a Epipremnum is true, then the Sharpie busies. | if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible. |
the psephologist is a convertible and is a snuffler. | sent1: if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible. sent2: something is a snuffler if it overdoses. sent3: if there is something such that it is not convertible then that the psephologist is a kind of a convertible and it is a snuffler does not hold. sent4: that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid an... | ({A}{b} & {C}{b}) | sent1: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent2: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent5: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent6: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) -> {D}{b} sent7: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent8: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} | [
"sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the Sharpie is busy.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the psephologist is a kind of a convertible.; sent2 -> int3: the psephologist is a snuffler if it overdoses.; sent6 & sent7 -> int4: the psephologist does overdose.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the psephologist is a snuffler.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis;"
... | PROVED | [
"sent8 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 & sent1 -> int2: {A}{b}; sent2 -> int3: {D}{b} -> {C}{b}; sent6 & sent7 -> int4: {D}{b}; int3 & int4 -> int5: {C}{b}; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | the fact that the psephologist is both convertible and a snuffler does not hold. | ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) | 9 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the psephologist is a convertible and is a snuffler. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible. sent2: something is a snuffler if it overdoses. sent3: if there is something such that it is not convertible then that the psephologist is a kind of a convertible and i... | sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the Sharpie is busy.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the psephologist is a kind of a convertible.; sent2 -> int3: the psephologist is a snuffler if it overdoses.; sent6 & sent7 -> int4: the psephologist does overdose.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the psephologist is a snuffler.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROV... | DeductionInstance | the Sharpie busies if the fact that it is not a kind of a timid and is a Epipremnum is not true. | [
"that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid and is a kind of a Epipremnum does not hold.",
"if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible.",
"something is a snuffler if it overdoses.",
"if the fact that that the psephologist is both not a Homarus and not unmown is not right hold the fact that i... | [
"If the fact that it is not timid and is a Epipremnum is not true, then the Sharpie busies.",
"If the fact that it is not timid and is a Epipremnum is true, then the Sharpie busies.",
"If the fact that it is not a kind of timid and is a Epipremnum is not true, then the Sharpie busies.",
"The fact that the Sha... | If the fact that it is not a kind of timid and is a Epipremnum is not true, then the Sharpie busies. | something is a snuffler if it overdoses. |
the psephologist is a convertible and is a snuffler. | sent1: if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible. sent2: something is a snuffler if it overdoses. sent3: if there is something such that it is not convertible then that the psephologist is a kind of a convertible and it is a snuffler does not hold. sent4: that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid an... | ({A}{b} & {C}{b}) | sent1: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent2: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent5: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent6: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) -> {D}{b} sent7: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent8: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} | [
"sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the Sharpie is busy.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the psephologist is a kind of a convertible.; sent2 -> int3: the psephologist is a snuffler if it overdoses.; sent6 & sent7 -> int4: the psephologist does overdose.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the psephologist is a snuffler.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis;"
... | PROVED | [
"sent8 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 & sent1 -> int2: {A}{b}; sent2 -> int3: {D}{b} -> {C}{b}; sent6 & sent7 -> int4: {D}{b}; int3 & int4 -> int5: {C}{b}; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | the fact that the psephologist is both convertible and a snuffler does not hold. | ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) | 9 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the psephologist is a convertible and is a snuffler. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible. sent2: something is a snuffler if it overdoses. sent3: if there is something such that it is not convertible then that the psephologist is a kind of a convertible and i... | sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the Sharpie is busy.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the psephologist is a kind of a convertible.; sent2 -> int3: the psephologist is a snuffler if it overdoses.; sent6 & sent7 -> int4: the psephologist does overdose.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the psephologist is a snuffler.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROV... | DeductionInstance | the Sharpie busies if the fact that it is not a kind of a timid and is a Epipremnum is not true. | [
"that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid and is a kind of a Epipremnum does not hold.",
"if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible.",
"something is a snuffler if it overdoses.",
"if the fact that that the psephologist is both not a Homarus and not unmown is not right hold the fact that i... | [
"If the fact that it is not timid and is a Epipremnum is not true, then the Sharpie busies.",
"If the fact that it is not timid and is a Epipremnum is true, then the Sharpie busies.",
"If the fact that it is not a kind of timid and is a Epipremnum is not true, then the Sharpie busies.",
"The fact that the Sha... | The fact that the Sharpie is not timid and is a Epipremnum is not true. | if the fact that that the psephologist is both not a Homarus and not unmown is not right hold the fact that it does overdose is not false. |
the psephologist is a convertible and is a snuffler. | sent1: if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible. sent2: something is a snuffler if it overdoses. sent3: if there is something such that it is not convertible then that the psephologist is a kind of a convertible and it is a snuffler does not hold. sent4: that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid an... | ({A}{b} & {C}{b}) | sent1: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent2: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent5: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent6: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) -> {D}{b} sent7: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent8: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} | [
"sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the Sharpie is busy.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the psephologist is a kind of a convertible.; sent2 -> int3: the psephologist is a snuffler if it overdoses.; sent6 & sent7 -> int4: the psephologist does overdose.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the psephologist is a snuffler.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis;"
... | PROVED | [
"sent8 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 & sent1 -> int2: {A}{b}; sent2 -> int3: {D}{b} -> {C}{b}; sent6 & sent7 -> int4: {D}{b}; int3 & int4 -> int5: {C}{b}; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | the fact that the psephologist is both convertible and a snuffler does not hold. | ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) | 9 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the psephologist is a convertible and is a snuffler. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible. sent2: something is a snuffler if it overdoses. sent3: if there is something such that it is not convertible then that the psephologist is a kind of a convertible and i... | sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the Sharpie is busy.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the psephologist is a kind of a convertible.; sent2 -> int3: the psephologist is a snuffler if it overdoses.; sent6 & sent7 -> int4: the psephologist does overdose.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the psephologist is a snuffler.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROV... | DeductionInstance | the Sharpie busies if the fact that it is not a kind of a timid and is a Epipremnum is not true. | [
"that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid and is a kind of a Epipremnum does not hold.",
"if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible.",
"something is a snuffler if it overdoses.",
"if the fact that that the psephologist is both not a Homarus and not unmown is not right hold the fact that i... | [
"If the fact that it is not timid and is a Epipremnum is not true, then the Sharpie busies.",
"If the fact that it is not timid and is a Epipremnum is true, then the Sharpie busies.",
"If the fact that it is not a kind of timid and is a Epipremnum is not true, then the Sharpie busies.",
"The fact that the Sha... | The fact that Sharpie is not timid and is a Epipremnum is not true. | that that the psephologist is not a kind of a Homarus and it is not unmown is true is false. |
the Frisbee is not a strainer. | sent1: there exists something such that it is nonechoic and is artless. sent2: the Frisbee is insentient if there is something such that it is a kind of nonechoic thing that is artless. sent3: the Frisbee is postmillennial. | ¬{E}{a} | sent1: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent2: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} sent3: {D}{a} | [
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the Frisbee is insentient.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the Frisbee is both not sentient and not non-postmillennial.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: {C}{a}; int1 & sent3 -> int2: ({C}{a} & {D}{a});"
] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 0 | 0 | 0 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the Frisbee is not a strainer. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is nonechoic and is artless. sent2: the Frisbee is insentient if there is something such that it is a kind of nonechoic thing that is artless. sent3: the Frisbee is postmillennial. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it is nonechoic and is artless. | [
"the Frisbee is insentient if there is something such that it is a kind of nonechoic thing that is artless.",
"the Frisbee is postmillennial."
] | [
"There is something that is artless and nonechoic.",
"There is something that is nonechoic and artless."
] | There is something that is artless and nonechoic. | the Frisbee is insentient if there is something such that it is a kind of nonechoic thing that is artless. |
the Frisbee is not a strainer. | sent1: there exists something such that it is nonechoic and is artless. sent2: the Frisbee is insentient if there is something such that it is a kind of nonechoic thing that is artless. sent3: the Frisbee is postmillennial. | ¬{E}{a} | sent1: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent2: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} sent3: {D}{a} | [
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the Frisbee is insentient.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the Frisbee is both not sentient and not non-postmillennial.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: {C}{a}; int1 & sent3 -> int2: ({C}{a} & {D}{a});"
] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 0 | 0 | 0 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the Frisbee is not a strainer. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is nonechoic and is artless. sent2: the Frisbee is insentient if there is something such that it is a kind of nonechoic thing that is artless. sent3: the Frisbee is postmillennial. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it is nonechoic and is artless. | [
"the Frisbee is insentient if there is something such that it is a kind of nonechoic thing that is artless.",
"the Frisbee is postmillennial."
] | [
"There is something that is artless and nonechoic.",
"There is something that is nonechoic and artless."
