hypothesis stringlengths 13 184 | facts stringlengths 20 1.21k | proofs stringlengths 76 897 | proof_label stringclasses 2
values | steps int64 1 10 | num_all_distractors int64 0 0 | prompt_serial stringlengths 280 1.51k | proof_serial stringlengths 87 911 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This liquefaction is a Tunicata. | fact1: If that that pachouli retrogresses schmeer and is chartaceous is valid then that Nigerien does not crumble. fact2: That if that wax is a HI then that pachouli retrogresses schmeer is right. fact3: That pachouli is chartaceous. fact4: If the fact that that Nigerien is not a Oslo and does not crumble holds then th... | fact7 -> int1: Virginia holds.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: That wax is classed as a Virgilia.; int2 & fact6 -> int3: That that wax is a HI holds.; int3 & fact2 -> int4: That that pachouli retrogresses schmeer holds.; int4 & fact3 -> int5: That pachouli retrogresses schmeer and he is chartaceous.; int5 & fact1 -> int6: That ... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If that that pachouli retrogresses schmeer and is chartaceous is valid then that Nigerien does not crumble.... | fact7 -> int1: Virginia holds.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: That wax is classed as a Virgilia.; int2 & fact6 -> int3: That that wax is a HI holds.; int3 & fact2 -> int4: That that pachouli retrogresses schmeer holds.; int4 & fact3 -> int5: That pachouli retrogresses schmeer and he is chartaceous.; int5 & fact1 -> int6: That ... |
That royal does not please Tangier. | fact1: This scute is not a Spheniscidae if that he does not bid sensualness and he does not crystallised lividity is false. fact2: If this Zr is a tied Benjamin is a monoclonal. fact3: That this scute does not bid sensualness and does not crystallised lividity does not hold if this guidebook does not crystallised livid... | fact4 & fact6 -> int1: That that catnap is not prenominal holds.; int1 & fact9 -> int2: That that catnap is prenominal and/or this thing is associatory is invalid.; int2 & fact5 -> int3: The statement that this guidebook crystalliseds lividity is wrong.; int3 & fact3 -> int4: That this scute does not bid sensualness an... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: This scute is not a Spheniscidae if that he does not bid sensualness and he does not crystallised lividity ... | fact4 & fact6 -> int1: That that catnap is not prenominal holds.; int1 & fact9 -> int2: That that catnap is prenominal and/or this thing is associatory is invalid.; int2 & fact5 -> int3: The statement that this guidebook crystalliseds lividity is wrong.; int3 & fact3 -> int4: That this scute does not bid sensualness an... |
That SACEUR accumulates dusk and this person points. | fact1: This wheelwork is alterable if that this recovery is not a Euthynnus and that one does not leaded is incorrect. fact2: That this recovery neither is a Euthynnus nor leadeds is false. fact3: That equid is not non-idiomatic if it is not jumpy. fact4: That SACEUR points. fact5: This jokester lotses escheat if this ... | fact1 & fact2 -> int1: This wheelwork is alterable.; int1 & fact8 -> int2: This Atakapa is undiversified.; int2 & fact5 -> int3: This jokester lotses escheat.; int3 & fact9 -> int4: That that rachis is unhappy stands.; int4 -> int5: That rachis is unhappy and/or she is not orthodontic.; int5 & fact7 -> int6: That equid... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: This wheelwork is alterable if that this recovery is not a Euthynnus and that one does not leaded is incorr... | fact1 & fact2 -> int1: This wheelwork is alterable.; int1 & fact8 -> int2: This Atakapa is undiversified.; int2 & fact5 -> int3: This jokester lotses escheat.; int3 & fact9 -> int4: That that rachis is unhappy stands.; int4 -> int5: That rachis is unhappy and/or she is not orthodontic.; int5 & fact7 -> int6: That equid... |
The fact that this cockerel is an eased or this person darts luminosity or both if that this jambon does not pamper Hindoostani holds is not right. | fact1: That that this jambon does not observe Stenopelmatidae is right if this jambon does not deconsecrate Macleaya and is not a afflatus holds. fact2: The claim that if this cockerel is a hypertrophy then this cockerel is a hypertrophy but it does not assist stands. fact3: This cockerel is a kind of an eased if this ... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that this jambon does not pamper Hindoostani.; fact4 & assump1 -> int1: That this jambon neither deconsecrates Macleaya nor is a afflatus is right.; int1 & fact1 -> int2: This jambon does not observe Stenopelmatidae.; int2 & fact5 -> int3: This cockerel observes Stenopelmatidae and this th... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That that this jambon does not observe Stenopelmatidae is right if this jambon does not deconsecrate Maclea... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that this jambon does not pamper Hindoostani.; fact4 & assump1 -> int1: That this jambon neither deconsecrates Macleaya nor is a afflatus is right.; int1 & fact1 -> int2: This jambon does not observe Stenopelmatidae.; int2 & fact5 -> int3: This cockerel observes Stenopelmatidae and this th... |
Hijinks but not supplying occurs. | fact1: That neither diaspora happens nor instalment occurs are triggered by that instalment does not happens. fact2: If diaspora does not takes place then that the fact that hijinks occurs but supplying does not happens does not stand is right. fact3: If rotogravure does not occurs inhabiting does not occurs and valse ... | fact7 & fact8 & fact10 -> int1: Stratifying Gilgamesh occurs.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: That that retrospecting resh does not happens but coaling Vesicaria takes place holds is wrong.; int2 & fact9 -> int3: Rotogravure does not happens.; int3 & fact3 -> int4: Not inhabiting but valse takes place.; int4 & fact4 -> int5: So... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That neither diaspora happens nor instalment occurs are triggered by that instalment does not happens. fact... | fact7 & fact8 & fact10 -> int1: Stratifying Gilgamesh occurs.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: That that retrospecting resh does not happens but coaling Vesicaria takes place holds is wrong.; int2 & fact9 -> int3: Rotogravure does not happens.; int3 & fact3 -> int4: Not inhabiting but valse takes place.; int4 & fact4 -> int5: So... |
This minisubmarine does not happen. | fact1: That flowage exposits billowing and is not a Pomatomus if this comb exposits billowing. fact2: If that this frappe is not a rakishness is correct this frappe is not a rakishness but that thing is a nettled. fact3: If this frappe is a nettled this frappe is undesiring. fact4: Mikayla bushes Huss if that flowage e... | fact7 -> int1: This frappe is not a rakishness.; int1 & fact2 -> int2: This frappe is not a rakishness but a nettled.; int2 -> int3: This frappe is a nettled.; int3 & fact3 -> int4: This frappe is undesiring.; int4 & fact9 -> int5: That this comb exposits billowing is true.; int5 & fact1 -> int6: That flowage does expo... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That flowage exposits billowing and is not a Pomatomus if this comb exposits billowing. fact2: If that this... | fact7 -> int1: This frappe is not a rakishness.; int1 & fact2 -> int2: This frappe is not a rakishness but a nettled.; int2 -> int3: This frappe is a nettled.; int3 & fact3 -> int4: This frappe is undesiring.; int4 & fact9 -> int5: That this comb exposits billowing is true.; int5 & fact1 -> int6: That flowage does expo... |
Reservation occurs. | fact1: If the statement that chocking takes place and smatteringing letterpress does not takes place does not hold impatientness takes place. fact2: That chocking but not smatteringing letterpress takes place does not stand if pianisticness does not happens. fact3: That sweltering occurs or exercising or both prevents ... | fact8 -> int1: Bunfight takes place or shriveling Comatulidae does not happens or both.; int1 & fact7 -> int2: Sweltering happens.; int2 -> int3: Sweltering occurs and/or exercising occurs.; int3 & fact3 -> int4: Neurasthenic does not occurs.; int4 -> int5: Either neurasthenic does not happens or afebrileness does not ... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If the statement that chocking takes place and smatteringing letterpress does not takes place does not hold... | fact8 -> int1: Bunfight takes place or shriveling Comatulidae does not happens or both.; int1 & fact7 -> int2: Sweltering happens.; int2 -> int3: Sweltering occurs and/or exercising occurs.; int3 & fact3 -> int4: Neurasthenic does not occurs.; int4 -> int5: Either neurasthenic does not happens or afebrileness does not ... |
That chokedamp is not a acarophobia and it is non-juicy. | fact1: That that housetop does enfranchise ennui and syllabises cytology does not hold. fact2: That housetop does not asphalt grimness if that that housetop does enfranchise ennui and the one syllabises cytology is wrong. fact3: Esperanza is not a cerulean if that it is a sadism and a tularemia does not hold. fact4: If... | fact2 & fact1 -> int1: That that housetop does not asphalt grimness is right.; int1 & fact7 -> int2: That housetop is both not non-albinotic and non-catapultian.; int2 -> int3: That housetop is not catapultian.; int3 & fact8 -> int4: That epacris is both not a tularemia and isomorphous.; int4 -> int5: That epacris is n... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That that housetop does enfranchise ennui and syllabises cytology does not hold. fact2: That housetop does ... | fact2 & fact1 -> int1: That that housetop does not asphalt grimness is right.; int1 & fact7 -> int2: That housetop is both not non-albinotic and non-catapultian.; int2 -> int3: That housetop is not catapultian.; int3 & fact8 -> int4: That epacris is both not a tularemia and isomorphous.; int4 -> int5: That epacris is n... |
Homocercalness does not takes place. | fact1: Homocercalness is prevented by clustering mononucleosis. fact2: If gravitationalness and powwow happen embarrassing Moneses does not occurs. fact3: That synchronousness does not occurs is prevented by non-hydrophilicness. fact4: If synchronousness occurs that that that not fasting but meagerliness happens holds ... | fact9 & fact5 -> int1: Gravitationalness occurs and powwow takes place.; int1 & fact2 -> int2: Embarrassing Moneses does not happens.; int2 & fact11 -> int3: Embarrassing Moneses does not takes place and jab occurs.; int3 & fact12 -> int4: Hydrophilicness does not happens.; int4 & fact3 -> int5: Synchronousness takes p... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: Homocercalness is prevented by clustering mononucleosis. fact2: If gravitationalness and powwow happen emba... | fact9 & fact5 -> int1: Gravitationalness occurs and powwow takes place.; int1 & fact2 -> int2: Embarrassing Moneses does not happens.; int2 & fact11 -> int3: Embarrassing Moneses does not takes place and jab occurs.; int3 & fact12 -> int4: Hydrophilicness does not happens.; int4 & fact3 -> int5: Synchronousness takes p... |
If this pavis is an inaugural then that this glucinium does not stripe millicurie and remembers is false. | fact1: The exile does not stripe millicurie if this pavis does not disincline dunghill and/or is a pragmatic. fact2: That mandril neither is a Telanthera nor is acyclic. fact3: If that Lopid is not a loathsomeness but the thing supposes bebop the proposition that this pavis guesses is valid. fact4: If that mandril is n... | fact5 & fact2 -> int1: That mandril is not agrological.; int1 & fact4 -> int2: That that Lopid is not a loathsomeness but she/he supposes bebop is valid.; int2 & fact3 -> int3: This pavis guesses.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that this pavis is an inaugural.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: This pavis is an inaugural that do... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: The exile does not stripe millicurie if this pavis does not disincline dunghill and/or is a pragmatic. fact... | fact5 & fact2 -> int1: That mandril is not agrological.; int1 & fact4 -> int2: That that Lopid is not a loathsomeness but she/he supposes bebop is valid.; int2 & fact3 -> int3: This pavis guesses.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that this pavis is an inaugural.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: This pavis is an inaugural that do... |
That semitropics transposes ascendance. | fact1: That that semitropics is a heavy holds if that the person does subcontract and does not publicize is invalid. fact2: This calvaria subcontracts if something that does not rule oxidates misinterpretation. fact3: That semitropics does not transpose ascendance if this one sheers Mentzelia and/or this one is a kind ... | fact7 & fact6 -> int1: That Francophobe charters.; int1 & fact9 -> int2: That Francophobe charters and is a Tiu.; int2 & fact5 -> int3: That goldfinch is not a forte.; int3 & fact4 -> int4: That newscaster does not rule and oxidates misinterpretation.; int4 -> int5: Something does not rule and oxidates misinterpretatio... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That that semitropics is a heavy holds if that the person does subcontract and does not publicize is invali... | fact7 & fact6 -> int1: That Francophobe charters.; int1 & fact9 -> int2: That Francophobe charters and is a Tiu.; int2 & fact5 -> int3: That goldfinch is not a forte.; int3 & fact4 -> int4: That newscaster does not rule and oxidates misinterpretation.; int4 -> int5: Something does not rule and oxidates misinterpretatio... |
That chinoiserie is a Oniscidae. | fact1: If that bunkmate is not unsusceptible and it does not scrag then that venthole does not blister Accho. fact2: That chinoiserie is a Oniscidae if that thing is originative. fact3: If this indinavir is not a Aegates it is both non-sedimentary and a Ornithorhynchus. fact4: If this indinavir is not sedimentary but t... | fact1 & fact8 -> int1: That venthole does not blister Accho.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: That warship is airworthy thing that does not blister Accho.; int2 -> int3: That that warship does not blister Accho stands.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: This indinavir is not a Aegates.; int4 & fact3 -> int5: This indinavir is not sedimentar... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If that bunkmate is not unsusceptible and it does not scrag then that venthole does not blister Accho. fact... | fact1 & fact8 -> int1: That venthole does not blister Accho.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: That warship is airworthy thing that does not blister Accho.; int2 -> int3: That that warship does not blister Accho stands.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: This indinavir is not a Aegates.; int4 & fact3 -> int5: This indinavir is not sedimentar... |
That that hemiacetal is not a Meridian stands. | fact1: That this provisioner is theistical but it is not a jolting does not stand if that neurotransmitter does not mangle Rupert. fact2: If this linebacker is nonspecific this person is not a checked. fact3: If this linebacker is not a checked this dipteron is a checked and is not categorized as a frail. fact4: If thi... | fact2 & fact8 -> int1: This linebacker is not a checked.; int1 & fact3 -> int2: That this dipteron is both a checked and not a frail is true.; int2 -> int3: This dipteron is not a frail.; int3 & fact4 -> int4: That that lamplighter is a frail and it is starless is false.; int4 & fact7 -> int5: That neurotransmitter doe... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That this provisioner is theistical but it is not a jolting does not stand if that neurotransmitter does no... | fact2 & fact8 -> int1: This linebacker is not a checked.; int1 & fact3 -> int2: That this dipteron is both a checked and not a frail is true.; int2 -> int3: This dipteron is not a frail.; int3 & fact4 -> int4: That that lamplighter is a frail and it is starless is false.; int4 & fact7 -> int5: That neurotransmitter doe... |
The fact that that decriminalization happens is brought about by that webbing does not happens is invalid. | fact1: That hydropathy does not occurs is prevented by that diagramming occurs. fact2: That platyrrhineness occurs and/or dissociating Dolichos does not takes place does not stand if webbing does not happens. fact3: If blooding stiffness takes place and Rhenishness happens symbolising Erignathus does not takes place. f... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that webbing does not happens.; fact2 & assump1 -> int1: That platyrrhineness occurs and/or dissociating Dolichos does not takes place does not hold.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: Diagramming takes place.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: Hydropathy happens.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: Blooding stiffness happens... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That hydropathy does not occurs is prevented by that diagramming occurs. fact2: That platyrrhineness occurs... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that webbing does not happens.; fact2 & assump1 -> int1: That platyrrhineness occurs and/or dissociating Dolichos does not takes place does not hold.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: Diagramming takes place.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: Hydropathy happens.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: Blooding stiffness happens... |
This cordovan secedes if it abuts fuddle. | fact1: If this rootstock is not a dreaminess and sentimentalises Habenaria then this cordovan is postmenopausal. fact2: If this cordovan is not judicial this cordovan does secede. fact3: This rootstock is not a desired if that that it is not a recessive and is not conspirative is right does not hold. fact4: If this cor... | fact7 & fact5 -> int1: Timmy is not a Pelagianism.; int1 & fact8 -> int2: The fact that this rootstock is not a recessive and it is not conspirative does not stand.; int2 & fact3 -> int3: This rootstock is not a desired.; int3 & fact6 -> int4: This rootstock is not a dreaminess but it sentimentalises Habenaria.; int4 &... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If this rootstock is not a dreaminess and sentimentalises Habenaria then this cordovan is postmenopausal. f... | fact7 & fact5 -> int1: Timmy is not a Pelagianism.; int1 & fact8 -> int2: The fact that this rootstock is not a recessive and it is not conspirative does not stand.; int2 & fact3 -> int3: This rootstock is not a desired.; int3 & fact6 -> int4: This rootstock is not a dreaminess but it sentimentalises Habenaria.; int4 &... |
That the proposition that that piddock bats earliness and it is discriminatory holds does not stand. | fact1: That piddock is discriminatory. fact2: If this gust does poise Newburgh this taxman is not dry. fact3: This mensh is biologic if that afters does not headline Aeneid but he/she is a Yastrzemski. fact4: If this oddment is not unbeneficed and it is not classed as a bilharziasis then that afters does not headline A... | fact5 & fact8 -> int1: This gust poises Newburgh.; int1 & fact2 -> int2: This taxman is not dry.; int2 -> int3: Either this taxman is categorized as a fast or she/he is not dry or both.; int3 & fact10 -> int4: This oddment is not tuberculate.; int4 & fact9 -> int5: This oddment is not unbeneficed and it is not a bilhar... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That piddock is discriminatory. fact2: If this gust does poise Newburgh this taxman is not dry. fact3: This... | fact5 & fact8 -> int1: This gust poises Newburgh.; int1 & fact2 -> int2: This taxman is not dry.; int2 -> int3: Either this taxman is categorized as a fast or she/he is not dry or both.; int3 & fact10 -> int4: This oddment is not tuberculate.; int4 & fact9 -> int5: This oddment is not unbeneficed and it is not a bilhar... |
That aggregator is not a Xenopodidae and it is not a decigram if this animist is a carnality. | fact1: This dihybrid is not postprandial if this animist is a philharmonic that is a carnality. fact2: That aggregator is not a decigram if that aggregator knells decrescendo. fact3: Everybody is intermolecular. fact4: If this dihybrid is not postprandial then that aggregator is both non-slack and postprandial. fact5: ... | fact3 -> int1: That merchant is intermolecular.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: This animist is a kind of a philharmonic.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that this animist is a carnality.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: This animist is a philharmonic and is a carnality.; int3 & fact1 -> int4: This dihybrid is not postprandial.; int4 & ... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: This dihybrid is not postprandial if this animist is a philharmonic that is a carnality. fact2: That aggreg... | fact3 -> int1: That merchant is intermolecular.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: This animist is a kind of a philharmonic.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that this animist is a carnality.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: This animist is a philharmonic and is a carnality.; int3 & fact1 -> int4: This dihybrid is not postprandial.; int4 & ... |
Cara is an overgrowth. | fact1: That propellor is a palaeolithic if that that propellor is not a Thylacinus but adrenergic does not stand. fact2: If this procurator disturbs intactness then this procurator is a nudeness. fact3: That if that propellor is a rag or is gradual or both then that Cara is not an overgrowth stands is correct. fact4: I... | fact8 & fact10 -> int1: This procurator ebbs ONI.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: This procurator is a Crow.; int2 & fact9 -> int3: This procurator disturbs intactness.; int3 & fact2 -> int4: This procurator is a nudeness.; int4 & fact6 -> int5: That propellor is a Papeete.; int5 & fact7 -> int6: The fact that that propellor is... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That propellor is a palaeolithic if that that propellor is not a Thylacinus but adrenergic does not stand. ... | fact8 & fact10 -> int1: This procurator ebbs ONI.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: This procurator is a Crow.; int2 & fact9 -> int3: This procurator disturbs intactness.; int3 & fact2 -> int4: This procurator is a nudeness.; int4 & fact6 -> int5: That propellor is a Papeete.; int5 & fact7 -> int6: The fact that that propellor is... |
The fact that simmering Periplaneta prevents non-chemicness is incorrect. | fact1: Uneagerness does not occurs if neither saponifieding takes place nor demulsifying takes place. fact2: Non-uneagerness prevents non-chemicness. fact3: Simmering Periplaneta prevents that spraying delight does not occurs. fact4: If zoom does not happens neither zoom nor allaying Abruzzi take place. fact5: That dem... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that simmering Periplaneta happens.; fact3 & assump1 -> int1: Spraying delight takes place.; int1 -> int2: Needling spyware occurs and/or spraying delight occurs.; int2 & fact6 -> int3: Zoom does not happens.; int3 & fact4 -> int4: Neither zoom nor allaying Abruzzi occur.; int4 & fact7 -> ... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: Uneagerness does not occurs if neither saponifieding takes place nor demulsifying takes place. fact2: Non-u... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that simmering Periplaneta happens.; fact3 & assump1 -> int1: Spraying delight takes place.; int1 -> int2: Needling spyware occurs and/or spraying delight occurs.; int2 & fact6 -> int3: Zoom does not happens.; int3 & fact4 -> int4: Neither zoom nor allaying Abruzzi occur.; int4 & fact7 -> ... |
There exists something such that if it does not sledgehammer syncopation it neither is a guidepost nor sledgehammer syncopation. | fact1: If the statement that that sculpin is efficient but it is not a Rhyniaceae is false then that this acorn does not comfort Hydnoraceae is right. fact2: The puncher is not a guidepost if this collector is a curry. fact3: If that sarcenet is not a Rhyniaceae that that sculpin is efficient but that is not a Rhyniace... | fact6 & fact5 -> int1: That sarcenet is not a Rhyniaceae.; int1 & fact3 -> int2: That that that sculpin is efficient but it is not a Rhyniaceae is right is not right.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: This acorn does not comfort Hydnoraceae.; int3 & fact4 -> int4: That this acorn does not detach and is not conjunctival does not h... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If the statement that that sculpin is efficient but it is not a Rhyniaceae is false then that this acorn do... | fact6 & fact5 -> int1: That sarcenet is not a Rhyniaceae.; int1 & fact3 -> int2: That that that sculpin is efficient but it is not a Rhyniaceae is right is not right.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: This acorn does not comfort Hydnoraceae.; int3 & fact4 -> int4: That this acorn does not detach and is not conjunctival does not h... |
Quinn is not a Samarang and does not determine. | fact1: If that this whiting is a Chaenomeles and it is uncultivated is true that this waters is not a Samarang is valid. fact2: This whiting is a Corrodentia if that Divine corrects Lucretius and does not toll Gafsa. fact3: That Divine corrects Lucretius but the person does not toll Gafsa if the person does not toll Ga... | fact9 & fact8 -> int1: This aralia engages.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: This Thymus is not a Boletellus.; int2 & fact4 -> int3: That that Divine is a Boletellus and he/she is anosmic is false.; int3 & fact5 -> int4: That Divine does not toll Gafsa.; int4 & fact3 -> int5: That Divine corrects Lucretius and does not toll Gafs... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If that this whiting is a Chaenomeles and it is uncultivated is true that this waters is not a Samarang is ... | fact9 & fact8 -> int1: This aralia engages.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: This Thymus is not a Boletellus.; int2 & fact4 -> int3: That that Divine is a Boletellus and he/she is anosmic is false.; int3 & fact5 -> int4: That Divine does not toll Gafsa.; int4 & fact3 -> int5: That Divine corrects Lucretius and does not toll Gafs... |
The fact that if that bacteriolysis is a Liomys that bacteriolysis is a wedged is invalid. | fact1: This amp does not befoul and it is not a cred. fact2: If this amp does not befoul and is not a cred this amp is not classic. fact3: That bacteriolysis is not explicable if this is a Liomys and this moors threescore. fact4: That that tenpins is unrighteous and he/she reclines is not valid if this amp is non-class... | fact2 & fact1 -> int1: The fact that this amp is not non-classic is incorrect.; int1 & fact4 -> int2: The proposition that that tenpins is unrighteous and she does recline does not stand.; int2 -> int3: There exists somebody such that that it is not righteous and it reclines does not hold.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: That t... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: This amp does not befoul and it is not a cred. fact2: If this amp does not befoul and is not a cred this am... | fact2 & fact1 -> int1: The fact that this amp is not non-classic is incorrect.; int1 & fact4 -> int2: The proposition that that tenpins is unrighteous and she does recline does not stand.; int2 -> int3: There exists somebody such that that it is not righteous and it reclines does not hold.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: That t... |
That that reduction is a zoning holds. | fact1: That that vamp is not a indispensableness and this does not outsail voracity is wrong if this hawthorn is not Demosthenic. fact2: That that Gantrisin is either not superlunary or a Persia or both is incorrect. fact3: If this grivet is not a manual that this hawthorn is classed as a manual that is not micaceous d... | fact9 & fact2 -> int1: That Gantrisin is a fivesome.; int1 -> int2: That Gantrisin is a fivesome and/or that one awakens.; int2 & fact7 -> int3: This grivet does not boot Strasberg.; int3 & fact5 -> int4: This grivet is not a manual.; int4 & fact3 -> int5: That this hawthorn is a manual but it is not micaceous is incor... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That that vamp is not a indispensableness and this does not outsail voracity is wrong if this hawthorn is n... | fact9 & fact2 -> int1: That Gantrisin is a fivesome.; int1 -> int2: That Gantrisin is a fivesome and/or that one awakens.; int2 & fact7 -> int3: This grivet does not boot Strasberg.; int3 & fact5 -> int4: This grivet is not a manual.; int4 & fact3 -> int5: That this hawthorn is a manual but it is not micaceous is incor... |
The claim that this ski is not a furlough and does not actualise Ebonics is not valid. | fact1: If this cowfish does oust phot that innovation is not statesmanlike. fact2: This ski neither is a furlough nor actualises Ebonics if this cougar is not a furlough. fact3: If this spike is not hurt then this cowfish is not axillary and it is not a Gaza. fact4: If this cowfish is not axillary this one is not unliv... | fact5 -> int1: The flea does not stonewash Lutyens and is parheliacal.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: This spike is not hurt.; int2 & fact3 -> int3: This cowfish is not axillary and is not a Gaza.; int3 -> int4: This cowfish is not axillary.; int4 & fact4 -> int5: This cowfish is non-unliveable man that ousts phot.; int5 -> in... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If this cowfish does oust phot that innovation is not statesmanlike. fact2: This ski neither is a furlough ... | fact5 -> int1: The flea does not stonewash Lutyens and is parheliacal.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: This spike is not hurt.; int2 & fact3 -> int3: This cowfish is not axillary and is not a Gaza.; int3 -> int4: This cowfish is not axillary.; int4 & fact4 -> int5: This cowfish is non-unliveable man that ousts phot.; int5 -> in... |
Hooking brings about preoccupying consubstantiation. | fact1: Stealing does not happens if smudging occurs and boomeranging occurs. fact2: Boomeranging occurs. fact3: That surveiling Crangonidae does not happens and/or that completingness happens prevents audition. fact4: That stealing does not takes place triggers non-terpsichoreanness. fact5: Surveiling Crangonidae does ... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that hooking occurs.; fact5 & assump1 -> int1: Surveiling Crangonidae does not takes place and/or completingness happens.; int1 & fact3 -> int2: Audition does not takes place.; int2 & fact7 -> int3: Smudging occurs.; int3 & fact2 -> int4: Smudging and boomeranging take place.; int4 & fact1... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: Stealing does not happens if smudging occurs and boomeranging occurs. fact2: Boomeranging occurs. fact3: Th... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that hooking occurs.; fact5 & assump1 -> int1: Surveiling Crangonidae does not takes place and/or completingness happens.; int1 & fact3 -> int2: Audition does not takes place.; int2 & fact7 -> int3: Smudging occurs.; int3 & fact2 -> int4: Smudging and boomeranging take place.; int4 & fact1... |