] | There is something that is nonechoic and artless. | the Frisbee is postmillennial. |
that both the steroidalness and the darting occurs does not hold. | sent1: the battledore happens. sent2: the steroidalness happens. sent3: the subvention and the detailing happens. sent4: the Ghanaianness occurs and the hurling occurs. sent5: the darting happens if the detailing happens. sent6: both the seediness and the bilabial occurs. | ¬({D} & {C}) | sent1: {IJ} sent2: {D} sent3: ({A} & {B}) sent4: ({CB} & {CQ}) sent5: {B} -> {C} sent6: ({GR} & {BL}) | [
"sent3 -> int1: the details occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the darting happens.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent3 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent5 -> int2: {C}; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = that both the steroidalness and the darting occurs does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the battledore happens. sent2: the steroidalness happens. sent3: the subvention and the detailing happens. sent4: the Ghanaianness occurs and the hurling occurs. sent5: the darting happens if the detailing happens. sen... | sent3 -> int1: the details occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the darting happens.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the subvention and the detailing happens. | [
"the darting happens if the detailing happens.",
"the steroidalness happens."
] | [
"The detailing happens after the subvention.",
"The detailing happens."
] | The detailing happens after the subvention. | the darting happens if the detailing happens. |
that both the steroidalness and the darting occurs does not hold. | sent1: the battledore happens. sent2: the steroidalness happens. sent3: the subvention and the detailing happens. sent4: the Ghanaianness occurs and the hurling occurs. sent5: the darting happens if the detailing happens. sent6: both the seediness and the bilabial occurs. | ¬({D} & {C}) | sent1: {IJ} sent2: {D} sent3: ({A} & {B}) sent4: ({CB} & {CQ}) sent5: {B} -> {C} sent6: ({GR} & {BL}) | [
"sent3 -> int1: the details occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the darting happens.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent3 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent5 -> int2: {C}; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = that both the steroidalness and the darting occurs does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the battledore happens. sent2: the steroidalness happens. sent3: the subvention and the detailing happens. sent4: the Ghanaianness occurs and the hurling occurs. sent5: the darting happens if the detailing happens. sen... | sent3 -> int1: the details occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the darting happens.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the subvention and the detailing happens. | [
"the darting happens if the detailing happens.",
"the steroidalness happens."
] | [
"The detailing happens after the subvention.",
"The detailing happens."
] | The detailing happens. | the steroidalness happens. |
the riblessness occurs. | sent1: the confusing happens or the mountaineering occurs or both. sent2: if the mountaineering happens the Mercurialness happens. sent3: if the fact that not the mountaineering but the riblessness occurs does not hold then the riblessness does not occur. sent4: the fact that if that the dissolve and the prawning occur... | {D} | sent1: ({A} v {B}) sent2: {B} -> {C} sent3: ¬(¬{B} & {D}) -> ¬{D} sent4: ¬({F} & {G}) -> ¬{E} sent5: {C} -> {D} sent6: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {A}) sent7: (¬{J} & ¬{I}) -> ¬{H} sent8: {A} -> {C} sent9: ¬{H} -> ¬({F} & {G}) | [
"sent1 & sent8 & sent2 -> int1: the Mercurialness happens.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent8 & sent2 -> int1: {C}; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 | the riblessness does not occur. | ¬{D} | 10 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the riblessness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the confusing happens or the mountaineering occurs or both. sent2: if the mountaineering happens the Mercurialness happens. sent3: if the fact that not the mountaineering but the riblessness occurs does not hold then the riblessness does not occur. sent4: the ... | sent1 & sent8 & sent2 -> int1: the Mercurialness happens.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the confusing happens or the mountaineering occurs or both. | [
"that the Mercurialness occurs is brought about by the confusing.",
"if the mountaineering happens the Mercurialness happens.",
"the riblessness occurs if the Mercurialness happens."
] | [
"The mountaineering occurs or it is confusing.",
"Either the confusing happens or the mountaineer occurs.",
"The mountaineering can be confusing or it can be both."
] | The mountaineering occurs or it is confusing. | that the Mercurialness occurs is brought about by the confusing. |
the riblessness occurs. | sent1: the confusing happens or the mountaineering occurs or both. sent2: if the mountaineering happens the Mercurialness happens. sent3: if the fact that not the mountaineering but the riblessness occurs does not hold then the riblessness does not occur. sent4: the fact that if that the dissolve and the prawning occur... | {D} | sent1: ({A} v {B}) sent2: {B} -> {C} sent3: ¬(¬{B} & {D}) -> ¬{D} sent4: ¬({F} & {G}) -> ¬{E} sent5: {C} -> {D} sent6: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {A}) sent7: (¬{J} & ¬{I}) -> ¬{H} sent8: {A} -> {C} sent9: ¬{H} -> ¬({F} & {G}) | [
"sent1 & sent8 & sent2 -> int1: the Mercurialness happens.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent8 & sent2 -> int1: {C}; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 | the riblessness does not occur. | ¬{D} | 10 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the riblessness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the confusing happens or the mountaineering occurs or both. sent2: if the mountaineering happens the Mercurialness happens. sent3: if the fact that not the mountaineering but the riblessness occurs does not hold then the riblessness does not occur. sent4: the ... | sent1 & sent8 & sent2 -> int1: the Mercurialness happens.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the confusing happens or the mountaineering occurs or both. | [
"that the Mercurialness occurs is brought about by the confusing.",
"if the mountaineering happens the Mercurialness happens.",
"the riblessness occurs if the Mercurialness happens."
] | [
"The mountaineering occurs or it is confusing.",
"Either the confusing happens or the mountaineer occurs.",
"The mountaineering can be confusing or it can be both."
] | Either the confusing happens or the mountaineer occurs. | if the mountaineering happens the Mercurialness happens. |
the riblessness occurs. | sent1: the confusing happens or the mountaineering occurs or both. sent2: if the mountaineering happens the Mercurialness happens. sent3: if the fact that not the mountaineering but the riblessness occurs does not hold then the riblessness does not occur. sent4: the fact that if that the dissolve and the prawning occur... | {D} | sent1: ({A} v {B}) sent2: {B} -> {C} sent3: ¬(¬{B} & {D}) -> ¬{D} sent4: ¬({F} & {G}) -> ¬{E} sent5: {C} -> {D} sent6: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {A}) sent7: (¬{J} & ¬{I}) -> ¬{H} sent8: {A} -> {C} sent9: ¬{H} -> ¬({F} & {G}) | [
"sent1 & sent8 & sent2 -> int1: the Mercurialness happens.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent8 & sent2 -> int1: {C}; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 | the riblessness does not occur. | ¬{D} | 10 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the riblessness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the confusing happens or the mountaineering occurs or both. sent2: if the mountaineering happens the Mercurialness happens. sent3: if the fact that not the mountaineering but the riblessness occurs does not hold then the riblessness does not occur. sent4: the ... | sent1 & sent8 & sent2 -> int1: the Mercurialness happens.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the confusing happens or the mountaineering occurs or both. | [
"that the Mercurialness occurs is brought about by the confusing.",
"if the mountaineering happens the Mercurialness happens.",
"the riblessness occurs if the Mercurialness happens."
] | [
"The mountaineering occurs or it is confusing.",
"Either the confusing happens or the mountaineer occurs.",
"The mountaineering can be confusing or it can be both."
] | The mountaineering can be confusing or it can be both. | the riblessness occurs if the Mercurialness happens. |
that the developer is not stomatous hold. | sent1: the fact that the seller is oropharyngeal but it is not hemic does not hold if there exists something such that it is a Priestley. sent2: something is not non-afebrile if it is a kind of a Priestley. sent3: the fact that the seller is not non-oropharyngeal but hemic does not hold if there is something such that ... | ¬{D}{b} | sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent2: (x): {A}x -> {AD}x sent3: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent4: {B}{a} -> {B}{fo} sent5: ({E}{c} v {B}{c}) sent6: (Ex): {A}x sent7: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {D}{b} | [
"sent6 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the seller is oropharyngeal thing that is not hemic is not right.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is oropharyngeal and it is not hemic does not hold.; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent6 & sent1 -> int1: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x); int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 4 | the developer is not stomatous. | ¬{D}{b} | 5 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the developer is not stomatous hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the seller is oropharyngeal but it is not hemic does not hold if there exists something such that it is a Priestley. sent2: something is not non-afebrile if it is a kind of a Priestley. sent3: the fact that the seller is not non... | sent6 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the seller is oropharyngeal thing that is not hemic is not right.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is oropharyngeal and it is not hemic does not hold.; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it is a Priestley. | [
"the fact that the seller is oropharyngeal but it is not hemic does not hold if there exists something such that it is a Priestley.",
"if there exists something such that the fact that it is oropharyngeal and not hemic does not hold then the developer is stomatous."
] | [
"There is something called a Priestley.",
"There is a thing called a Priestley."