Plusness does not happens. | fact1: If disclosure does not takes place then that that both packed and darting take place is incorrect is right. fact2: If that both packed and darting take place does not stand then the fact that alikeness does not happens is right. fact3: That accusative happens and disclosure does not takes place holds if backtalk... | fact3 & fact9 -> int1: Accusative but not disclosure happens.; int1 -> int2: Disclosure does not occurs.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: The fact that packed takes place and darting happens does not hold.; int3 & fact2 -> int4: Alikeness does not takes place.; int4 & fact7 -> int5: Jamming Dunkerque does not takes place.; int5 ... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If disclosure does not takes place then that that both packed and darting take place is incorrect is right.... | fact3 & fact9 -> int1: Accusative but not disclosure happens.; int1 -> int2: Disclosure does not occurs.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: The fact that packed takes place and darting happens does not hold.; int3 & fact2 -> int4: Alikeness does not takes place.; int4 & fact7 -> int5: Jamming Dunkerque does not takes place.; int5 ... |
That that Maldivan is not a Canangium is true. | fact1: If that Maldivan does unbolt Hymenanthera that Maldivan is a piano. fact2: That that Boniface does not undress bind and does conceal is false if this tilth does not undress bind. fact3: This underclothing is a Astreus and is a Pilsen. fact4: If that Boniface is not non-contradictory then that Maldivan unbolts Hy... | fact3 -> int1: This underclothing is a Astreus.; int1 & fact7 -> int2: Nichole horsewhippings cyberculture.; int2 & fact10 -> int3: Nichole hinders B.Th.U.; int3 & fact8 -> int4: That ma'am is a whitlow that is not a Nefud.; int4 & fact9 -> int5: This tilth does not undress bind.; int5 & fact2 -> int6: That that Bonifa... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If that Maldivan does unbolt Hymenanthera that Maldivan is a piano. fact2: That that Boniface does not undr... | fact3 -> int1: This underclothing is a Astreus.; int1 & fact7 -> int2: Nichole horsewhippings cyberculture.; int2 & fact10 -> int3: Nichole hinders B.Th.U.; int3 & fact8 -> int4: That ma'am is a whitlow that is not a Nefud.; int4 & fact9 -> int5: This tilth does not undress bind.; int5 & fact2 -> int6: That that Bonifa... |
Metrication takes place. | fact1: Auctioning happens and painfulness happens. fact2: Wolfishness is prevented by cholangiography. fact3: If accoutring roc happens then cholangiography takes place. fact4: Unguidedness is caused by non-wolfishness. fact5: Calling nineteenth occurs. fact6: That sedation does not happens prevents that accoutring roc... | fact1 -> int1: Auctioning takes place.; int1 & fact9 -> int2: Not sedation but calculating bugged occurs.; int2 -> int3: Sedation does not happens.; int3 & fact6 -> int4: Accoutring roc takes place.; int4 & fact3 -> int5: Cholangiography happens.; int5 & fact2 -> int6: Wolfishness does not takes place.; int6 & fact4 ->... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: Auctioning happens and painfulness happens. fact2: Wolfishness is prevented by cholangiography. fact3: If a... | fact1 -> int1: Auctioning takes place.; int1 & fact9 -> int2: Not sedation but calculating bugged occurs.; int2 -> int3: Sedation does not happens.; int3 & fact6 -> int4: Accoutring roc takes place.; int4 & fact3 -> int5: Cholangiography happens.; int5 & fact2 -> int6: Wolfishness does not takes place.; int6 & fact4 ->... |
Secretoriness does not takes place. | fact1: If the statement that weedlessness occurs and encircling slighting happens is not true then velarness does not occurs. fact2: If lobateness does not takes place that weedlessness and encircling slighting take place is invalid. fact3: That kneeling and grumbling occur does not stand if iterating Delphi does not o... | fact4 & fact9 -> int1: Elaborateness happens.; int1 & fact10 -> int2: Elaborateness takes place and Continentness happens.; int2 & fact7 -> int3: Iterating Delphi does not takes place.; int3 & fact3 -> int4: That kneeling occurs and grumbling takes place does not hold.; int4 & fact11 -> int5: Interplanetariness does no... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If the statement that weedlessness occurs and encircling slighting happens is not true then velarness does ... | fact4 & fact9 -> int1: Elaborateness happens.; int1 & fact10 -> int2: Elaborateness takes place and Continentness happens.; int2 & fact7 -> int3: Iterating Delphi does not takes place.; int3 & fact3 -> int4: That kneeling occurs and grumbling takes place does not hold.; int4 & fact11 -> int5: Interplanetariness does no... |
That if repulsing happens exhilarating Eastman takes place is incorrect. | fact1: That tabling speckled does not happens is triggered by that not atm but unexcitableness happens. fact2: That atm does not takes place is caused by that noncollapsableness does not occurs. fact3: That both uranalysis and repulsing happen prevent noncollapsableness. fact4: If the fact that tabling speckled does no... | fact6 -> int1: Uranalysis occurs.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that repulsing happens.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: Uranalysis and repulsing take place.; int2 & fact3 -> int3: Noncollapsableness does not takes place.; int3 & fact2 -> int4: Atm does not takes place.; int4 & fact5 -> int5: Atm does not takes place but unex... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That tabling speckled does not happens is triggered by that not atm but unexcitableness happens. fact2: Tha... | fact6 -> int1: Uranalysis occurs.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that repulsing happens.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: Uranalysis and repulsing take place.; int2 & fact3 -> int3: Noncollapsableness does not takes place.; int3 & fact2 -> int4: Atm does not takes place.; int4 & fact5 -> int5: Atm does not takes place but unex... |
Allotropicness does not happens. | fact1: Daisylikeness happens if that wasting occurs but rant does not occurs is invalid. fact2: If that accommodationalness does not occurs and stalemating yesterday does not happens does not hold then dolichocranialness does not occurs. fact3: Calendricalness does not happens if that unlubricatedness occurs and rotati... | fact1 & fact6 -> int1: Daisylikeness takes place.; int1 & fact9 -> int2: Neither licking nor disposal take place.; int2 & fact11 -> int3: Ammoniac does not happens.; int3 & fact8 -> int4: The statement that avenue does not takes place is true.; int4 & fact7 -> int5: That unlubricatedness takes place and rotating Seriph... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: Daisylikeness happens if that wasting occurs but rant does not occurs is invalid. fact2: If that accommodat... | fact1 & fact6 -> int1: Daisylikeness takes place.; int1 & fact9 -> int2: Neither licking nor disposal take place.; int2 & fact11 -> int3: Ammoniac does not happens.; int3 & fact8 -> int4: The statement that avenue does not takes place is true.; int4 & fact7 -> int5: That unlubricatedness takes place and rotating Seriph... |
That cornflower is not unconfined. | fact1: That slyboots is ametabolous. fact2: That slyboots is not categorized as a Illimani but it is Homeric. fact3: If that slyboots is avoidable and it is not non-ametabolous then it is not somatosensory. fact4: The proposition that that slyboots is avoidable is true if she/he is not classed as a Illimani. fact5: If ... | fact2 -> int1: That slyboots is not a Illimani.; int1 & fact4 -> int2: That slyboots is avoidable.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: That that slyboots is avoidable thing that is ametabolous is true.; int3 & fact3 -> int4: That slyboots is non-somatosensory.; int4 & fact7 -> int5: That slyboots rimes Bessemer and is not chancrous... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That slyboots is ametabolous. fact2: That slyboots is not categorized as a Illimani but it is Homeric. fact... | fact2 -> int1: That slyboots is not a Illimani.; int1 & fact4 -> int2: That slyboots is avoidable.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: That that slyboots is avoidable thing that is ametabolous is true.; int3 & fact3 -> int4: That slyboots is non-somatosensory.; int4 & fact7 -> int5: That slyboots rimes Bessemer and is not chancrous... |
Not condescending Canicula but dialysis takes place. | fact1: That histocompatibility does not takes place and/or explicating alternative does not takes place stands. fact2: Balefire occurs. fact3: If ending does not occurs the fact that condescending Canicula does not happens but dialysis takes place does not hold. fact4: If that cultivating happens and caroling does not ... | fact10 & fact1 -> int1: Bastinadoing does not occurs.; int1 & fact9 -> int2: That cultivating but not caroling occurs does not hold.; int2 & fact4 -> int3: Chiromanticness does not takes place.; int3 & fact8 -> int4: That puncture does not happens stands.; int4 & fact5 -> int5: Bike does not happens and/or pinning does... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That histocompatibility does not takes place and/or explicating alternative does not takes place stands. fa... | fact10 & fact1 -> int1: Bastinadoing does not occurs.; int1 & fact9 -> int2: That cultivating but not caroling occurs does not hold.; int2 & fact4 -> int3: Chiromanticness does not takes place.; int3 & fact8 -> int4: That puncture does not happens stands.; int4 & fact5 -> int5: Bike does not happens and/or pinning does... |
This chameleon does not restrain sadomasochism. | fact1: This chameleon does not restrain sadomasochism if the fact that this populariser is not a Wynfrith but he/she croaks Channukkah does not hold. fact2: This hooks is not a Wynfrith if she does not finish spadeful and is a sheepishness. fact3: If this hooks is not unthematic then the one does not finish spadeful an... | fact5 -> int1: This Wahabi is not diaphyseal.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: That this Wahabi is not a Bandung but the thing is fecal holds.; int2 & fact10 -> int3: That this Wahabi does not bum bolograph is correct.; int3 & fact8 -> int4: This Wahabi is not a Jurassic.; int4 & fact9 -> int5: The claim that this Wahabi is both... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: This chameleon does not restrain sadomasochism if the fact that this populariser is not a Wynfrith but he/s... | fact5 -> int1: This Wahabi is not diaphyseal.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: That this Wahabi is not a Bandung but the thing is fecal holds.; int2 & fact10 -> int3: That this Wahabi does not bum bolograph is correct.; int3 & fact8 -> int4: This Wahabi is not a Jurassic.; int4 & fact9 -> int5: The claim that this Wahabi is both... |
That backyard is not odorous but she is pericardiac. | fact1: That FSH bogs shout and is a theatrical if that this Robitussin is not a theatrical is true. fact2: If that backyard is not a pharmaceutic then that he is non-odorous and he is pericardiac does not hold. fact3: If this Robitussin is a Bennettitis this Robitussin is intolerable but it is a Cyphomandra. fact4: If ... | fact3 & fact6 -> int1: This Robitussin is intolerable a Cyphomandra.; int1 & fact9 -> int2: This Robitussin is not non-tuneful.; int2 & fact4 -> int3: This Robitussin is an ampersand.; int3 & fact10 -> int4: This Robitussin is an ampersand but not nonprotractile.; int4 & fact7 -> int5: This Robitussin is not a theatric... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That FSH bogs shout and is a theatrical if that this Robitussin is not a theatrical is true. fact2: If that... | fact3 & fact6 -> int1: This Robitussin is intolerable a Cyphomandra.; int1 & fact9 -> int2: This Robitussin is not non-tuneful.; int2 & fact4 -> int3: This Robitussin is an ampersand.; int3 & fact10 -> int4: This Robitussin is an ampersand but not nonprotractile.; int4 & fact7 -> int5: This Robitussin is not a theatric... |
That either atacticness happens or bodybuilding does not takes place or both is incorrect. | fact1: Non-Monegasqueness leads to that bodybuilding does not occurs. fact2: Arthurianness is brought about by sweetness. fact3: If unbracing Lancashire occurs and autotypicness occurs Monegasqueness does not takes place. fact4: Averring Gerres occurs and Whiting zoomorphism happens. fact5: Unbracing Lancashire occurs ... | fact4 -> int1: Averring Gerres takes place.; int1 & fact7 -> int2: Sweetness takes place.; int2 & fact2 -> int3: Arthurianness happens.; int3 & fact8 -> int4: Unstainedness takes place but shutdown does not occurs.; int4 -> int5: Unstainedness takes place.; int5 & fact5 -> int6: Unbracing Lancashire happens.; int6 & fa... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: Non-Monegasqueness leads to that bodybuilding does not occurs. fact2: Arthurianness is brought about by swe... | fact4 -> int1: Averring Gerres takes place.; int1 & fact7 -> int2: Sweetness takes place.; int2 & fact2 -> int3: Arthurianness happens.; int3 & fact8 -> int4: Unstainedness takes place but shutdown does not occurs.; int4 -> int5: Unstainedness takes place.; int5 & fact5 -> int6: Unbracing Lancashire happens.; int6 & fa... |
That trier is a earman. | fact1: If that trier does not time nihil the fact that that trier is not an expediency but it is a astrobiology is not valid. fact2: Minerva is not amphitheatric if that that choragus does not run vivacity and is not partial does not stand. fact3: The fact that Minerva is a Nanaimo but it is not amphitheatric is right ... | fact4 -> int1: This wrester is not non-fibrocalcific.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: That that lineation is not fibrocalcific and it is not basiscopic is false.; int2 & fact9 -> int3: That lineation does not run vivacity.; int3 & fact10 -> int4: The claim that that that choragus does not run vivacity and it is not partial is i... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If that trier does not time nihil the fact that that trier is not an expediency but it is a astrobiology is... | fact4 -> int1: This wrester is not non-fibrocalcific.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: That that lineation is not fibrocalcific and it is not basiscopic is false.; int2 & fact9 -> int3: That lineation does not run vivacity.; int3 & fact10 -> int4: The claim that that that choragus does not run vivacity and it is not partial is i... |
That unappealingness occurs is not incorrect. | fact1: Functioning Bonaparte happens. fact2: Easing ghastliness occurs if not rumbling Dracunculidae but overstraining takes place. fact3: Neither rumbling Dracunculidae happens nor hitting happens. fact4: Hurdling occurs. fact5: Overstraining takes place. fact6: Botryoidness occurs if Stoning Dasypodidae or non-holozo... | fact3 -> int1: Rumbling Dracunculidae does not happens.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: Not rumbling Dracunculidae but overstraining occurs.; int2 & fact2 -> int3: Easing ghastliness takes place.; int3 & fact1 -> int4: Functioning Bonaparte and easing ghastliness take place.; int4 & fact9 -> int5: Acquiescing does not happens.;... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: Functioning Bonaparte happens. fact2: Easing ghastliness occurs if not rumbling Dracunculidae but overstrai... | fact3 -> int1: Rumbling Dracunculidae does not happens.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: Not rumbling Dracunculidae but overstraining occurs.; int2 & fact2 -> int3: Easing ghastliness takes place.; int3 & fact1 -> int4: Functioning Bonaparte and easing ghastliness take place.; int4 & fact9 -> int5: Acquiescing does not happens.;... |
The salmonella does not engorge. | fact1: If this caustic is a Ostraciidae this caustic does not clean but it is lobeliaceous. fact2: The salmonella engorges if that fishes pestilence. fact3: If that this aerogramme is non-bibliographical man that is undelineated is not valid this caustic is a catalectic. fact4: This caustic is a Ostraciidae if this cau... | fact5 -> int1: This pigweed is spectrometric.; int1 -> int2: This pigweed is cloze and/or this person is spectrometric.; int2 -> int3: There is some person such that it is cloze and/or is spectrometric.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: This halfbeak is not bibliographical.; int4 & fact6 -> int5: The proposition that this aerogra... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If this caustic is a Ostraciidae this caustic does not clean but it is lobeliaceous. fact2: The salmonella ... | fact5 -> int1: This pigweed is spectrometric.; int1 -> int2: This pigweed is cloze and/or this person is spectrometric.; int2 -> int3: There is some person such that it is cloze and/or is spectrometric.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: This halfbeak is not bibliographical.; int4 & fact6 -> int5: The proposition that this aerogra... |
This gerardia overrules built. | fact1: If that cement is not a confect that this gerardia does not model and it is not a confect is false. fact2: That if this gerardia is a decennary then this gerardia does overrule built stands. fact3: If this cleats is logical and do notmineer that cement is not a confect. fact4: If this gerardia does not different... | fact9 & fact10 -> int1: The telegraphy does ruddle brood.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: The statement that this cleats is not a Pluvialis but the one ruddles brood is false.; int2 & fact11 -> int3: This cleats do notmineer.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: This cleats is logical and do notmineer.; int4 & fact3 -> int5: That cement is n... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If that cement is not a confect that this gerardia does not model and it is not a confect is false. fact2: ... | fact9 & fact10 -> int1: The telegraphy does ruddle brood.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: The statement that this cleats is not a Pluvialis but the one ruddles brood is false.; int2 & fact11 -> int3: This cleats do notmineer.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: This cleats is logical and do notmineer.; int4 & fact3 -> int5: That cement is n... |
This cornstarch is a carol. | fact1: If that either that Nisei is a Zanzibar or it is a Passeres or both is true that Nisei is not a Lagarostrobus. fact2: If that Nisei is passionless but this person is not a Lagarostrobus then that saddlebill is not a Iliad. fact3: The fact that if that Nisei is not a Lagarostrobus that Nisei is passionless but no... | fact5 -> int1: The tastebud is intradepartmental.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: This andrena is non-intradepartmental thing that is a flagellate.; int2 -> int3: This andrena is a flagellate.; int3 & fact4 -> int4: That Nisei is a Zanzibar.; int4 -> int5: That Nisei either is a Zanzibar or is a kind of a Passeres or both.; int... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If that either that Nisei is a Zanzibar or it is a Passeres or both is true that Nisei is not a Lagarostrob... | fact5 -> int1: The tastebud is intradepartmental.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: This andrena is non-intradepartmental thing that is a flagellate.; int2 -> int3: This andrena is a flagellate.; int3 & fact4 -> int4: That Nisei is a Zanzibar.; int4 -> int5: That Nisei either is a Zanzibar or is a kind of a Passeres or both.; int... |
There exists somebody such that if it is a Fistulina it is not a Pylodictus. | fact1: Lupita is a newsletter if that Lupita is a kind of undamaged person that does not solicit Cambria is invalid. fact2: If that this Carelian does not truss biometry stands then it unmakes irresoluteness. fact3: That indri is a cope. fact4: If that indri is a solferino and the thing is a cope this Carelian does not... | fact1 & fact6 -> int1: Lupita is a newsletter.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: That indri is a solferino.; int2 & fact3 -> int3: That indri is a solferino and he is a cope.; int3 & fact4 -> int4: This Carelian does not truss biometry.; int4 & fact2 -> int5: This Carelian unmakes irresoluteness.; void -> assump1: Let's assume th... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: Lupita is a newsletter if that Lupita is a kind of undamaged person that does not solicit Cambria is invali... | fact1 & fact6 -> int1: Lupita is a newsletter.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: That indri is a solferino.; int2 & fact3 -> int3: That indri is a solferino and he is a cope.; int3 & fact4 -> int4: This Carelian does not truss biometry.; int4 & fact2 -> int5: This Carelian unmakes irresoluteness.; void -> assump1: Let's assume th... |
Both militarisation and astounding take place. | fact1: If postmodernness happens and dirt does not takes place then heightening Strasberg takes place. fact2: Ducking does not takes place. fact3: Non-canonicalness leads to that non-canonical does not occurs but blending takes place. fact4: That neither ducking nor squish happen cause that assenting does not occurs. f... | fact10 -> int1: Postmodernness happens.; int1 & fact8 -> int2: Postmodernness occurs but dirt does not happens.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: That heightening Strasberg takes place is right.; int3 & fact9 -> int4: Both heightening Strasberg and electrocution occur.; int4 & fact6 -> int5: Canonicalness does not takes place.; i... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If postmodernness happens and dirt does not takes place then heightening Strasberg takes place. fact2: Duck... | fact10 -> int1: Postmodernness happens.; int1 & fact8 -> int2: Postmodernness occurs but dirt does not happens.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: That heightening Strasberg takes place is right.; int3 & fact9 -> int4: Both heightening Strasberg and electrocution occur.; int4 & fact6 -> int5: Canonicalness does not takes place.; i... |
That the claim that the negotiatress is a Artemia and does not nibble somaesthesis is invalid is correct. | fact1: If that parlour is Cambodian then this aspiration is a hypersensitivity. fact2: That this plastic does not assimilate but it is personal does not stand if this aspiration is a hypersensitivity. fact3: If that oliguria is not a snipe this spiral is a snipe or it does not linger tickler or both. fact4: If that oli... | fact7 -> int1: That oliguria is a nettled and/or is a Secretariat.; int1 & fact4 -> int2: That oliguria is not a snipe.; int2 & fact3 -> int3: This spiral is a snipe and/or it does not linger tickler.; int3 & fact5 & fact10 -> int4: The sunshade is not a woodiness.; int4 & fact8 -> int5: That parlour is Cambodian and i... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If that parlour is Cambodian then this aspiration is a hypersensitivity. fact2: That this plastic does not ... | fact7 -> int1: That oliguria is a nettled and/or is a Secretariat.; int1 & fact4 -> int2: That oliguria is not a snipe.; int2 & fact3 -> int3: This spiral is a snipe and/or it does not linger tickler.; int3 & fact5 & fact10 -> int4: The sunshade is not a woodiness.; int4 & fact8 -> int5: That parlour is Cambodian and i... |
Blindsiding Aphyllanthes occurs. | fact1: Anapaesticness prevents that felicitation does not happens. fact2: Syllabicness does not takes place if either felicitation or uppercaseness or both takes place. fact3: Both ptyalising chopped and anapaesticness occur. fact4: That both motorboating agony and humping take place prevent adscriptness. fact5: Sweepi... | fact3 -> int1: Anapaesticness takes place.; int1 & fact1 -> int2: Felicitation occurs.; int2 -> int3: Felicitation takes place and/or uppercaseness takes place.; int3 & fact2 -> int4: Syllabicness does not happens.; int4 & fact5 -> int5: Both sweeping ephemeralness and non-syllabicness occur.; int5 -> int6: Sweeping ep... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: Anapaesticness prevents that felicitation does not happens. fact2: Syllabicness does not takes place if eit... | fact3 -> int1: Anapaesticness takes place.; int1 & fact1 -> int2: Felicitation occurs.; int2 -> int3: Felicitation takes place and/or uppercaseness takes place.; int3 & fact2 -> int4: Syllabicness does not happens.; int4 & fact5 -> int5: Both sweeping ephemeralness and non-syllabicness occur.; int5 -> int6: Sweeping ep... |
The hillside is not unconventional. | fact1: This Hull strikes Simuliidae but he/she does not hurdle scented if this catechism does hurdle scented. fact2: This valency is a Egyptian if this Hull strikes Simuliidae and does not hurdle scented. fact3: If that jambosa is photosynthetic then this sweep is a anopia. fact4: If this mycologist is both not non-Dar... | fact8 & fact11 -> int1: This catechism hurdles scented.; int1 & fact1 -> int2: This Hull does strike Simuliidae but this person does not hurdle scented.; int2 & fact2 -> int3: This valency is a Egyptian.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: That jambosa is both arboreal and not a Egyptian.; int4 & fact10 -> int5: That jambosa is pho... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: This Hull strikes Simuliidae but he/she does not hurdle scented if this catechism does hurdle scented. fact... | fact8 & fact11 -> int1: This catechism hurdles scented.; int1 & fact1 -> int2: This Hull does strike Simuliidae but this person does not hurdle scented.; int2 & fact2 -> int3: This valency is a Egyptian.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: That jambosa is both arboreal and not a Egyptian.; int4 & fact10 -> int5: That jambosa is pho... |
This conserves is not material and/or internationalises Montgolfier. | fact1: The proposition that if the greenery is synclinal and/or is a shopping that this corpus is not nonadsorbent is correct holds. fact2: If this thawing is not monogamous but it is a neighboring then the contralto does not internationalise Montgolfier. fact3: The greenery is synclinal if that this cranberry is not u... | fact3 & fact5 -> int1: The greenery is synclinal.; int1 -> int2: The greenery is synclinal and/or a shopping.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: This corpus is not nonadsorbent.; int3 & fact4 -> int4: This corpus is not monogamous and does not aggrade disaffection.; int4 -> int5: The statement that this corpus is not monogamous is... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: The proposition that if the greenery is synclinal and/or is a shopping that this corpus is not nonadsorbent... | fact3 & fact5 -> int1: The greenery is synclinal.; int1 -> int2: The greenery is synclinal and/or a shopping.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: This corpus is not nonadsorbent.; int3 & fact4 -> int4: This corpus is not monogamous and does not aggrade disaffection.; int4 -> int5: The statement that this corpus is not monogamous is... |
This chimneysweeper is not primed. | fact1: That this thrift is not a settled stands if this thrift eructs articulateness. fact2: If that that caparison is not defiant and this person does not egg germinal is not valid then that that caparison rabbets Vargas holds. fact3: That caparison is rhomboidal. fact4: If that this rotor is an exploited but it is no... | fact6 -> int1: That that caparison is non-defiant man that does not egg germinal is false if the one is rhomboidal.; int1 & fact3 -> int2: The claim that that caparison neither is defiant nor does egg germinal is wrong.; int2 & fact2 -> int3: That caparison rabbets Vargas.; int3 & fact5 -> int4: That caparison is a lus... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That this thrift is not a settled stands if this thrift eructs articulateness. fact2: If that that capariso... | fact6 -> int1: That that caparison is non-defiant man that does not egg germinal is false if the one is rhomboidal.; int1 & fact3 -> int2: The claim that that caparison neither is defiant nor does egg germinal is wrong.; int2 & fact2 -> int3: That caparison rabbets Vargas.; int3 & fact5 -> int4: That caparison is a lus... |
Both unbrainwashedness and non-extroversiveness take place. | fact1: Execration leads to coloring Aphidoidea. fact2: Malfunction does not takes place. fact3: That pachydermalness takes place results in execration. fact4: Non-fernlessness is prevented by that fiduciary does not occurs. fact5: Ranting Gabun does not takes place if either shoemaking occurs or coloring Aphidoidea hap... | fact10 & fact2 -> int1: That purse and non-unmovedness occur is false.; int1 & fact7 -> int2: The claim that fiduciary does not occurs holds.; int2 & fact4 -> int3: Fernlessness happens.; int3 & fact6 -> int4: Pachydermalness happens.; int4 & fact3 -> int5: That execration takes place stands.; int5 & fact1 -> int6: Col... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: Execration leads to coloring Aphidoidea. fact2: Malfunction does not takes place. fact3: That pachydermalne... | fact10 & fact2 -> int1: That purse and non-unmovedness occur is false.; int1 & fact7 -> int2: The claim that fiduciary does not occurs holds.; int2 & fact4 -> int3: Fernlessness happens.; int3 & fact6 -> int4: Pachydermalness happens.; int4 & fact3 -> int5: That execration takes place stands.; int5 & fact1 -> int6: Col... |
If that scrutineer is not philatelical then that scrutineer is both philatelical and a tempo. | fact1: If that plow is not polytheistic that that semen violates shielded and this one is an exchange is false. fact2: That plow is not polytheistic but undependable. fact3: If that that semen violates shielded and is an exchange does not hold the claim that this photolithograph does not traipse is not incorrect. fact4... | fact2 -> int1: That plow is not polytheistic.; int1 & fact1 -> int2: The fact that that semen violates shielded and is an exchange is invalid.; int2 & fact3 -> int3: This photolithograph does not traipse.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: That that this photolithograph is hematological but it does not hydrolyze hebetude is not tr... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If that plow is not polytheistic that that semen violates shielded and this one is an exchange is false. fa... | fact2 -> int1: That plow is not polytheistic.; int1 & fact1 -> int2: The fact that that semen violates shielded and is an exchange is invalid.; int2 & fact3 -> int3: This photolithograph does not traipse.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: That that this photolithograph is hematological but it does not hydrolyze hebetude is not tr... |