] | There is something called a Priestley. | the fact that the seller is oropharyngeal but it is not hemic does not hold if there exists something such that it is a Priestley. |
that the developer is not stomatous hold. | sent1: the fact that the seller is oropharyngeal but it is not hemic does not hold if there exists something such that it is a Priestley. sent2: something is not non-afebrile if it is a kind of a Priestley. sent3: the fact that the seller is not non-oropharyngeal but hemic does not hold if there is something such that ... | ¬{D}{b} | sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent2: (x): {A}x -> {AD}x sent3: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent4: {B}{a} -> {B}{fo} sent5: ({E}{c} v {B}{c}) sent6: (Ex): {A}x sent7: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {D}{b} | [
"sent6 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the seller is oropharyngeal thing that is not hemic is not right.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is oropharyngeal and it is not hemic does not hold.; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent6 & sent1 -> int1: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x); int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 4 | the developer is not stomatous. | ¬{D}{b} | 5 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the developer is not stomatous hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the seller is oropharyngeal but it is not hemic does not hold if there exists something such that it is a Priestley. sent2: something is not non-afebrile if it is a kind of a Priestley. sent3: the fact that the seller is not non... | sent6 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the seller is oropharyngeal thing that is not hemic is not right.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is oropharyngeal and it is not hemic does not hold.; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it is a Priestley. | [
"the fact that the seller is oropharyngeal but it is not hemic does not hold if there exists something such that it is a Priestley.",
"if there exists something such that the fact that it is oropharyngeal and not hemic does not hold then the developer is stomatous."
] | [
"There is something called a Priestley.",
"There is a thing called a Priestley."
] | There is a thing called a Priestley. | if there exists something such that the fact that it is oropharyngeal and not hemic does not hold then the developer is stomatous. |
there are slow and non-downmarket things. | sent1: the outpost does slow but it is not downmarket if it is a will-o'-the-wisp. sent2: the outpost is a incomprehension. sent3: something that either is not angiomatous or does subvocalize or both is not angiomatous. sent4: the outpost is a kind of a will-o'-the-wisp. sent5: if the AS is a kind of a dinky it is not ... | (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) | sent1: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: {DI}{a} sent3: (x): (¬{B}x v {D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: {A}{a} sent5: {L}{d} -> (¬{K}{d} & ¬{J}{d}) sent6: (x): (¬{F}x v ¬{G}x) -> ¬{E}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{C}x) sent8: {L}{d} sent9: (¬{K}{d} & ¬{J}{d}) -> ¬{J}{c} sent10: (¬{I}{c} & {H}{c}) -> ¬{G}{b} sent11: {AA}{... | [
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the outpost is slow but not downmarket.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 16 | the flirt is a will-o'-the-wisp. | {A}{eo} | 12 | [
"sent7 -> int2: if that the outpost is not angiomatous hold that it is not a will-o'-the-wisp and it is not a player is not correct.; sent3 -> int3: if the outpost is non-angiomatous or subvocalizes or both then it is not non-angiomatous.; sent13 -> int4: the outpost is not angiomatous or does subvocalize or both i... | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there are slow and non-downmarket things. ; $context$ = sent1: the outpost does slow but it is not downmarket if it is a will-o'-the-wisp. sent2: the outpost is a incomprehension. sent3: something that either is not angiomatous or does subvocalize or both is not angiomatous. sent4: the outpost is a kind ... | sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the outpost is slow but not downmarket.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the outpost does slow but it is not downmarket if it is a will-o'-the-wisp. | [
"the outpost is a kind of a will-o'-the-wisp."
] | [
"the outpost does slow but it is not downmarket if it is a will-o'-the-wisp."
] | the outpost does slow but it is not downmarket if it is a will-o'-the-wisp. | the outpost is a kind of a will-o'-the-wisp. |
the frijolito is not a grapefruit. | sent1: if something is a Myrmidon then it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. sent2: the frijolito either is a exobiology or is not a Myrmidon or both. sent3: the fact that the perigee isolates Milne but it does not clapboard does not hold if there exists something such that it is not a katharometer. sent4: either somethin... | ¬{A}{aa} | sent1: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent2: ({HI}{aa} v ¬{AA}{aa}) sent3: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬({H}{fc} & ¬{G}{fc}) sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x v {B}x) sent5: {HC}{ir} -> ¬{EM}{ir} sent6: {D}{aa} -> ¬({B}{aa} & ¬{C}{aa}) sent7: (x): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent8: ¬{AE}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent9: (x): ({A}x v {B}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent10: ({GQ}... | [
"sent7 -> int1: if the frijolito is a Myrmidon and/or is not an apparition it does not circumnavigate Yahweh.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the frijolito does not circumnavigate Yahweh.; int2 & sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent7 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 & sent12 -> int2: ¬{B}{aa}; int2 & sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 | the perigee is not a kind of a Myrmidon. | ¬{AA}{fc} | 7 | [
"sent9 -> int3: the perigee is not a Myrmidon if it is a kind of a grapefruit and/or does circumnavigate Yahweh.; sent4 -> int4: either the perigee is a grapefruit or it does circumnavigate Yahweh or both if it is not a Esquire.; sent15 -> int5: the perigee is not a Esquire if that it is a kind of a Njord and/or is... | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the frijolito is not a grapefruit. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a Myrmidon then it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. sent2: the frijolito either is a exobiology or is not a Myrmidon or both. sent3: the fact that the perigee isolates Milne but it does not clapboard does not hold if there exists some... | sent7 -> int1: if the frijolito is a Myrmidon and/or is not an apparition it does not circumnavigate Yahweh.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the frijolito does not circumnavigate Yahweh.; int2 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if something is a Myrmidon and/or it is not an apparition then it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. | [
"the frijolito is a Myrmidon and/or it is not an apparition.",
"the frijolito is not a kind of a grapefruit if it does not circumnavigate Yahweh."
] | [
"It doesn't circumnavigate Yahweh if something is a Myrmidon or not.",
"It does not circumnavigate Yahweh if something is a Myrmidon or not."
] | It doesn't circumnavigate Yahweh if something is a Myrmidon or not. | the frijolito is a Myrmidon and/or it is not an apparition. |
the frijolito is not a grapefruit. | sent1: if something is a Myrmidon then it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. sent2: the frijolito either is a exobiology or is not a Myrmidon or both. sent3: the fact that the perigee isolates Milne but it does not clapboard does not hold if there exists something such that it is not a katharometer. sent4: either somethin... | ¬{A}{aa} | sent1: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent2: ({HI}{aa} v ¬{AA}{aa}) sent3: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬({H}{fc} & ¬{G}{fc}) sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x v {B}x) sent5: {HC}{ir} -> ¬{EM}{ir} sent6: {D}{aa} -> ¬({B}{aa} & ¬{C}{aa}) sent7: (x): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent8: ¬{AE}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent9: (x): ({A}x v {B}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent10: ({GQ}... | [
"sent7 -> int1: if the frijolito is a Myrmidon and/or is not an apparition it does not circumnavigate Yahweh.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the frijolito does not circumnavigate Yahweh.; int2 & sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent7 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 & sent12 -> int2: ¬{B}{aa}; int2 & sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 | the perigee is not a kind of a Myrmidon. | ¬{AA}{fc} | 7 | [
"sent9 -> int3: the perigee is not a Myrmidon if it is a kind of a grapefruit and/or does circumnavigate Yahweh.; sent4 -> int4: either the perigee is a grapefruit or it does circumnavigate Yahweh or both if it is not a Esquire.; sent15 -> int5: the perigee is not a Esquire if that it is a kind of a Njord and/or is... | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the frijolito is not a grapefruit. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a Myrmidon then it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. sent2: the frijolito either is a exobiology or is not a Myrmidon or both. sent3: the fact that the perigee isolates Milne but it does not clapboard does not hold if there exists some... | sent7 -> int1: if the frijolito is a Myrmidon and/or is not an apparition it does not circumnavigate Yahweh.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the frijolito does not circumnavigate Yahweh.; int2 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if something is a Myrmidon and/or it is not an apparition then it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. | [
"the frijolito is a Myrmidon and/or it is not an apparition.",
"the frijolito is not a kind of a grapefruit if it does not circumnavigate Yahweh."
] | [
"It doesn't circumnavigate Yahweh if something is a Myrmidon or not.",
"It does not circumnavigate Yahweh if something is a Myrmidon or not."
] | It does not circumnavigate Yahweh if something is a Myrmidon or not. | the frijolito is not a kind of a grapefruit if it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. |
the commonsness occurs. | sent1: that the commonsness occurs and the isolating competence happens is wrong if the fact that the circumnavigating patrimony does not occur hold. sent2: both the fold and the universalisticness occurs. sent3: if the isolating Nepal occurs then the loading vasopressor does not occur or the correctedness does not occ... | {D} | sent1: ¬{F} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent2: ({BU} & {EU}) sent3: {U} -> (¬{S} v ¬{T}) sent4: ¬({H} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{F} sent5: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent6: {AC} -> ¬{AB} sent7: {E} sent8: ({L} & ¬{K}) -> ¬{J} sent9: ¬{J} -> {I} sent10: ¬{R} -> (¬{P} & ¬{Q}) sent11: (¬{P} & ¬{Q}) -> ¬{O} sent12: {M} -> ({L} & ¬{K}) sent13: {I} -> ¬({H}... | [
"sent17 -> int1: the NMR happens.; sent18 & sent7 -> int2: the circumnavigating solvation happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the NMR and the circumnavigating solvation occurs.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent17 -> int1: {B}; sent18 & sent7 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B} & {C}); int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 | the isolating Sheetrock occurs. | {DC} | 18 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the commonsness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the commonsness occurs and the isolating competence happens is wrong if the fact that the circumnavigating patrimony does not occur hold. sent2: both the fold and the universalisticness occurs. sent3: if the isolating Nepal occurs then the loading vasopre... | sent17 -> int1: the NMR happens.; sent18 & sent7 -> int2: the circumnavigating solvation happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the NMR and the circumnavigating solvation occurs.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fossiliferousness happens and the NMR happens. | [
"that the circumnavigating solvation happens is triggered by the isolating competence.",
"the isolating competence occurs.",
"that the commonsness occurs is prevented by that the NMR happens and the circumnavigating solvation occurs."
] | [
"Both the fossiliferousness and the NMR occur.",
"The fossiliferousness and the NMR happen.",
"The fossiliferousness and the NMR occur."
] | Both the fossiliferousness and the NMR occur. | that the circumnavigating solvation happens is triggered by the isolating competence. |
the commonsness occurs. | sent1: that the commonsness occurs and the isolating competence happens is wrong if the fact that the circumnavigating patrimony does not occur hold. sent2: both the fold and the universalisticness occurs. sent3: if the isolating Nepal occurs then the loading vasopressor does not occur or the correctedness does not occ... | {D} | sent1: ¬{F} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent2: ({BU} & {EU}) sent3: {U} -> (¬{S} v ¬{T}) sent4: ¬({H} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{F} sent5: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent6: {AC} -> ¬{AB} sent7: {E} sent8: ({L} & ¬{K}) -> ¬{J} sent9: ¬{J} -> {I} sent10: ¬{R} -> (¬{P} & ¬{Q}) sent11: (¬{P} & ¬{Q}) -> ¬{O} sent12: {M} -> ({L} & ¬{K}) sent13: {I} -> ¬({H}... | [
"sent17 -> int1: the NMR happens.; sent18 & sent7 -> int2: the circumnavigating solvation happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the NMR and the circumnavigating solvation occurs.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent17 -> int1: {B}; sent18 & sent7 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B} & {C}); int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 | the isolating Sheetrock occurs. | {DC} | 18 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the commonsness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the commonsness occurs and the isolating competence happens is wrong if the fact that the circumnavigating patrimony does not occur hold. sent2: both the fold and the universalisticness occurs. sent3: if the isolating Nepal occurs then the loading vasopre... | sent17 -> int1: the NMR happens.; sent18 & sent7 -> int2: the circumnavigating solvation happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the NMR and the circumnavigating solvation occurs.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fossiliferousness happens and the NMR happens. | [
"that the circumnavigating solvation happens is triggered by the isolating competence.",
"the isolating competence occurs.",
"that the commonsness occurs is prevented by that the NMR happens and the circumnavigating solvation occurs."
] | [
"Both the fossiliferousness and the NMR occur.",
"The fossiliferousness and the NMR happen.",
"The fossiliferousness and the NMR occur."
] | The fossiliferousness and the NMR happen. | the isolating competence occurs. |
the commonsness occurs. | sent1: that the commonsness occurs and the isolating competence happens is wrong if the fact that the circumnavigating patrimony does not occur hold. sent2: both the fold and the universalisticness occurs. sent3: if the isolating Nepal occurs then the loading vasopressor does not occur or the correctedness does not occ... | {D} | sent1: ¬{F} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent2: ({BU} & {EU}) sent3: {U} -> (¬{S} v ¬{T}) sent4: ¬({H} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{F} sent5: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent6: {AC} -> ¬{AB} sent7: {E} sent8: ({L} & ¬{K}) -> ¬{J} sent9: ¬{J} -> {I} sent10: ¬{R} -> (¬{P} & ¬{Q}) sent11: (¬{P} & ¬{Q}) -> ¬{O} sent12: {M} -> ({L} & ¬{K}) sent13: {I} -> ¬({H}... | [
"sent17 -> int1: the NMR happens.; sent18 & sent7 -> int2: the circumnavigating solvation happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the NMR and the circumnavigating solvation occurs.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent17 -> int1: {B}; sent18 & sent7 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B} & {C}); int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 | the isolating Sheetrock occurs. | {DC} | 18 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the commonsness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the commonsness occurs and the isolating competence happens is wrong if the fact that the circumnavigating patrimony does not occur hold. sent2: both the fold and the universalisticness occurs. sent3: if the isolating Nepal occurs then the loading vasopre... | sent17 -> int1: the NMR happens.; sent18 & sent7 -> int2: the circumnavigating solvation happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the NMR and the circumnavigating solvation occurs.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fossiliferousness happens and the NMR happens. | [
"that the circumnavigating solvation happens is triggered by the isolating competence.",
"the isolating competence occurs.",
"that the commonsness occurs is prevented by that the NMR happens and the circumnavigating solvation occurs."
] | [
"Both the fossiliferousness and the NMR occur.",
"The fossiliferousness and the NMR happen.",
"The fossiliferousness and the NMR occur."
] | The fossiliferousness and the NMR occur. | that the commonsness occurs is prevented by that the NMR happens and the circumnavigating solvation occurs. |
the freshening does not occur. | sent1: the fact that the bracteolateness and the flash happens is not true. sent2: if the isolating osteopathy happens then that the bracteolateness does not occur and the flash happens is incorrect. sent3: the isolating osteopathy happens. sent4: the Ramadan does not occur if that the Finnishness does not occur and th... | ¬{B} | sent1: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent2: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent3: {A} sent4: ¬(¬{JI} & {HD}) -> ¬{EJ} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent6: {AA} -> ¬{B} sent7: {A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB}) | [
"sent2 & sent3 -> int1: that the non-bracteolateness and the flash happens does not hold.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent2 & sent3 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}); sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the freshening does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the bracteolateness and the flash happens is not true. sent2: if the isolating osteopathy happens then that the bracteolateness does not occur and the flash happens is incorrect. sent3: the isolating osteopathy happens. sent4: the Ramadan ... | sent2 & sent3 -> int1: that the non-bracteolateness and the flash happens does not hold.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the isolating osteopathy happens then that the bracteolateness does not occur and the flash happens is incorrect. | [
"the isolating osteopathy happens.",
"if that the non-bracteolateness and the flashing occurs is not right then the freshening does not occur."
] | [
"The bracteolateness does not occur if the isolating osteopathy happens.",
"The bracteolateness does not happen if the isolating osteopathy happens."
] | The bracteolateness does not occur if the isolating osteopathy happens. | the isolating osteopathy happens. |
the freshening does not occur. | sent1: the fact that the bracteolateness and the flash happens is not true. sent2: if the isolating osteopathy happens then that the bracteolateness does not occur and the flash happens is incorrect. sent3: the isolating osteopathy happens. sent4: the Ramadan does not occur if that the Finnishness does not occur and th... | ¬{B} | sent1: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent2: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent3: {A} sent4: ¬(¬{JI} & {HD}) -> ¬{EJ} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent6: {AA} -> ¬{B} sent7: {A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB}) | [
"sent2 & sent3 -> int1: that the non-bracteolateness and the flash happens does not hold.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent2 & sent3 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}); sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the freshening does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the bracteolateness and the flash happens is not true. sent2: if the isolating osteopathy happens then that the bracteolateness does not occur and the flash happens is incorrect. sent3: the isolating osteopathy happens. sent4: the Ramadan ... | sent2 & sent3 -> int1: that the non-bracteolateness and the flash happens does not hold.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the isolating osteopathy happens then that the bracteolateness does not occur and the flash happens is incorrect. | [
"the isolating osteopathy happens.",
"if that the non-bracteolateness and the flashing occurs is not right then the freshening does not occur."
] | [
"The bracteolateness does not occur if the isolating osteopathy happens.",
"The bracteolateness does not happen if the isolating osteopathy happens."
] | The bracteolateness does not happen if the isolating osteopathy happens. | if that the non-bracteolateness and the flashing occurs is not right then the freshening does not occur. |
the kumquat does access kumquat but it is not a kind of a bethel. | sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it does not circumnavigate Melanchthon and is a kind of a Weld is false then the crapaud is not a Weld. sent2: the eggnog accesses kumquat if the kumquat is not a kind of a bethel. sent3: the Burgess is pregnant. sent4: something is a Laudo if it does access kumquat.... | ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) | sent1: (x): ¬(¬{J}x & {I}x) -> ¬{I}{c} sent2: ¬{B}{a} -> {A}{ij} sent3: {M}{d} sent4: (x): {A}x -> {HH}x sent5: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent6: (x): {G}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{E}x) sent7: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: (x): ({L}x & {M}x) -> ¬{K}x sent9: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{C}x v ¬{B}x) sent10: {E}{b} -> {D}{b} sent11: ¬{I}{c} -> ({G}{b... | [
"sent13 -> int1: there exists something such that the fact that that it is not nonproprietary and it is not a kind of a pillared is not false is incorrect.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the kumquat does access kumquat.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent13 -> int1: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x); int1 & sent12 -> int2: {A}{a};"
] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 15 | 0 | 15 | the eggnog is a kind of a Laudo. | {HH}{ij} | 13 | [
"sent4 -> int3: if the eggnog does access kumquat then it is a Laudo.; sent9 -> int4: if the kumquat does not circumnavigate barricaded it is not odorous and/or is not a bethel.; sent6 -> int5: if the dihydrostreptomycin circumnavigates agoraphobia then the fact that it does not circumnavigate etude and it does not... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the kumquat does access kumquat but it is not a kind of a bethel. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it does not circumnavigate Melanchthon and is a kind of a Weld is false then the crapaud is not a Weld. sent2: the eggnog accesses kumquat if the kumquat is not a kind of a... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the fact that the kedgeree is not nonproprietary and is not a pillared is false. | [
"if there exists something such that the fact that it is not nonproprietary and it is not a pillared does not hold then the kumquat does access kumquat."