That polyatomicness takes place and attributableness happens are brought about by that sensing ology does not happens. | fact1: Housekeeping triggers absorbableness. fact2: That not sensing ology but relaxing fetching happens prevent non-polyatomicness. fact3: Attributableness occurs. fact4: Mapping prevents that housekeeping does not takes place. fact5: If that absorbableness happens is correct then both non-blastematicness and chalkine... | fact7 -> int1: Mapping occurs.; int1 & fact4 -> int2: That housekeeping happens holds.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: That absorbableness happens stands.; int3 & fact5 -> int4: Non-blastematicness and chalkiness take place.; int4 & fact6 -> int5: That relaxing fetching happens stands.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that sensin... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: Housekeeping triggers absorbableness. fact2: That not sensing ology but relaxing fetching happens prevent n... | fact7 -> int1: Mapping occurs.; int1 & fact4 -> int2: That housekeeping happens holds.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: That absorbableness happens stands.; int3 & fact5 -> int4: Non-blastematicness and chalkiness take place.; int4 & fact6 -> int5: That relaxing fetching happens stands.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that sensin... |
Josefina is external. | fact1: If this arrowsmith is a captain then this Rhabdoviridae detonates. fact2: That this arrowsmith is a captain and it is a Pluteus holds. fact3: That Mosaic is not a Sebastiana if that this Rhabdoviridae is non-ethnological one that is non-mitotic is true. fact4: If this Rhabdoviridae is not mitotic then this Rhabd... | fact2 -> int1: This arrowsmith is a captain.; int1 & fact1 -> int2: This Rhabdoviridae detonates.; int2 & fact6 -> int3: This Rhabdoviridae appears and it does detonate.; int3 & fact9 -> int4: That this Rhabdoviridae is non-mitotic holds.; int4 & fact4 -> int5: This Rhabdoviridae is not ethnological and it is not mitot... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If this arrowsmith is a captain then this Rhabdoviridae detonates. fact2: That this arrowsmith is a captain... | fact2 -> int1: This arrowsmith is a captain.; int1 & fact1 -> int2: This Rhabdoviridae detonates.; int2 & fact6 -> int3: This Rhabdoviridae appears and it does detonate.; int3 & fact9 -> int4: That this Rhabdoviridae is non-mitotic holds.; int4 & fact4 -> int5: This Rhabdoviridae is not ethnological and it is not mitot... |
Leon does not yarn breakableness. | fact1: If there is something such that that the thing is earthen thing that is not a canvass does not hold this rationalization is not appositional. fact2: This stocktaker does not yarn breakableness if this stocktaker is Aboriginal and rafts Kirghizstan. fact3: That that catclaw is earthen but this is not a canvass is... | fact3 -> int1: There is somebody such that that that it is earthen and is not a canvass holds does not stand.; int1 & fact1 -> int2: This rationalization is not appositional.; int2 -> int3: This rationalization is not a Snellen or is not appositional or both.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: This smokescreen is not a cancroid.; ... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If there is something such that that the thing is earthen thing that is not a canvass does not hold this ra... | fact3 -> int1: There is somebody such that that that it is earthen and is not a canvass holds does not stand.; int1 & fact1 -> int2: This rationalization is not appositional.; int2 -> int3: This rationalization is not a Snellen or is not appositional or both.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: This smokescreen is not a cancroid.; ... |
There exists something such that if this is dioecian then that this is not a rough and this scours does not stand. | fact1: If that sternutatory is not non-caducean but it does not mug Notechis that tartrate is not flexible. fact2: That that sternutatory does not mug Notechis is not wrong if that sternutatory does not resign. fact3: That sternutatory does not resign if that prioritizes Gawain and is a Tachyglossus. fact4: If that tar... | fact3 & fact6 -> int1: That sternutatory does not resign.; int1 & fact2 -> int2: That sternutatory does not mug Notechis.; int2 & fact7 -> int3: That sternutatory is caducean person that does not mug Notechis.; int3 & fact1 -> int4: That tartrate is not flexible.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that tartrate is dio... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If that sternutatory is not non-caducean but it does not mug Notechis that tartrate is not flexible. fact2:... | fact3 & fact6 -> int1: That sternutatory does not resign.; int1 & fact2 -> int2: That sternutatory does not mug Notechis.; int2 & fact7 -> int3: That sternutatory is caducean person that does not mug Notechis.; int3 & fact1 -> int4: That tartrate is not flexible.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that tartrate is dio... |
That that privy is not a Ufa but the person bites if that veg is not a Pasigraphy does not hold. | fact1: If that world is not scientific that the drypis is scientific but it is not harmonic is invalid. fact2: If the claim that that neurobiologist itches Commelinales holds that this antecedent does not stone subconsciousness and that thing does not itches Commelinales is wrong. fact3: That world is not scientific if... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that that veg is not a Pasigraphy.; fact5 & assump1 -> int1: That neurobiologist itches Commelinales and he/she does cozen nominal.; int1 -> int2: That neurobiologist itches Commelinales.; int2 & fact2 -> int3: That this antecedent neither does stone subconsciousness nor itches Commelinale... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If that world is not scientific that the drypis is scientific but it is not harmonic is invalid. fact2: If ... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that that veg is not a Pasigraphy.; fact5 & assump1 -> int1: That neurobiologist itches Commelinales and he/she does cozen nominal.; int1 -> int2: That neurobiologist itches Commelinales.; int2 & fact2 -> int3: That this antecedent neither does stone subconsciousness nor itches Commelinale... |
That there is some person such that if she is a fascist then she is a diaeresis is not valid. | fact1: This yellowwood is not a Istiophorus if that this scag is a Plicatoperipatus but it is not a Poseidon is valid. fact2: This fiord is a Payena. fact3: If this yellowwood is not a Istiophorus and is a fascist this yellowwood is a diaeresis. fact4: If that this fiord is an obsessed but the one is not a marginality ... | fact5 -> int1: The claim that this fiord is an obsessed that is not a marginality is false if that this fiord is a Payena holds.; int1 & fact2 -> int2: That this fiord is an obsessed but it is not a marginality is false.; int2 & fact4 -> int3: This scag is not a Poseidon.; int3 & fact6 -> int4: This scag is a Plicatope... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: This yellowwood is not a Istiophorus if that this scag is a Plicatoperipatus but it is not a Poseidon is va... | fact5 -> int1: The claim that this fiord is an obsessed that is not a marginality is false if that this fiord is a Payena holds.; int1 & fact2 -> int2: That this fiord is an obsessed but it is not a marginality is false.; int2 & fact4 -> int3: This scag is not a Poseidon.; int3 & fact6 -> int4: This scag is a Plicatope... |
There is some man such that if it is carunculated then it is not hydric and it grants enragement. | fact1: That that cestode is not hydric but it grants enragement holds if that cestode is not hydric. fact2: The fact that this rhododendron is not non-poetical and/or does not seesaw Trumbo does not stand if this rhododendron is non-poetical. fact3: If that cestode transistorizeds Mekong and this thing is carunculated ... | fact4 -> int1: This rhododendron is not a sorcery and the one is not poetical.; int1 -> int2: The fact that this rhododendron is not poetical stands.; int2 & fact2 -> int3: That this rhododendron is poetical and/or it does not seesaw Trumbo is incorrect.; int3 & fact5 -> int4: That cestode transistorizeds Mekong.; void... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That that cestode is not hydric but it grants enragement holds if that cestode is not hydric. fact2: The fa... | fact4 -> int1: This rhododendron is not a sorcery and the one is not poetical.; int1 -> int2: The fact that this rhododendron is not poetical stands.; int2 & fact2 -> int3: That this rhododendron is poetical and/or it does not seesaw Trumbo is incorrect.; int3 & fact5 -> int4: That cestode transistorizeds Mekong.; void... |
The fact that both unhurriedness and rendering happen is not valid. | fact1: That agonizing or ballistics or both happens prevents digitalization. fact2: Recce takes place. fact3: That polls occurs is prevented by that digitalization does not takes place. fact4: That errand does not happens is prevented by that polls does not occurs. fact5: Severing happens. fact6: The fact that recce ca... | fact6 & fact2 -> int1: Ballistics takes place.; int1 -> int2: That agonizing and/or ballistics happens holds.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: Digitalization does not occurs.; int3 & fact3 -> int4: Polls does not occurs.; int4 & fact4 -> int5: Errand happens.; int5 & fact5 -> int6: Errand and severing occur.; int6 & fact7 -> int... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That agonizing or ballistics or both happens prevents digitalization. fact2: Recce takes place. fact3: That... | fact6 & fact2 -> int1: Ballistics takes place.; int1 -> int2: That agonizing and/or ballistics happens holds.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: Digitalization does not occurs.; int3 & fact3 -> int4: Polls does not occurs.; int4 & fact4 -> int5: Errand happens.; int5 & fact5 -> int6: Errand and severing occur.; int6 & fact7 -> int... |
The fact that that budgie does not shriek Epinephelus is not right. | fact1: If that that tortricid is conjugal is true that nitrocellulose is conjugal but that is unbaptized. fact2: That bubble destroys. fact3: If that bubble is managerial then that bubble is a Scythia. fact4: That this wormseed is not minty and it is not a Sumerology does not hold if this wormseed does not complete. fa... | fact6 & fact2 -> int1: That bubble is managerial.; int1 & fact3 -> int2: That bubble is a Scythia.; int2 -> int3: That that bubble is either a Scythia or a Llyr or both is true.; int3 -> int4: Something is a Scythia and/or is a Llyr.; int4 & fact9 -> int5: That tortricid is conjugal.; int5 & fact1 -> int6: That nitroce... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If that that tortricid is conjugal is true that nitrocellulose is conjugal but that is unbaptized. fact2: T... | fact6 & fact2 -> int1: That bubble is managerial.; int1 & fact3 -> int2: That bubble is a Scythia.; int2 -> int3: That that bubble is either a Scythia or a Llyr or both is true.; int3 -> int4: Something is a Scythia and/or is a Llyr.; int4 & fact9 -> int5: That tortricid is conjugal.; int5 & fact1 -> int6: That nitroce... |
That counterweight is not a luminosity but ideological. | fact1: If this Beninese is a profaneness but this thing is not a Bremen then this derma is a rouleau. fact2: If that Teresa does not tranquilize asyndeton and that thing does not celebrate Brunfelsia is invalid then that thing camps ventriloquy. fact3: This transaminase is non-lighted one that does camp ventriloquy if ... | fact1 & fact9 -> int1: This derma is a rouleau.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: That Teresa is not a rouleau and scrubs keratosis does not stand.; int2 & fact4 -> int3: Teresa does not cox Lagarostrobus.; int3 & fact10 -> int4: That Teresa does not tranquilize asyndeton and it does not celebrate Brunfelsia does not stand.; int4... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If this Beninese is a profaneness but this thing is not a Bremen then this derma is a rouleau. fact2: If th... | fact1 & fact9 -> int1: This derma is a rouleau.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: That Teresa is not a rouleau and scrubs keratosis does not stand.; int2 & fact4 -> int3: Teresa does not cox Lagarostrobus.; int3 & fact10 -> int4: That Teresa does not tranquilize asyndeton and it does not celebrate Brunfelsia does not stand.; int4... |
This convert does not wing blandness but it cashiers Gidar. | fact1: If the fact that that trey is not mated does not stand that ceftriaxone is not a tincture or he is not mated or both. fact2: If that this Restoril is a Provencal but he is not an internationalism is incorrect this cimarron is fastidious. fact3: If this convert does not ablated Odoacer it does not wing blandness ... | fact11 & fact7 -> int1: That enchilada is not a squash.; int1 -> int2: There is something such that that is not a squash.; int2 & fact10 -> int3: That this skyscraper does not porcelainize reaffirmation but it is a manipulability does not hold.; int3 & fact8 -> int4: This skyscraper is not a Provencal.; int4 & fact4 ->... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If the fact that that trey is not mated does not stand that ceftriaxone is not a tincture or he is not mate... | fact11 & fact7 -> int1: That enchilada is not a squash.; int1 -> int2: There is something such that that is not a squash.; int2 & fact10 -> int3: That this skyscraper does not porcelainize reaffirmation but it is a manipulability does not hold.; int3 & fact8 -> int4: This skyscraper is not a Provencal.; int4 & fact4 ->... |
This clairvoyant is a penciled. | fact1: That chin is spousal. fact2: This spiracle is not urethral if it is not a frankness. fact3: That that minge is a kind of a Verbenaceae stands if this thing is both a XV and not urethral. fact4: This clairvoyant does not mosey and is a penciled if that minge mosey. fact5: That chin is a Malaclemys. fact6: If that... | fact1 & fact5 -> int1: That chin is spousal and it is a Malaclemys.; int1 & fact10 -> int2: This hothead is not estimable.; int2 & fact7 -> int3: That that skinhead is estimable thing that is a Athanasianism does not hold.; int3 & fact6 -> int4: This spiracle is not a frankness.; int4 & fact2 -> int5: That this spiracl... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That chin is spousal. fact2: This spiracle is not urethral if it is not a frankness. fact3: That that minge... | fact1 & fact5 -> int1: That chin is spousal and it is a Malaclemys.; int1 & fact10 -> int2: This hothead is not estimable.; int2 & fact7 -> int3: That that skinhead is estimable thing that is a Athanasianism does not hold.; int3 & fact6 -> int4: This spiracle is not a frankness.; int4 & fact2 -> int5: That this spiracl... |
This maisonnette does not yodel Bloch. | fact1: Darryl is non-congenerical if the proposition that that Darryl mists Antigonus and/or the thing is not a Pickeringia holds is wrong. fact2: If that this heir is a Manama but this thing is not a Sida does not hold then that sunglass spites fiftieth. fact3: If this heir is not a brilliancy the proposition that thi... | fact7 -> int1: Darryl moons amenia.; int1 & fact8 -> int2: Darryl is sacred.; int2 & fact9 -> int3: The statement that Darryl is licit but this is not a topic is not true.; int3 & fact5 -> int4: Darryl is not a Broadway.; int4 & fact4 -> int5: That that either Darryl mists Antigonus or that person is not a Pickeringia ... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: Darryl is non-congenerical if the proposition that that Darryl mists Antigonus and/or the thing is not a Pi... | fact7 -> int1: Darryl moons amenia.; int1 & fact8 -> int2: Darryl is sacred.; int2 & fact9 -> int3: The statement that Darryl is licit but this is not a topic is not true.; int3 & fact5 -> int4: Darryl is not a Broadway.; int4 & fact4 -> int5: That that either Darryl mists Antigonus or that person is not a Pickeringia ... |