] | [
"the fact that the kedgeree is not nonproprietary and is not a pillared is false."
] | the fact that the kedgeree is not nonproprietary and is not a pillared is false. | if there exists something such that the fact that it is not nonproprietary and it is not a pillared does not hold then the kumquat does access kumquat. |
the fact that the hardinggrass does not unpack is true. | sent1: if the hardinggrass is not a Dalian it is not a aldosteronism and/or it is a dispensability. sent2: something does not unpack if it is not a aldosteronism or is a kind of a dispensability or both. sent3: if something that isolates stingaree-bush does not unpack it is not a Dalian. sent4: if the hardinggrass is a... | ¬{B}{aa} | sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent3: (x): ({C}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent4: {AB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent5: (x): {AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent6: ¬{A}{aa} sent7: {A}{a} -> {B}{aa} sent8: (x): {D}x -> ({C}x & ¬{B}x) | [
"sent2 -> int1: the fact that the hardinggrass does not unpack is correct if either it is not a aldosteronism or it is a kind of a dispensability or both.; sent1 & sent6 -> int2: either the hardinggrass is not a aldosteronism or it is a dispensability or both.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent2 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent1 & sent6 -> int2: (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 | the hardinggrass does unpack. | {B}{aa} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the hardinggrass does not unpack is true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the hardinggrass is not a Dalian it is not a aldosteronism and/or it is a dispensability. sent2: something does not unpack if it is not a aldosteronism or is a kind of a dispensability or both. sent3: if something that isolat... | sent2 -> int1: the fact that the hardinggrass does not unpack is correct if either it is not a aldosteronism or it is a kind of a dispensability or both.; sent1 & sent6 -> int2: either the hardinggrass is not a aldosteronism or it is a dispensability or both.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | something does not unpack if it is not a aldosteronism or is a kind of a dispensability or both. | [
"if the hardinggrass is not a Dalian it is not a aldosteronism and/or it is a dispensability.",
"the hardinggrass is not a Dalian."
] | [
"It doesn't unpack if it isn't a aldosteronism or a kind of dispensability.",
"It doesn't unpack if it's not a aldosteronism or a kind of dispensability."
] | It doesn't unpack if it isn't a aldosteronism or a kind of dispensability. | if the hardinggrass is not a Dalian it is not a aldosteronism and/or it is a dispensability. |
the fact that the hardinggrass does not unpack is true. | sent1: if the hardinggrass is not a Dalian it is not a aldosteronism and/or it is a dispensability. sent2: something does not unpack if it is not a aldosteronism or is a kind of a dispensability or both. sent3: if something that isolates stingaree-bush does not unpack it is not a Dalian. sent4: if the hardinggrass is a... | ¬{B}{aa} | sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent3: (x): ({C}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent4: {AB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent5: (x): {AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent6: ¬{A}{aa} sent7: {A}{a} -> {B}{aa} sent8: (x): {D}x -> ({C}x & ¬{B}x) | [
"sent2 -> int1: the fact that the hardinggrass does not unpack is correct if either it is not a aldosteronism or it is a kind of a dispensability or both.; sent1 & sent6 -> int2: either the hardinggrass is not a aldosteronism or it is a dispensability or both.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent2 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent1 & sent6 -> int2: (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 | the hardinggrass does unpack. | {B}{aa} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the hardinggrass does not unpack is true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the hardinggrass is not a Dalian it is not a aldosteronism and/or it is a dispensability. sent2: something does not unpack if it is not a aldosteronism or is a kind of a dispensability or both. sent3: if something that isolat... | sent2 -> int1: the fact that the hardinggrass does not unpack is correct if either it is not a aldosteronism or it is a kind of a dispensability or both.; sent1 & sent6 -> int2: either the hardinggrass is not a aldosteronism or it is a dispensability or both.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | something does not unpack if it is not a aldosteronism or is a kind of a dispensability or both. | [
"if the hardinggrass is not a Dalian it is not a aldosteronism and/or it is a dispensability.",
"the hardinggrass is not a Dalian."
] | [
"It doesn't unpack if it isn't a aldosteronism or a kind of dispensability.",
"It doesn't unpack if it's not a aldosteronism or a kind of dispensability."
] | It doesn't unpack if it's not a aldosteronism or a kind of dispensability. | the hardinggrass is not a Dalian. |
the brook does not hive. | sent1: something is not seraphic if that it is a kind of microeconomics thing that is seraphic is wrong. sent2: the fact that the diocesan is slippery but not non-seraphic is not correct. sent3: if that the diocesan is not microeconomics is not false the brook is microeconomics and it is a kind of a hive. sent4: if the... | ¬{C}{b} | sent1: (x): ¬({B}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent3: ¬{B}{a} -> ({B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent4: {AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: {B}{b} sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: {AB}{dh} sent8: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) | [
"sent6 & sent2 -> int1: the diocesan is not microeconomics.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: that the brook is a kind of microeconomics thing that does hive is right.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent6 & sent2 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent3 & int1 -> int2: ({B}{b} & {C}{b}); int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 5 | the Munchener is not seraphic. | ¬{AB}{o} | 4 | [
"sent1 -> int3: the Munchener is not seraphic if that it is a kind of microeconomics thing that is seraphic is not true.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the brook does not hive. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not seraphic if that it is a kind of microeconomics thing that is seraphic is wrong. sent2: the fact that the diocesan is slippery but not non-seraphic is not correct. sent3: if that the diocesan is not microeconomics is not false the brook is mi... | sent6 & sent2 -> int1: the diocesan is not microeconomics.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: that the brook is a kind of microeconomics thing that does hive is right.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the fact that the diocesan is not nonslippery and is not non-seraphic does not hold then it is not microeconomics. | [
"the fact that the diocesan is slippery but not non-seraphic is not correct.",
"if that the diocesan is not microeconomics is not false the brook is microeconomics and it is a kind of a hive."
] | [
"It is not micro economics if the diocesan is nonslippery and notseraphic.",
"Microeconomics is not based on the fact that the diocesan is nonslippery and notseraphic."
] | It is not micro economics if the diocesan is nonslippery and notseraphic. | the fact that the diocesan is slippery but not non-seraphic is not correct. |
the brook does not hive. | sent1: something is not seraphic if that it is a kind of microeconomics thing that is seraphic is wrong. sent2: the fact that the diocesan is slippery but not non-seraphic is not correct. sent3: if that the diocesan is not microeconomics is not false the brook is microeconomics and it is a kind of a hive. sent4: if the... | ¬{C}{b} | sent1: (x): ¬({B}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent3: ¬{B}{a} -> ({B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent4: {AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: {B}{b} sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: {AB}{dh} sent8: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) | [
"sent6 & sent2 -> int1: the diocesan is not microeconomics.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: that the brook is a kind of microeconomics thing that does hive is right.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent6 & sent2 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent3 & int1 -> int2: ({B}{b} & {C}{b}); int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 5 | the Munchener is not seraphic. | ¬{AB}{o} | 4 | [
"sent1 -> int3: the Munchener is not seraphic if that it is a kind of microeconomics thing that is seraphic is not true.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the brook does not hive. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not seraphic if that it is a kind of microeconomics thing that is seraphic is wrong. sent2: the fact that the diocesan is slippery but not non-seraphic is not correct. sent3: if that the diocesan is not microeconomics is not false the brook is mi... | sent6 & sent2 -> int1: the diocesan is not microeconomics.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: that the brook is a kind of microeconomics thing that does hive is right.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the fact that the diocesan is not nonslippery and is not non-seraphic does not hold then it is not microeconomics. | [
"the fact that the diocesan is slippery but not non-seraphic is not correct.",
"if that the diocesan is not microeconomics is not false the brook is microeconomics and it is a kind of a hive."
] | [
"It is not micro economics if the diocesan is nonslippery and notseraphic.",
"Microeconomics is not based on the fact that the diocesan is nonslippery and notseraphic."