This shopping does not attain reprehensibility if this thing is perinasal. | fact1: This shopping churches NV if this gemsbuck serves Taxodium. fact2: If that this shopping is classified as macrocephalous one that is diamantine is invalid that person does not attain reprehensibility. fact3: This shopping is not a kind of a Forester if this shopping is perinasal thing that churches NV. fact4: Th... | fact4 -> int1: That the placket is not controversial and/or it is a Anaphalis is invalid.; int1 -> int2: The fact that there exists something such that that it is not controversial or it is a Anaphalis or both does not hold is valid.; int2 & fact6 -> int3: This gemsbuck does serve Taxodium.; int3 & fact1 -> int4: This ... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: This shopping churches NV if this gemsbuck serves Taxodium. fact2: If that this shopping is classified as m... | fact4 -> int1: That the placket is not controversial and/or it is a Anaphalis is invalid.; int1 -> int2: The fact that there exists something such that that it is not controversial or it is a Anaphalis or both does not hold is valid.; int2 & fact6 -> int3: This gemsbuck does serve Taxodium.; int3 & fact1 -> int4: This ... |
This outside is a buzzing and/or it intimidates Hobbes. | fact1: If some person that is not a Trypetidae is not a oftenness then that antispasmodic is a trespassing. fact2: This outside is impolitic and it intimidates Hobbes if it is not a biometry. fact3: Some man is not a Trypetidae and the person is not a oftenness. fact4: If that antispasmodic is a trespassing then this a... | fact3 & fact1 -> int1: That antispasmodic is a trespassing.; int1 & fact4 -> int2: This ancestor is not a kind of a snore.; int2 & fact7 -> int3: Either this allamanda is not a Supermex or it is not a snore or both.; int3 & fact9 -> int4: This outside is not non-cyclical.; int4 & fact5 -> int5: This outside does fetish... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If some person that is not a Trypetidae is not a oftenness then that antispasmodic is a trespassing. fact2:... | fact3 & fact1 -> int1: That antispasmodic is a trespassing.; int1 & fact4 -> int2: This ancestor is not a kind of a snore.; int2 & fact7 -> int3: Either this allamanda is not a Supermex or it is not a snore or both.; int3 & fact9 -> int4: This outside is not non-cyclical.; int4 & fact5 -> int5: This outside does fetish... |
If this laying is not playable it is not maximum and it is playable. | fact1: This laying does dash whiteness if this laying does not rue unenlightenment. fact2: If this laying is desirous but it is not a Mors then the fact that it does not rue unenlightenment holds. fact3: This laying is desirous but it is not a Mors if Ally does not repress krone. fact4: All things do not repress krone ... | fact4 -> int1: Ally does not repress krone but it is a Washingtonian.; int1 -> int2: Ally does not repress krone.; int2 & fact3 -> int3: This laying is desirous but it is not a Mors.; int3 & fact2 -> int4: This laying does not rue unenlightenment.; int4 & fact1 -> int5: The fact that this laying dashes whiteness is not... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: This laying does dash whiteness if this laying does not rue unenlightenment. fact2: If this laying is desir... | fact4 -> int1: Ally does not repress krone but it is a Washingtonian.; int1 -> int2: Ally does not repress krone.; int2 & fact3 -> int3: This laying is desirous but it is not a Mors.; int3 & fact2 -> int4: This laying does not rue unenlightenment.; int4 & fact1 -> int5: The fact that this laying dashes whiteness is not... |
Traveledness and non-timidness take place. | fact1: Scorcher and/or sloping Xenophanes happens if retinalness does not takes place. fact2: Dinging is prevented by that malnourisheding does not takes place. fact3: Quotableness occurs if that romanticisticness does not takes place but arthropodalness takes place does not stand. fact4: That the statement that schola... | fact4 & fact11 -> int1: The proposition that both scholarliness and paleness happen is wrong.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: That malnourisheding does not happens is correct.; int2 & fact2 -> int3: Dinging does not happens.; int3 & fact8 -> int4: That romanticisticness does not happens and arthropodalness takes place does not ... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: Scorcher and/or sloping Xenophanes happens if retinalness does not takes place. fact2: Dinging is prevented... | fact4 & fact11 -> int1: The proposition that both scholarliness and paleness happen is wrong.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: That malnourisheding does not happens is correct.; int2 & fact2 -> int3: Dinging does not happens.; int3 & fact8 -> int4: That romanticisticness does not happens and arthropodalness takes place does not ... |
That if that chaja is tsarist then the photocopy is a broach is wrong. | fact1: This glyceraldehyde does not debase if this lookup does unwind or it is a vociferation or both. fact2: If that chaja is tsarist then it does not resound sixsome. fact3: The proposition that the claim that that casuist does prostrate Recurvirostra or he does not resound sixsome or both holds if that chaja does no... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that that chaja is tsarist.; fact2 & assump1 -> int1: The fact that that chaja does not resound sixsome is right.; int1 & fact3 -> int2: That casuist prostrates Recurvirostra and/or this person does not resound sixsome.; int2 & fact4 -> int3: This lookup is a vociferation.; int3 -> int4: T... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: This glyceraldehyde does not debase if this lookup does unwind or it is a vociferation or both. fact2: If t... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that that chaja is tsarist.; fact2 & assump1 -> int1: The fact that that chaja does not resound sixsome is right.; int1 & fact3 -> int2: That casuist prostrates Recurvirostra and/or this person does not resound sixsome.; int2 & fact4 -> int3: This lookup is a vociferation.; int3 -> int4: T... |
This cornmeal buzzes weathered. | fact1: If that this dependant emanates but it is not a botulism is wrong it is not a paying. fact2: This airmailer is not a kind of a Schadenfreude if this dependant is not a paying. fact3: This cornmeal is a Gatling if this cassiterite is a Thorshavn. fact4: If there is someone such that it does invigorate mined or it... | fact1 & fact5 -> int1: This dependant is not a paying.; int1 & fact2 -> int2: This airmailer is not a Schadenfreude.; int2 & fact8 -> int3: That this airmailer neither is a Olympus nor is magnetic does not stand.; int3 & fact6 -> int4: The antecedent invigorates mined.; int4 -> int5: Either the antecedent does invigora... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If that this dependant emanates but it is not a botulism is wrong it is not a paying. fact2: This airmailer... | fact1 & fact5 -> int1: This dependant is not a paying.; int1 & fact2 -> int2: This airmailer is not a Schadenfreude.; int2 & fact8 -> int3: That this airmailer neither is a Olympus nor is magnetic does not stand.; int3 & fact6 -> int4: The antecedent invigorates mined.; int4 -> int5: Either the antecedent does invigora... |
Suzette is lenten if Bailey is a Hosta. | fact1: If that this foxhole does not wade undesirability and/or is not a dissent does not stand it is not disconsolate. fact2: If Suzette is not daisylike that this thing is both homostyled and not blastoporal does not hold. fact3: If this foxhole is not disconsolate Suzette is not daisylike. fact4: Suzette is lenten i... | fact7 -> int1: If Bailey is a Hosta then Bailey is not interdisciplinary or it is not a projected or both.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that Bailey is a Hosta.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: Bailey is not interdisciplinary or not a projected or both.; int2 & fact6 & fact5 -> int3: This foxhole does not drug Benghazi.; int3... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If that this foxhole does not wade undesirability and/or is not a dissent does not stand it is not disconso... | fact7 -> int1: If Bailey is a Hosta then Bailey is not interdisciplinary or it is not a projected or both.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that Bailey is a Hosta.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: Bailey is not interdisciplinary or not a projected or both.; int2 & fact6 & fact5 -> int3: This foxhole does not drug Benghazi.; int3... |
The alkyl gnaws and is not classed as a Menyanthaceae. | fact1: If this tyrothricin is not acetylenic then that that focus is a barbecued and it is acetylenic does not hold. fact2: This tyrothricin is not acetylenic if that this tyrothricin is not a squirearchy and/or it is a Breslau is incorrect. fact3: That the alkyl gnaws but it is not a Menyanthaceae is incorrect if Amad... | fact5 & fact10 -> int1: That this playbox is not classified as a Breslau is correct.; int1 & fact7 -> int2: That this tyrothricin is not a squirearchy and/or is a Breslau is false.; int2 & fact2 -> int3: This tyrothricin is not acetylenic.; int3 & fact1 -> int4: That that focus is a barbecued and that one is acetylenic... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If this tyrothricin is not acetylenic then that that focus is a barbecued and it is acetylenic does not hol... | fact5 & fact10 -> int1: That this playbox is not classified as a Breslau is correct.; int1 & fact7 -> int2: That this tyrothricin is not a squirearchy and/or is a Breslau is false.; int2 & fact2 -> int3: This tyrothricin is not acetylenic.; int3 & fact1 -> int4: That that focus is a barbecued and that one is acetylenic... |
That if the fact that that pyrite is both not a notturno and not Attic does not hold that cardigan is not Hebridean does not stand. | fact1: If that the fact that this jukebox is not a Kalki and it is not verbal is valid does not hold then this mouthpart is presidential. fact2: This Rumanian is not a tendinitis if that Limburger is not a Gonorhynchidae. fact3: If this hazelnut is not a Kalki that this jukebox is not a Kalki but non-verbal does not ho... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that that pyrite is not a notturno and it is not Attic does not hold.; fact5 & assump1 -> int1: That Limburger is not a Gonorhynchidae.; int1 & fact2 -> int2: This Rumanian is not a tendinitis.; int2 -> int3: Either this Rumanian is not a tendinitis or it is not matriarchal o... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If that the fact that this jukebox is not a Kalki and it is not verbal is valid does not hold then this mou... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that that pyrite is not a notturno and it is not Attic does not hold.; fact5 & assump1 -> int1: That Limburger is not a Gonorhynchidae.; int1 & fact2 -> int2: This Rumanian is not a tendinitis.; int2 -> int3: Either this Rumanian is not a tendinitis or it is not matriarchal o... |
The claim that this hookah either is a Celsius or is dictyopteran or both if that jurist does not wideness Phalaropidae is invalid. | fact1: That Hydra is not non-Teutonic but it is not a troubled if this bristletail buttons. fact2: If that jurist is not Tantrik but it is a Estrilda then this pignut is a American. fact3: This hookah is a tosh if that Hydra is Teutonic but that one is not a troubled. fact4: That this hookah is a Celsius stands if this... | fact5 -> int1: That jurist is non-Tantrik a Estrilda if that jurist does not wideness Phalaropidae.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that that jurist does not wideness Phalaropidae holds.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: That jurist is not Tantrik but it is a Estrilda.; int2 & fact2 -> int3: This pignut is categorized as a ... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That Hydra is not non-Teutonic but it is not a troubled if this bristletail buttons. fact2: If that jurist ... | fact5 -> int1: That jurist is non-Tantrik a Estrilda if that jurist does not wideness Phalaropidae.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that that jurist does not wideness Phalaropidae holds.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: That jurist is not Tantrik but it is a Estrilda.; int2 & fact2 -> int3: This pignut is categorized as a ... |
Neither beaklessness happens nor modification occurs. | fact1: Beaklessness is prevented by non-unicellularness. fact2: Seducing parallelepipedon is prevented by that both differentiatedness and crying happen. fact3: Unicellularness does not occurs if that sericulturalness and/or sifting happens is wrong. fact4: If seducing parallelepipedon does not occurs then that sericul... | fact8 & fact6 -> int1: Both supplying Ta'ziyeh and drifting take place.; int1 & fact10 -> int2: Intermission does not occurs.; int2 & fact9 -> int3: Neither chapping Wicca nor undifferentiatedness happen.; int3 -> int4: Undifferentiatedness does not happens.; int4 & fact7 -> int5: Undifferentiatedness does not takes pl... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: Beaklessness is prevented by non-unicellularness. fact2: Seducing parallelepipedon is prevented by that bot... | fact8 & fact6 -> int1: Both supplying Ta'ziyeh and drifting take place.; int1 & fact10 -> int2: Intermission does not occurs.; int2 & fact9 -> int3: Neither chapping Wicca nor undifferentiatedness happen.; int3 -> int4: Undifferentiatedness does not happens.; int4 & fact7 -> int5: Undifferentiatedness does not takes pl... |
That oleo is felicitous and he/she entrances Hagerstown. | fact1: That nameplate does institutionalize precipitating if that nameplate does not untangle and does not solidify Rankin. fact2: If this minelayer is a inconclusiveness and a Kalapuyan this minelayer is not felicitous. fact3: That nameplate does chaw. fact4: This minelayer is a inconclusiveness if either it is not ar... | fact5 -> int1: That nameplate does not untangle and it does not solidify Rankin if it chaws.; int1 & fact3 -> int2: That nameplate does not untangle and it does not solidify Rankin.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: That nameplate does institutionalize precipitating.; int3 & fact6 -> int4: That nameplate is not a Argyroxiphium an... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That nameplate does institutionalize precipitating if that nameplate does not untangle and does not solidif... | fact5 -> int1: That nameplate does not untangle and it does not solidify Rankin if it chaws.; int1 & fact3 -> int2: That nameplate does not untangle and it does not solidify Rankin.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: That nameplate does institutionalize precipitating.; int3 & fact6 -> int4: That nameplate is not a Argyroxiphium an... |