] | Microeconomics is not based on the fact that the diocesan is nonslippery and notseraphic. | if that the diocesan is not microeconomics is not false the brook is microeconomics and it is a kind of a hive. |
the fact that the soutache is not a dime hold. | sent1: that the soutache is a progressive but it is not a prophet is not true if something discounts. sent2: something is a dime if the fact that it is a kind of a progressive that is not a prophet is not right. sent3: that the soutache is a kind of progressive thing that is a prophet is not true. sent4: if the soutach... | ¬{D}{a} | sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {D}x sent3: ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent4: {C}{a} -> {D}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{C}x sent6: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent7: (x): {C}x -> {D}x sent8: (Ex): {A}x sent9: ¬({C}{dn} & ¬{CA}{dn}) | [
"sent8 & sent1 -> int1: that the soutache is a progressive but it is not a prophet is false.; sent2 -> int2: if the fact that that the soutache is a progressive but it is not a kind of a prophet is true is wrong it is a dime.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent8 & sent1 -> int1: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); sent2 -> int2: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 6 | the soutache is not a dime. | ¬{D}{a} | 6 | [
"sent5 -> int3: the microsome is not a prophet.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the soutache is not a dime hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the soutache is a progressive but it is not a prophet is not true if something discounts. sent2: something is a dime if the fact that it is a kind of a progressive that is not a prophet is not right. sent3: that the soutache is a ki... | sent8 & sent1 -> int1: that the soutache is a progressive but it is not a prophet is false.; sent2 -> int2: if the fact that that the soutache is a progressive but it is not a kind of a prophet is true is wrong it is a dime.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | something is a discount. | [
"that the soutache is a progressive but it is not a prophet is not true if something discounts.",
"something is a dime if the fact that it is a kind of a progressive that is not a prophet is not right."
] | [
"There is a discount.",
"A discount is something that is discounted."
] | There is a discount. | that the soutache is a progressive but it is not a prophet is not true if something discounts. |
the fact that the soutache is not a dime hold. | sent1: that the soutache is a progressive but it is not a prophet is not true if something discounts. sent2: something is a dime if the fact that it is a kind of a progressive that is not a prophet is not right. sent3: that the soutache is a kind of progressive thing that is a prophet is not true. sent4: if the soutach... | ¬{D}{a} | sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {D}x sent3: ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent4: {C}{a} -> {D}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{C}x sent6: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent7: (x): {C}x -> {D}x sent8: (Ex): {A}x sent9: ¬({C}{dn} & ¬{CA}{dn}) | [
"sent8 & sent1 -> int1: that the soutache is a progressive but it is not a prophet is false.; sent2 -> int2: if the fact that that the soutache is a progressive but it is not a kind of a prophet is true is wrong it is a dime.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent8 & sent1 -> int1: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); sent2 -> int2: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 6 | the soutache is not a dime. | ¬{D}{a} | 6 | [
"sent5 -> int3: the microsome is not a prophet.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the soutache is not a dime hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the soutache is a progressive but it is not a prophet is not true if something discounts. sent2: something is a dime if the fact that it is a kind of a progressive that is not a prophet is not right. sent3: that the soutache is a ki... | sent8 & sent1 -> int1: that the soutache is a progressive but it is not a prophet is false.; sent2 -> int2: if the fact that that the soutache is a progressive but it is not a kind of a prophet is true is wrong it is a dime.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | something is a discount. | [
"that the soutache is a progressive but it is not a prophet is not true if something discounts.",
"something is a dime if the fact that it is a kind of a progressive that is not a prophet is not right."
] | [
"There is a discount.",
"A discount is something that is discounted."
] | A discount is something that is discounted. | something is a dime if the fact that it is a kind of a progressive that is not a prophet is not right. |
that the calligrapher is intracerebral but not nonreticulate does not hold. | sent1: the Berliner is lactic if that the bodywork is a humidity is true. sent2: there exists something such that it is not intracerebral. sent3: if the Berliner is a Ostrya then it does not nestle. sent4: the schnook does isolate cicero or it is a kind of a haggle or both. sent5: the calligrapher is not maxillofacial ... | ¬({D}{b} & {C}{b}) | sent1: {J}{e} -> {H}{a} sent2: (Ex): ¬{D}x sent3: {A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent4: ({P}{f} v {Q}{f}) sent5: ¬(¬{F}{a} & {G}{a}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent6: ¬{L}{g} -> ¬(¬{J}{g} & ¬{M}{g}) sent7: (¬{B}{d} & ¬{I}{d}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent8: {A}{b} -> ¬{C}{b} sent9: (x): {H}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & {G}x) sent10: (x): ¬{E}x -> {D}x sent11: {B}{b} sent12: {... | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 | the calligrapher is intracerebral and it reticulates. | ({D}{b} & {C}{b}) | 8 | [
"sent10 -> int1: if the calligrapher is not maxillofacial that it is intracerebral is correct.; sent9 -> int2: if the Berliner is lactic that it is not distant and does circumnavigate drawbridge does not hold.; sent13 & sent18 -> int3: the cafe does not isolate spectrometer.; sent6 & int3 -> int4: that the cafe is ... | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the calligrapher is intracerebral but not nonreticulate does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the Berliner is lactic if that the bodywork is a humidity is true. sent2: there exists something such that it is not intracerebral. sent3: if the Berliner is a Ostrya then it does not nestle. sent4: the schno... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the calligrapher is not maxillofacial if the fact that the Berliner is not distant but it does circumnavigate drawbridge is wrong. | [
"that the cafe is not a kind of a humidity and it does not access cruller does not hold if it does not isolate spectrometer."
] | [
"the calligrapher is not maxillofacial if the fact that the Berliner is not distant but it does circumnavigate drawbridge is wrong."
] | the calligrapher is not maxillofacial if the fact that the Berliner is not distant but it does circumnavigate drawbridge is wrong. | that the cafe is not a kind of a humidity and it does not access cruller does not hold if it does not isolate spectrometer. |
that that the accessing daze happens but the extorting does not occur is incorrect hold. | sent1: the fact that if that the coastalness occurs and/or the lockstep does not occur is not right the extorting does not occur is correct. sent2: the lockstep does not occur. sent3: that the coastalness happens and/or the lockstep does not occur is wrong if the dipping occurs. sent4: the lockstep occurs if the coasta... | ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) | sent1: ¬({B} v ¬{A}) -> ¬{AB} sent2: ¬{A} sent3: {C} -> ¬({B} v ¬{A}) sent4: ¬{B} -> {A} sent5: ¬{G} -> ({D} & {AA}) sent6: ¬{I} -> ({E} & {F}) sent7: ({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent8: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent9: ({M} v {L}) sent10: {J} -> (¬{G} & ¬{H}) sent11: {E} -> {C} sent12: ¬{AB} | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 | the accessing daze but not the extorting happens. | ({AA} & ¬{AB}) | 7 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that that the accessing daze happens but the extorting does not occur is incorrect hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that if that the coastalness occurs and/or the lockstep does not occur is not right the extorting does not occur is correct. sent2: the lockstep does not occur. sent3: that the coastalne... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the ballup results in that the spiral does not occur and the bridal does not occur. | [
"that the coastalness happens and/or the lockstep does not occur is wrong if the dipping occurs."
] | [
"the ballup results in that the spiral does not occur and the bridal does not occur."
] | the ballup results in that the spiral does not occur and the bridal does not occur. | that the coastalness happens and/or the lockstep does not occur is wrong if the dipping occurs. |
the transferrin does not access blockade-runner and does not circumnavigate Cotacachi. | sent1: if the fact that the pullover is a kind of a monotheist that loads Taichung is not wrong then the masseuse does not access blockade-runner. sent2: the pullover does load Taichung. sent3: the fact that the transferrin does not access blockade-runner and it does not circumnavigate Cotacachi is wrong if the masseus... | (¬{C}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) | sent1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent2: {B}{a} sent3: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent4: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{c} & {D}{c}) sent5: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬({C}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent6: ¬({C}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent7: {A}{a} sent8: ¬(¬{C}{c} & {D}{c}) sent9: {AA}{aa} | [
"sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the pullover is a kind of a monotheist that loads Taichung.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: that the masseuse does not access blockade-runner is right.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent7 & sent2 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); sent1 & int1 -> int2: ¬{C}{b}; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 5 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the transferrin does not access blockade-runner and does not circumnavigate Cotacachi. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the pullover is a kind of a monotheist that loads Taichung is not wrong then the masseuse does not access blockade-runner. sent2: the pullover does load Taichung. sent3: the fact t... | sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the pullover is a kind of a monotheist that loads Taichung.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: that the masseuse does not access blockade-runner is right.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fact that the pullover is a monotheist is not false. | [
"the pullover does load Taichung.",
"if the fact that the pullover is a kind of a monotheist that loads Taichung is not wrong then the masseuse does not access blockade-runner.",
"the fact that the transferrin does not access blockade-runner and it does not circumnavigate Cotacachi is wrong if the masseuse does... | [
"The pullover is a monotheist.",
"It's not false that the pullover is a monotheist.",
"It's true that the pullover is a monotheist."