This serviceberry is not autobiographical but this outfits Nilotic. | fact1: This populist is an anger and is a surface. fact2: If that blackguard is unhardened then that cheroot is scopal. fact3: If that wale is not peritoneal then that blackguard is unhardened. fact4: If that wale lambs then it is not peritoneal or it does not burn Lichanura or both. fact5: That cheroot entices Garonne... | fact1 -> int1: The fact that this populist is not a surface is false.; int1 & fact10 -> int2: That wale lambs.; int2 & fact4 -> int3: That wale is not peritoneal and/or does not burn Lichanura.; int3 & fact3 & fact6 -> int4: That blackguard is unhardened.; int4 & fact2 -> int5: That cheroot is scopal.; int5 & fact5 -> ... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: This populist is an anger and is a surface. fact2: If that blackguard is unhardened then that cheroot is sc... | fact1 -> int1: The fact that this populist is not a surface is false.; int1 & fact10 -> int2: That wale lambs.; int2 & fact4 -> int3: That wale is not peritoneal and/or does not burn Lichanura.; int3 & fact3 & fact6 -> int4: That blackguard is unhardened.; int4 & fact2 -> int5: That cheroot is scopal.; int5 & fact5 -> ... |
That both non-capsularness and overcapitalizing Nephelium happen is false. | fact1: If that either non-Serbianness or Ambrosianness or both takes place does not hold then wench does not takes place. fact2: Coastalness happens. fact3: That non-Serbianness and/or Ambrosianness happens does not stand. fact4: That clotting Sitotroga occurs holds. fact5: Pharyngealness is triggered by that wench doe... | fact1 & fact3 -> int1: Wench does not takes place.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: Pharyngealness occurs.; int2 & fact11 -> int3: Particularization occurs.; int3 & fact9 -> int4: Feminizing Aphyllanthaceae takes place.; int4 & fact6 -> int5: Indistinctness happens.; int5 & fact4 -> int6: Clotting Sitotroga and indistinctness ta... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If that either non-Serbianness or Ambrosianness or both takes place does not hold then wench does not takes... | fact1 & fact3 -> int1: Wench does not takes place.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: Pharyngealness occurs.; int2 & fact11 -> int3: Particularization occurs.; int3 & fact9 -> int4: Feminizing Aphyllanthaceae takes place.; int4 & fact6 -> int5: Indistinctness happens.; int5 & fact4 -> int6: Clotting Sitotroga and indistinctness ta... |
This pyrophyllite does riot Elagatis if this mugwump is both not a Dimorphotheca and unoriented. | fact1: If this reviser hazards Phasmida that booms gumminess. fact2: If this reviser booms gumminess then this pyrophyllite riots Elagatis. fact3: If this tither does hydrate unalterability this reviser hazards Phasmida. fact4: This tither hydrates unalterability if either somebody is an informatics or he/she is a grap... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that this mugwump is not a kind of a Dimorphotheca and is unoriented.; fact5 & assump1 -> int1: The cosmetic is psychological.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: That that broth is an informatics is right.; int2 -> int3: That broth is an informatics and/or he is a graph.; int3 -> int4: There is some m... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If this reviser hazards Phasmida that booms gumminess. fact2: If this reviser booms gumminess then this pyr... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that this mugwump is not a kind of a Dimorphotheca and is unoriented.; fact5 & assump1 -> int1: The cosmetic is psychological.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: That that broth is an informatics is right.; int2 -> int3: That broth is an informatics and/or he is a graph.; int3 -> int4: There is some m... |
That this zealot neither is a drawback nor broadens is incorrect. | fact1: There is something such that it is passionate. fact2: That dideoxycytosine is not a Tibetan if that dideoxycytosine inosculates phocomelia and is a Yorkshire. fact3: That dideoxycytosine is not a quadrilateral. fact4: That the tremble is a lots and/or non-colourful is wrong if there is some man such that that pe... | fact1 & fact4 -> int1: That the tremble is a lots and/or he is not colourful does not stand.; int1 & fact7 -> int2: That asylum is a safe.; int2 & fact8 -> int3: That dideoxycytosine is not a safe but it inosculates phocomelia.; int3 -> int4: That dideoxycytosine does inosculate phocomelia.; int4 & fact10 -> int5: That... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: There is something such that it is passionate. fact2: That dideoxycytosine is not a Tibetan if that dideoxy... | fact1 & fact4 -> int1: That the tremble is a lots and/or he is not colourful does not stand.; int1 & fact7 -> int2: That asylum is a safe.; int2 & fact8 -> int3: That dideoxycytosine is not a safe but it inosculates phocomelia.; int3 -> int4: That dideoxycytosine does inosculate phocomelia.; int4 & fact10 -> int5: That... |
Elbowing takes place. | fact1: If that neither landmark nor Dossing Verdi occur is false then chokehold takes place. fact2: Whisper yields trench. fact3: Germiness is prevented by that both cooking lipidemia and safari happen. fact4: Safari happens. fact5: That both possessing Epidendrum and tracking Asclepius happen does not hold if germines... | fact2 & fact7 -> int1: Trench occurs.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: Cooking lipidemia occurs.; int2 & fact4 -> int3: Cooking lipidemia happens and safari happens.; int3 & fact3 -> int4: Germiness does not takes place.; int4 & fact5 -> int5: That possessing Epidendrum takes place and tracking Asclepius occurs is false.; int5 &... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If that neither landmark nor Dossing Verdi occur is false then chokehold takes place. fact2: Whisper yields... | fact2 & fact7 -> int1: Trench occurs.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: Cooking lipidemia occurs.; int2 & fact4 -> int3: Cooking lipidemia happens and safari happens.; int3 & fact3 -> int4: Germiness does not takes place.; int4 & fact5 -> int5: That possessing Epidendrum takes place and tracking Asclepius occurs is false.; int5 &... |
Fossilization does not happens. | fact1: Genitiveness does not happens if neither journalism nor clustering spuriousness happen. fact2: If non-volumetricness and laboured occur sinkableness does not occurs. fact3: Superintendence and funicular take place. fact4: That instillation does not occurs is caused by that superintendence happens and funicular t... | fact4 & fact3 -> int1: Instillation does not occurs.; int1 -> int2: Ghettoising millifarad takes place and/or instillation does not happens.; int2 & fact6 -> int3: Volumetricness does not takes place.; int3 & fact8 -> int4: Not volumetricness but laboured takes place.; int4 & fact2 -> int5: Sinkableness does not happen... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: Genitiveness does not happens if neither journalism nor clustering spuriousness happen. fact2: If non-volum... | fact4 & fact3 -> int1: Instillation does not occurs.; int1 -> int2: Ghettoising millifarad takes place and/or instillation does not happens.; int2 & fact6 -> int3: Volumetricness does not takes place.; int3 & fact8 -> int4: Not volumetricness but laboured takes place.; int4 & fact2 -> int5: Sinkableness does not happen... |
The statement that that this tabun snorts malted but it is not a NASDAQ is not valid is valid if that baseboard is a Hawaii. | fact1: If that plywood is not a pining then that that plywood neither hydrolyzes nor complains is not invalid. fact2: The Lakota does not decolonise Carangidae if that plywood does not hydrolyze and it does not complain. fact3: The fact that this tabun snorts malted and is not a NASDAQ is not valid if the Lakota does n... | fact6 -> int1: That that Templar jumbles Ligustrum and is not organizational is incorrect.; int1 & fact4 -> int2: That baseboard is unedifying.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that baseboard is a Hawaii.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: That baseboard is unedifying and is a Hawaii.; int3 -> int4: There is something such th... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If that plywood is not a pining then that that plywood neither hydrolyzes nor complains is not invalid. fac... | fact6 -> int1: That that Templar jumbles Ligustrum and is not organizational is incorrect.; int1 & fact4 -> int2: That baseboard is unedifying.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that baseboard is a Hawaii.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: That baseboard is unedifying and is a Hawaii.; int3 -> int4: There is something such th... |
This facility is a circular and a Ceylon. | fact1: If that stibnite does not hinder Pontos then this gaff does not hinder Pontos and/or the one does not stain Muhammadanism. fact2: If either this gaff does not hinder Pontos or it does not stain Muhammadanism or both then this facility is not a hl. fact3: That that pteridologist does not abide fifth but this does... | fact8 -> int1: That pteridologist does not master cornered if that pteridologist does not abide fifth but it dims Bartok.; int1 & fact3 -> int2: That pteridologist does not master cornered.; int2 & fact9 -> int3: That pteridologist is not an annex but that thing is a scantiness.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: That pteridologis... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If that stibnite does not hinder Pontos then this gaff does not hinder Pontos and/or the one does not stain... | fact8 -> int1: That pteridologist does not master cornered if that pteridologist does not abide fifth but it dims Bartok.; int1 & fact3 -> int2: That pteridologist does not master cornered.; int2 & fact9 -> int3: That pteridologist is not an annex but that thing is a scantiness.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: That pteridologis... |
Fibrocartilaginousness does not happens. | fact1: DINK is prevented by that neither unmaltedness occurs nor inhibiting California occurs. fact2: That enrollment happens and Inquisition does not takes place are triggered by moralization. fact3: Fibrocartilaginousness is brought about by facing. fact4: Facing happens if that the statement that straightness does n... | fact9 -> int1: Fractionalness takes place.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: Unmaltedness does not happens and inhibiting California does not takes place.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: DINK does not occurs.; int3 -> int4: Mortgaging originality happens and/or DINK does not takes place.; int4 & fact6 -> int5: Moralization takes place.; i... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: DINK is prevented by that neither unmaltedness occurs nor inhibiting California occurs. fact2: That enrollm... | fact9 -> int1: Fractionalness takes place.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: Unmaltedness does not happens and inhibiting California does not takes place.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: DINK does not occurs.; int3 -> int4: Mortgaging originality happens and/or DINK does not takes place.; int4 & fact6 -> int5: Moralization takes place.; i... |
The fact that neither collegiateness nor unpackagedness happen does not stand. | fact1: If unpackagedness does not happens then collegiateness does not happens and unpackagedness does not occurs. fact2: That uplift does not occurs if that englutting Antilocapridae does not occurs and/or past does not happens is wrong is true. fact3: If fatwa happens chill takes place. fact4: That unpackagedness occ... | fact12 & fact3 & fact6 -> int1: That chill happens holds.; int1 & fact9 -> int2: Chill occurs but nonremittal does not takes place.; int2 & fact11 -> int3: Bibliothecarialness does not takes place.; int3 & fact5 -> int4: That that englutting Antilocapridae does not happens or past does not occurs or both is true does n... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If unpackagedness does not happens then collegiateness does not happens and unpackagedness does not occurs.... | fact12 & fact3 & fact6 -> int1: That chill happens holds.; int1 & fact9 -> int2: Chill occurs but nonremittal does not takes place.; int2 & fact11 -> int3: Bibliothecarialness does not takes place.; int3 & fact5 -> int4: That that englutting Antilocapridae does not happens or past does not occurs or both is true does n... |
Preluding occurs. | fact1: Extropicness takes place. fact2: If consultancy and extropicness happen then straits does not occurs. fact3: Voltage is brought about by diffusingness. fact4: That Foresterness takes place is correct. fact5: Transitiveness does not occurs if that the proposition that euphonicalness but not sop happens is false i... | fact7 & fact10 -> int1: That euphonicalness but not sop takes place does not hold.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: Transitiveness does not happens.; int2 & fact4 -> int3: Both intransitiveness and Foresterness happen.; int3 & fact9 -> int4: Diffusingness occurs.; int4 & fact3 -> int5: Voltage happens.; int5 & fact6 -> int6: Con... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: Extropicness takes place. fact2: If consultancy and extropicness happen then straits does not occurs. fact3... | fact7 & fact10 -> int1: That euphonicalness but not sop takes place does not hold.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: Transitiveness does not happens.; int2 & fact4 -> int3: Both intransitiveness and Foresterness happen.; int3 & fact9 -> int4: Diffusingness occurs.; int4 & fact3 -> int5: Voltage happens.; int5 & fact6 -> int6: Con... |
That murkiness is not Melanesian. | fact1: That bosom does not rebuff Lubitsch and is a Vipera if it is not atrial. fact2: The thaumaturge is pyknotic if it is brachycranic. fact3: That that that cholinesterase is not an anaphora and parries sabbatical stands is incorrect. fact4: That that bosom does not seam and/or it is a mosaic is false if that cholin... | fact11 & fact3 -> int1: That that cholinesterase is staphylococcal holds.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: That cholinesterase is a pointedness.; int2 & fact10 -> int3: That cholinesterase is a mosaic.; int3 & fact4 -> int4: That that bosom does not seam and/or it is a mosaic is invalid.; int4 & fact8 -> int5: That bosom is not ... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That bosom does not rebuff Lubitsch and is a Vipera if it is not atrial. fact2: The thaumaturge is pyknotic... | fact11 & fact3 -> int1: That that cholinesterase is staphylococcal holds.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: That cholinesterase is a pointedness.; int2 & fact10 -> int3: That cholinesterase is a mosaic.; int3 & fact4 -> int4: That that bosom does not seam and/or it is a mosaic is invalid.; int4 & fact8 -> int5: That bosom is not ... |
That swooping takes place is true. | fact1: If reallotment happens then swooping takes place. fact2: If favoring takes place reallotment occurs. fact3: That that not skinning but kinestheticness happens does not stand stands if beginning does not takes place. fact4: That sexed does not takes place is caused by that fingering does not takes place and mises... | fact3 & fact8 -> int1: The fact that skinning does not takes place but kinestheticness takes place is not valid.; int1 & fact10 -> int2: Splat takes place.; int2 -> int3: Either splat or Slavic or both takes place.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: Misestimation does not takes place.; int4 & fact9 -> int5: Neither fingering nor m... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If reallotment happens then swooping takes place. fact2: If favoring takes place reallotment occurs. fact3:... | fact3 & fact8 -> int1: The fact that skinning does not takes place but kinestheticness takes place is not valid.; int1 & fact10 -> int2: Splat takes place.; int2 -> int3: Either splat or Slavic or both takes place.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: Misestimation does not takes place.; int4 & fact9 -> int5: Neither fingering nor m... |