] | The pullover is a monotheist. | the pullover does load Taichung. |
the transferrin does not access blockade-runner and does not circumnavigate Cotacachi. | sent1: if the fact that the pullover is a kind of a monotheist that loads Taichung is not wrong then the masseuse does not access blockade-runner. sent2: the pullover does load Taichung. sent3: the fact that the transferrin does not access blockade-runner and it does not circumnavigate Cotacachi is wrong if the masseus... | (¬{C}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) | sent1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent2: {B}{a} sent3: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent4: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{c} & {D}{c}) sent5: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬({C}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent6: ¬({C}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent7: {A}{a} sent8: ¬(¬{C}{c} & {D}{c}) sent9: {AA}{aa} | [
"sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the pullover is a kind of a monotheist that loads Taichung.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: that the masseuse does not access blockade-runner is right.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent7 & sent2 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); sent1 & int1 -> int2: ¬{C}{b}; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 5 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the transferrin does not access blockade-runner and does not circumnavigate Cotacachi. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the pullover is a kind of a monotheist that loads Taichung is not wrong then the masseuse does not access blockade-runner. sent2: the pullover does load Taichung. sent3: the fact t... | sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the pullover is a kind of a monotheist that loads Taichung.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: that the masseuse does not access blockade-runner is right.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fact that the pullover is a monotheist is not false. | [
"the pullover does load Taichung.",
"if the fact that the pullover is a kind of a monotheist that loads Taichung is not wrong then the masseuse does not access blockade-runner.",
"the fact that the transferrin does not access blockade-runner and it does not circumnavigate Cotacachi is wrong if the masseuse does... | [
"The pullover is a monotheist.",
"It's not false that the pullover is a monotheist.",
"It's true that the pullover is a monotheist."
] | It's not false that the pullover is a monotheist. | if the fact that the pullover is a kind of a monotheist that loads Taichung is not wrong then the masseuse does not access blockade-runner. |
the transferrin does not access blockade-runner and does not circumnavigate Cotacachi. | sent1: if the fact that the pullover is a kind of a monotheist that loads Taichung is not wrong then the masseuse does not access blockade-runner. sent2: the pullover does load Taichung. sent3: the fact that the transferrin does not access blockade-runner and it does not circumnavigate Cotacachi is wrong if the masseus... | (¬{C}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) | sent1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent2: {B}{a} sent3: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent4: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{c} & {D}{c}) sent5: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬({C}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent6: ¬({C}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent7: {A}{a} sent8: ¬(¬{C}{c} & {D}{c}) sent9: {AA}{aa} | [
"sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the pullover is a kind of a monotheist that loads Taichung.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: that the masseuse does not access blockade-runner is right.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent7 & sent2 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); sent1 & int1 -> int2: ¬{C}{b}; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 5 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the transferrin does not access blockade-runner and does not circumnavigate Cotacachi. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the pullover is a kind of a monotheist that loads Taichung is not wrong then the masseuse does not access blockade-runner. sent2: the pullover does load Taichung. sent3: the fact t... | sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the pullover is a kind of a monotheist that loads Taichung.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: that the masseuse does not access blockade-runner is right.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fact that the pullover is a monotheist is not false. | [
"the pullover does load Taichung.",
"if the fact that the pullover is a kind of a monotheist that loads Taichung is not wrong then the masseuse does not access blockade-runner.",
"the fact that the transferrin does not access blockade-runner and it does not circumnavigate Cotacachi is wrong if the masseuse does... | [
"The pullover is a monotheist.",
"It's not false that the pullover is a monotheist.",
"It's true that the pullover is a monotheist."
] | It's true that the pullover is a monotheist. | the fact that the transferrin does not access blockade-runner and it does not circumnavigate Cotacachi is wrong if the masseuse does not access blockade-runner. |
that the positionableness but not the boiling happens is incorrect. | sent1: the sorrowfulness does not occur and the bicker does not occur if the christianness does not occur. sent2: if the circumnavigating oxytetracycline does not occur that the positionableness but not the boiling happens does not hold. sent3: the circumnavigating oxytetracycline happens. sent4: the boiling does not o... | ¬({E} & ¬{D}) | sent1: ¬{I} -> (¬{H} & ¬{G}) sent2: ¬{A} -> ¬({E} & ¬{D}) sent3: {A} sent4: ¬{D} sent5: {B} sent6: ¬{G} -> ({C} & {F}) sent7: ¬{C} -> ¬{D} sent8: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent9: ¬{C} -> ({E} & ¬{D}) | [
"sent3 & sent5 -> int1: the circumnavigating oxytetracycline and the pneumonicness occurs.; sent8 & int1 -> int2: the Concord does not occur.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent3 & sent5 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); sent8 & int1 -> int2: ¬{C}; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 5 | that the fact that the positionableness but not the boiling happens hold is wrong. | ¬({E} & ¬{D}) | 8 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the positionableness but not the boiling happens is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the sorrowfulness does not occur and the bicker does not occur if the christianness does not occur. sent2: if the circumnavigating oxytetracycline does not occur that the positionableness but not the boiling happens ... | sent3 & sent5 -> int1: the circumnavigating oxytetracycline and the pneumonicness occurs.; sent8 & int1 -> int2: the Concord does not occur.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the circumnavigating oxytetracycline happens. | [
"the fact that the pneumonicness happens is true.",
"that the Concord does not occur is brought about by that the circumnavigating oxytetracycline occurs and the pneumonicness occurs.",
"the positionableness occurs and the boiling does not occur if the Concord does not occur."
] | [
"The circumnavigating of oxytetracycline happens.",
"The oxytetracycline is circumnavigating.",
"It happens with oxytetracycline."
] | The circumnavigating of oxytetracycline happens. | the fact that the pneumonicness happens is true. |
that the positionableness but not the boiling happens is incorrect. | sent1: the sorrowfulness does not occur and the bicker does not occur if the christianness does not occur. sent2: if the circumnavigating oxytetracycline does not occur that the positionableness but not the boiling happens does not hold. sent3: the circumnavigating oxytetracycline happens. sent4: the boiling does not o... | ¬({E} & ¬{D}) | sent1: ¬{I} -> (¬{H} & ¬{G}) sent2: ¬{A} -> ¬({E} & ¬{D}) sent3: {A} sent4: ¬{D} sent5: {B} sent6: ¬{G} -> ({C} & {F}) sent7: ¬{C} -> ¬{D} sent8: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent9: ¬{C} -> ({E} & ¬{D}) | [
"sent3 & sent5 -> int1: the circumnavigating oxytetracycline and the pneumonicness occurs.; sent8 & int1 -> int2: the Concord does not occur.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent3 & sent5 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); sent8 & int1 -> int2: ¬{C}; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 5 | that the fact that the positionableness but not the boiling happens hold is wrong. | ¬({E} & ¬{D}) | 8 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the positionableness but not the boiling happens is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the sorrowfulness does not occur and the bicker does not occur if the christianness does not occur. sent2: if the circumnavigating oxytetracycline does not occur that the positionableness but not the boiling happens ... | sent3 & sent5 -> int1: the circumnavigating oxytetracycline and the pneumonicness occurs.; sent8 & int1 -> int2: the Concord does not occur.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the circumnavigating oxytetracycline happens. | [
"the fact that the pneumonicness happens is true.",
"that the Concord does not occur is brought about by that the circumnavigating oxytetracycline occurs and the pneumonicness occurs.",
"the positionableness occurs and the boiling does not occur if the Concord does not occur."
] | [
"The circumnavigating of oxytetracycline happens.",
"The oxytetracycline is circumnavigating.",
"It happens with oxytetracycline."
] | The oxytetracycline is circumnavigating. | that the Concord does not occur is brought about by that the circumnavigating oxytetracycline occurs and the pneumonicness occurs. |
that the positionableness but not the boiling happens is incorrect. | sent1: the sorrowfulness does not occur and the bicker does not occur if the christianness does not occur. sent2: if the circumnavigating oxytetracycline does not occur that the positionableness but not the boiling happens does not hold. sent3: the circumnavigating oxytetracycline happens. sent4: the boiling does not o... | ¬({E} & ¬{D}) | sent1: ¬{I} -> (¬{H} & ¬{G}) sent2: ¬{A} -> ¬({E} & ¬{D}) sent3: {A} sent4: ¬{D} sent5: {B} sent6: ¬{G} -> ({C} & {F}) sent7: ¬{C} -> ¬{D} sent8: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent9: ¬{C} -> ({E} & ¬{D}) | [
"sent3 & sent5 -> int1: the circumnavigating oxytetracycline and the pneumonicness occurs.; sent8 & int1 -> int2: the Concord does not occur.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent3 & sent5 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); sent8 & int1 -> int2: ¬{C}; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 5 | that the fact that the positionableness but not the boiling happens hold is wrong. | ¬({E} & ¬{D}) | 8 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the positionableness but not the boiling happens is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the sorrowfulness does not occur and the bicker does not occur if the christianness does not occur. sent2: if the circumnavigating oxytetracycline does not occur that the positionableness but not the boiling happens ... | sent3 & sent5 -> int1: the circumnavigating oxytetracycline and the pneumonicness occurs.; sent8 & int1 -> int2: the Concord does not occur.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the circumnavigating oxytetracycline happens. | [
"the fact that the pneumonicness happens is true.",
"that the Concord does not occur is brought about by that the circumnavigating oxytetracycline occurs and the pneumonicness occurs.",
"the positionableness occurs and the boiling does not occur if the Concord does not occur."