That pass does not happens and Nip does not happens is invalid. | fact1: That both non-Parisianness and politics take place prevent jawing scholia. fact2: If jawing scholia does not occurs neither jawing scholia occurs nor outraging takes place. fact3: That antifungalness takes place and shopping Picoides does not happens are brought about by antifungalness. fact4: Nip does not takes... | fact7 & fact9 -> int1: Incanness does not occurs.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: Both homologizing malice and non-backness happen.; int2 & fact8 -> int3: Antifungalness occurs.; int3 & fact3 -> int4: Antifungalness but not shopping Picoides takes place.; int4 & fact11 -> int5: Parisianness does not occurs.; int5 & fact10 -> in... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That both non-Parisianness and politics take place prevent jawing scholia. fact2: If jawing scholia does no... | fact7 & fact9 -> int1: Incanness does not occurs.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: Both homologizing malice and non-backness happen.; int2 & fact8 -> int3: Antifungalness occurs.; int3 & fact3 -> int4: Antifungalness but not shopping Picoides takes place.; int4 & fact11 -> int5: Parisianness does not occurs.; int5 & fact10 -> in... |
That neither fusion nor produce happen is false. | fact1: If digitalizing millimeter does not occurs then both mitoticness and non-nominativeness happen. fact2: That both mitoticness and non-nominativeness occur prevent non-eschatologicalness. fact3: Frisk but not predestining Marantaceae takes place. fact4: Triumphing takes place. fact5: If exhibiting does not occurs ... | fact11 & fact3 -> int1: Exhibiting does not takes place.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: That cribbing happens and basilarness takes place does not hold.; int2 & fact7 -> int3: Digitalizing millimeter does not occurs.; int3 & fact1 -> int4: Mitoticness occurs and nominativeness does not happens.; int4 & fact2 -> int5: Eschatolo... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If digitalizing millimeter does not occurs then both mitoticness and non-nominativeness happen. fact2: That... | fact11 & fact3 -> int1: Exhibiting does not takes place.; int1 & fact5 -> int2: That cribbing happens and basilarness takes place does not hold.; int2 & fact7 -> int3: Digitalizing millimeter does not occurs.; int3 & fact1 -> int4: Mitoticness occurs and nominativeness does not happens.; int4 & fact2 -> int5: Eschatolo... |
That if this antidote is a thraldom then that gempylid is a cardiomegaly is incorrect. | fact1: If this parvovirus is not a posted then this parvovirus is both not a Geneve and a Thessalonica. fact2: If this antidote does not unloosen thimbleful and is a thraldom then that gempylid is a cardiomegaly. fact3: If this parvovirus is apoplectic and is not a protest then it is not a posted. fact4: Everything is ... | fact4 -> int1: That this parvovirus is apoplectic but she/he is not a protest is not incorrect.; int1 & fact3 -> int2: This parvovirus is not a posted.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: This parvovirus is both not a Geneve and a Thessalonica.; int3 & fact5 -> int4: This parvovirus recites Philomachus.; int4 & fact7 -> int5: This ... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If this parvovirus is not a posted then this parvovirus is both not a Geneve and a Thessalonica. fact2: If ... | fact4 -> int1: That this parvovirus is apoplectic but she/he is not a protest is not incorrect.; int1 & fact3 -> int2: This parvovirus is not a posted.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: This parvovirus is both not a Geneve and a Thessalonica.; int3 & fact5 -> int4: This parvovirus recites Philomachus.; int4 & fact7 -> int5: This ... |
That Meany is not millennian. | fact1: If that Meany is a Anglesea then it is millennian. fact2: That cow is not diligent. fact3: That Meany is a Anglesea if that scenarist is nonexploratory. fact4: The neglecter is not a upstager if that that Kenya is nonadsorptive and is not a Pitt is invalid is true. fact5: Kenya is permeable if Nestor is a Miocen... | fact8 & fact10 -> int1: That cow does not daub predilection.; int1 & fact2 -> int2: That cow is not diligent and it does not daub predilection.; int2 & fact9 -> int3: The fact that Nestor is a Miocene holds.; int3 & fact5 -> int4: Kenya is permeable.; int4 & fact7 -> int5: That Kenya is nonadsorptive and is not a Pitt ... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If that Meany is a Anglesea then it is millennian. fact2: That cow is not diligent. fact3: That Meany is a ... | fact8 & fact10 -> int1: That cow does not daub predilection.; int1 & fact2 -> int2: That cow is not diligent and it does not daub predilection.; int2 & fact9 -> int3: The fact that Nestor is a Miocene holds.; int3 & fact5 -> int4: Kenya is permeable.; int4 & fact7 -> int5: That Kenya is nonadsorptive and is not a Pitt ... |
Featuring fibromyositis does not occurs if that bridging occurs stands. | fact1: Both enterprisingness and usufructuariness occur. fact2: Sevens prevents that feeing hilliness does not occurs. fact3: Confinement or enterprisingness or both prevents ranking litigiousness. fact4: Both reclamation and sevens happen if ranking litigiousness does not happens. fact5: If both feeing hilliness and b... | fact1 -> int1: Enterprisingness happens.; int1 -> int2: Confinement takes place and/or enterprisingness takes place.; int2 & fact3 -> int3: Ranking litigiousness does not occurs.; int3 & fact4 -> int4: Reclamation occurs and sevens occurs.; int4 -> int5: Sevens occurs.; int5 & fact2 -> int6: Feeing hilliness takes plac... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: Both enterprisingness and usufructuariness occur. fact2: Sevens prevents that feeing hilliness does not occ... | fact1 -> int1: Enterprisingness happens.; int1 -> int2: Confinement takes place and/or enterprisingness takes place.; int2 & fact3 -> int3: Ranking litigiousness does not occurs.; int3 & fact4 -> int4: Reclamation occurs and sevens occurs.; int4 -> int5: Sevens occurs.; int5 & fact2 -> int6: Feeing hilliness takes plac... |
If that monosaccharose is not non-cuboid and does deal Asch that Nystan is not a welter. | fact1: That turquoise is an operative. fact2: That lepidomelane is nonimitative if that that monosaccharose deals Asch holds. fact3: That Nystan is not a welter if that turquoise is not a stalk but the one is an operative. fact4: If either that lepidomelane is a Fritillaria or it is a velocity or both that turquoise is... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that that monosaccharose is not non-cuboid and it deals Asch.; assump1 -> int1: That monosaccharose deals Asch.; int1 & fact2 -> int2: That lepidomelane is nonimitative.; int2 & fact6 -> int3: That lepidomelane is a desynchronization.; int3 & fact5 -> int4: That lepidomelane is a Fritillar... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That turquoise is an operative. fact2: That lepidomelane is nonimitative if that that monosaccharose deals ... | void -> assump1: Let's assume that that monosaccharose is not non-cuboid and it deals Asch.; assump1 -> int1: That monosaccharose deals Asch.; int1 & fact2 -> int2: That lepidomelane is nonimitative.; int2 & fact6 -> int3: That lepidomelane is a desynchronization.; int3 & fact5 -> int4: That lepidomelane is a Fritillar... |
Dionysia occurs. | fact1: Torment or ensnaring individualism or both prevents leading. fact2: Irking wantonness occurs if leading does not occurs. fact3: That ineffectiveness happens holds. fact4: Irking wantonness prevents that stopgap does not happens. fact5: Guesstimating Chrysosplenium happens and torment happens. fact6: The fact tha... | fact5 -> int1: Torment happens.; int1 -> int2: Either torment or ensnaring individualism or both occurs.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: Leading does not takes place.; int3 & fact2 -> int4: That irking wantonness occurs holds.; int4 & fact4 -> int5: Stopgap happens.; int5 & fact3 -> int6: Stopgap and ineffectiveness take place.... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: Torment or ensnaring individualism or both prevents leading. fact2: Irking wantonness occurs if leading doe... | fact5 -> int1: Torment happens.; int1 -> int2: Either torment or ensnaring individualism or both occurs.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: Leading does not takes place.; int3 & fact2 -> int4: That irking wantonness occurs holds.; int4 & fact4 -> int5: Stopgap happens.; int5 & fact3 -> int6: Stopgap and ineffectiveness take place.... |
That Chicano is a prosody. | fact1: If this troposphere is non-Afrikaner this troposphere is a vulvovaginitis and is not non-Afrikaner. fact2: The fact that that Chicano is not a prosody if this forge does not jet Blarina holds. fact3: This troposphere airs Thelypteris and is not Afrikaner. fact4: If this tomato does not surf that this blueweed su... | fact3 -> int1: This troposphere is not Afrikaner.; int1 & fact1 -> int2: This troposphere is a vulvovaginitis but this person is not Afrikaner.; int2 & fact10 -> int3: This troposphere does not sunburn width.; int3 & fact5 -> int4: That this northerly does not sunburn width and that one does not divagate holds.; int4 &... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If this troposphere is non-Afrikaner this troposphere is a vulvovaginitis and is not non-Afrikaner. fact2: ... | fact3 -> int1: This troposphere is not Afrikaner.; int1 & fact1 -> int2: This troposphere is a vulvovaginitis but this person is not Afrikaner.; int2 & fact10 -> int3: This troposphere does not sunburn width.; int3 & fact5 -> int4: That this northerly does not sunburn width and that one does not divagate holds.; int4 &... |
The fact that that poilu does preassemble Cattell and is not a Ancistrodon is incorrect. | fact1: This eiderdown forecasts if it ropes Oread. fact2: If this triamcinolone is not a Digitaria and does part interoperability then that poilu is not a Synodontidae. fact3: This eiderdown does not Sin. fact4: This eiderdown does rope Oread and is longing if it does not Sin. fact5: That poilu does preassemble Cattell... | fact4 & fact3 -> int1: This eiderdown ropes Oread and this one is longing.; int1 -> int2: This eiderdown does rope Oread.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: This eiderdown forecasts.; int3 & fact6 -> int4: That that brooklime is turbinate is correct.; int4 & fact7 -> int5: That brooklime parts interoperability.; int5 & fact9 -> in... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: This eiderdown forecasts if it ropes Oread. fact2: If this triamcinolone is not a Digitaria and does part i... | fact4 & fact3 -> int1: This eiderdown ropes Oread and this one is longing.; int1 -> int2: This eiderdown does rope Oread.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: This eiderdown forecasts.; int3 & fact6 -> int4: That that brooklime is turbinate is correct.; int4 & fact7 -> int5: That brooklime parts interoperability.; int5 & fact9 -> in... |
This elegist is a flammability. | fact1: If that this clitoris is not a trichotillomania is valid that this jerkin is not a rhombus and/or the person is not a trichotillomania is false. fact2: That this pignut does not climb seawards is valid if the oarswoman is not a unctuousness and is not Down. fact3: If that this elegist does not dismount and is a ... | fact4 -> int1: If that this clitoris is a disingenuousness and a eidos is invalid it is not a trichotillomania.; int1 & fact10 -> int2: That this clitoris is not a trichotillomania is valid.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: That this jerkin is not a rhombus and/or is not a trichotillomania does not hold.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: T... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: If that this clitoris is not a trichotillomania is valid that this jerkin is not a rhombus and/or the perso... | fact4 -> int1: If that this clitoris is a disingenuousness and a eidos is invalid it is not a trichotillomania.; int1 & fact10 -> int2: That this clitoris is not a trichotillomania is valid.; int2 & fact1 -> int3: That this jerkin is not a rhombus and/or is not a trichotillomania does not hold.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: T... |
That physic furrows sesquipedalia. | fact1: This mitt is not metallurgical. fact2: That physic does not normalise but it does furrow sesquipedalia if that physic does not normalise. fact3: That physic does not normalise if that quiff is not planographic or it is not a kilogram or both. fact4: That quiff neither is a Kwangtung nor is deductive if this mitt... | fact6 & fact1 -> int1: This mitt is not alchemical and it is not utmost.; int1 -> int2: This mitt is not alchemical.; int2 & fact7 -> int3: This mitt is a Kwangtung and is a Milne.; int3 -> int4: This mitt is a Kwangtung.; int4 & fact4 -> int5: That quiff is not a Kwangtung and it is non-deductive.; int5 -> int6: That ... | PROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: This mitt is not metallurgical. fact2: That physic does not normalise but it does furrow sesquipedalia if t... | fact6 & fact1 -> int1: This mitt is not alchemical and it is not utmost.; int1 -> int2: This mitt is not alchemical.; int2 & fact7 -> int3: This mitt is a Kwangtung and is a Milne.; int3 -> int4: This mitt is a Kwangtung.; int4 & fact4 -> int5: That quiff is not a Kwangtung and it is non-deductive.; int5 -> int6: That ... |
This cap is not a Fiedler. | fact1: That this Votyak either does not robe antepenultimate or is not a Pholistoma or both is wrong if the deflector is a Pholistoma. fact2: If that that antisyphilitic is a whimper is not incorrect then that is effectual. fact3: That strobe is not a clobber if that this Votyak does not robe antepenultimate and/or is ... | fact10 -> int1: The deflector is a Pholistoma.; int1 & fact1 -> int2: That either this Votyak does not robe antepenultimate or it is not a Pholistoma or both does not stand.; int2 & fact3 -> int3: That strobe is not a clobber.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: That that brethren is not orbital and this thing is not a clobber does... | DISPROVED | 10 | 0 | Based on the provided facts ($facts$), verify the hypothesis ($hypothesis$). Conclude with one of the markers: __PROVED__ for proven, __DISPROVED__ for disproven. Let's analyze this step by step. $facts$ = fact1: That this Votyak either does not robe antepenultimate or is not a Pholistoma or both is wrong if the deflec... | fact10 -> int1: The deflector is a Pholistoma.; int1 & fact1 -> int2: That either this Votyak does not robe antepenultimate or it is not a Pholistoma or both does not stand.; int2 & fact3 -> int3: That strobe is not a clobber.; int3 & fact7 -> int4: That that brethren is not orbital and this thing is not a clobber does... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.