] | [
"The circumnavigating of oxytetracycline happens.",
"The oxytetracycline is circumnavigating.",
"It happens with oxytetracycline."
] | It happens with oxytetracycline. | the positionableness occurs and the boiling does not occur if the Concord does not occur. |
the fireplace is not a joke. | sent1: the butcherbird is not a kind of an extremist but it is a arrack if the cornflower is not a arrack. sent2: there exists something such that that it freshens and it is long does not hold. sent3: the fact that the butcherbird is not a digitigrade hold. sent4: if the butcherbird is an extremist and it is a arrack t... | ¬{C}{c} | sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{B}{b} & {A}{b}) sent2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: ¬{J}{b} sent4: ({B}{b} & {A}{b}) -> {C}{c} sent5: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent6: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent7: (Ex): ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent8: (x): (¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{D}x sent9: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{A}{c} sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{C}{b} sent11: ¬... | [
"sent2 & sent6 -> int1: the cornflower is not a kind of a arrack.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the butcherbird is not an extremist but it is a arrack.; int2 & sent19 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent2 & sent6 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; int1 & sent1 -> int2: (¬{B}{b} & {A}{b}); int2 & sent19 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 | the crookneck is long. | {AB}{e} | 7 | [
"sent13 -> int3: if the crookneck is a arrack then the fact that it is long is right.; sent8 -> int4: the cornflower is not calligraphic if it does not circumnavigate Dama and it does not access tolazoline.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fireplace is not a joke. ; $context$ = sent1: the butcherbird is not a kind of an extremist but it is a arrack if the cornflower is not a arrack. sent2: there exists something such that that it freshens and it is long does not hold. sent3: the fact that the butcherbird is not a digitigrade hold. sent... | sent2 & sent6 -> int1: the cornflower is not a kind of a arrack.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the butcherbird is not an extremist but it is a arrack.; int2 & sent19 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that that it freshens and it is long does not hold. | [
"if there exists something such that that it does freshen and it is long is not right then the cornflower is not a arrack.",
"the butcherbird is not a kind of an extremist but it is a arrack if the cornflower is not a arrack.",
"if the butcherbird is not an extremist but it is a arrack then the fact that the fi... | [
"It is long and it does not hold.",
"It is long and it doesn't hold.",
"It isn't long that it doesn't hold."
] | It is long and it does not hold. | if there exists something such that that it does freshen and it is long is not right then the cornflower is not a arrack. |
the fireplace is not a joke. | sent1: the butcherbird is not a kind of an extremist but it is a arrack if the cornflower is not a arrack. sent2: there exists something such that that it freshens and it is long does not hold. sent3: the fact that the butcherbird is not a digitigrade hold. sent4: if the butcherbird is an extremist and it is a arrack t... | ¬{C}{c} | sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{B}{b} & {A}{b}) sent2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: ¬{J}{b} sent4: ({B}{b} & {A}{b}) -> {C}{c} sent5: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent6: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent7: (Ex): ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent8: (x): (¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{D}x sent9: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{A}{c} sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{C}{b} sent11: ¬... | [
"sent2 & sent6 -> int1: the cornflower is not a kind of a arrack.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the butcherbird is not an extremist but it is a arrack.; int2 & sent19 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent2 & sent6 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; int1 & sent1 -> int2: (¬{B}{b} & {A}{b}); int2 & sent19 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 | the crookneck is long. | {AB}{e} | 7 | [
"sent13 -> int3: if the crookneck is a arrack then the fact that it is long is right.; sent8 -> int4: the cornflower is not calligraphic if it does not circumnavigate Dama and it does not access tolazoline.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fireplace is not a joke. ; $context$ = sent1: the butcherbird is not a kind of an extremist but it is a arrack if the cornflower is not a arrack. sent2: there exists something such that that it freshens and it is long does not hold. sent3: the fact that the butcherbird is not a digitigrade hold. sent... | sent2 & sent6 -> int1: the cornflower is not a kind of a arrack.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the butcherbird is not an extremist but it is a arrack.; int2 & sent19 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that that it freshens and it is long does not hold. | [
"if there exists something such that that it does freshen and it is long is not right then the cornflower is not a arrack.",
"the butcherbird is not a kind of an extremist but it is a arrack if the cornflower is not a arrack.",
"if the butcherbird is not an extremist but it is a arrack then the fact that the fi... | [
"It is long and it does not hold.",
"It is long and it doesn't hold.",
"It isn't long that it doesn't hold."
] | It is long and it doesn't hold. | the butcherbird is not a kind of an extremist but it is a arrack if the cornflower is not a arrack. |
the fireplace is not a joke. | sent1: the butcherbird is not a kind of an extremist but it is a arrack if the cornflower is not a arrack. sent2: there exists something such that that it freshens and it is long does not hold. sent3: the fact that the butcherbird is not a digitigrade hold. sent4: if the butcherbird is an extremist and it is a arrack t... | ¬{C}{c} | sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{B}{b} & {A}{b}) sent2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: ¬{J}{b} sent4: ({B}{b} & {A}{b}) -> {C}{c} sent5: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent6: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent7: (Ex): ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent8: (x): (¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{D}x sent9: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{A}{c} sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{C}{b} sent11: ¬... | [
"sent2 & sent6 -> int1: the cornflower is not a kind of a arrack.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the butcherbird is not an extremist but it is a arrack.; int2 & sent19 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent2 & sent6 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; int1 & sent1 -> int2: (¬{B}{b} & {A}{b}); int2 & sent19 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 | the crookneck is long. | {AB}{e} | 7 | [
"sent13 -> int3: if the crookneck is a arrack then the fact that it is long is right.; sent8 -> int4: the cornflower is not calligraphic if it does not circumnavigate Dama and it does not access tolazoline.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fireplace is not a joke. ; $context$ = sent1: the butcherbird is not a kind of an extremist but it is a arrack if the cornflower is not a arrack. sent2: there exists something such that that it freshens and it is long does not hold. sent3: the fact that the butcherbird is not a digitigrade hold. sent... | sent2 & sent6 -> int1: the cornflower is not a kind of a arrack.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the butcherbird is not an extremist but it is a arrack.; int2 & sent19 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that that it freshens and it is long does not hold. | [
"if there exists something such that that it does freshen and it is long is not right then the cornflower is not a arrack.",
"the butcherbird is not a kind of an extremist but it is a arrack if the cornflower is not a arrack.",
"if the butcherbird is not an extremist but it is a arrack then the fact that the fi... | [
"It is long and it does not hold.",
"It is long and it doesn't hold.",
"It isn't long that it doesn't hold."
] | It isn't long that it doesn't hold. | if the butcherbird is not an extremist but it is a arrack then the fact that the fireplace is a kind of a joke is correct. |
the dressmaker is a kind of a wrapped and is not buccal. | sent1: if that the tincture is a clapboard but it is not actinomycotic is not correct the dressmaker is not a clapboard. sent2: something is not buccal if it is not a coin. sent3: something is buccal and it is butyric if it is not Columbian. sent4: if something is not a chicane it is not a fascist. sent5: the amiodaron... | ({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) | sent1: ¬({F}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) -> ¬{F}{b} sent2: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬{D}x sent3: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({D}x & {A}x) sent4: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬{H}x sent5: ¬{F}{b} -> ({D}{a} & {E}{a}) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {E}x) -> ¬{D}x sent7: (x): ¬({A}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{B}x sent8: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent9: {B}{a} sent10: ¬{H}{d} -> ¬({F}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) sent1... | [
"sent8 -> int1: the amiodarone is butyric.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: the dressmaker does wrap.; sent6 -> int3: if that the dressmaker is not a clapboard but it does coin is wrong then it is not buccal.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent8 -> int1: {A}{a}; int1 & sent13 -> int2: {C}{b}; sent6 -> int3: ¬(¬{F}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{D}{b};"
] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 9 | 0 | 9 | the wanderer is not Columbian. | ¬{B}{iu} | 9 | [
"sent7 -> int4: if the fact that the wanderer is butyric and/or it does not wrap does not hold it is not Columbian.; sent4 -> int5: the transpiration is not fascist if it is not a chicane.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the dressmaker is a kind of a wrapped and is not buccal. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the tincture is a clapboard but it is not actinomycotic is not correct the dressmaker is not a clapboard. sent2: something is not buccal if it is not a coin. sent3: something is buccal and it is butyric if it is not Col... | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the amiodarone is butyric thing that is Columbian. | [
"the fact that the dressmaker wraps is right if the amiodarone is butyric.",
"something is not buccal if that it is not a clapboard and is a coin does not hold."
] | [
"There is a butyric thing called the amiodarone.",
"The amiodarone is a thing in Columbia."
] | There is a butyric thing called the amiodarone. | the fact that the dressmaker wraps is right if the amiodarone is butyric. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.