premise
stringlengths 923
1.41k
| hypothesis
stringlengths 11
33
| label
stringclasses 4
values |
|---|---|---|
Royce is not self-confident.
Scott is not black.
Royce is not bloody.
Claude is black.
Harley is not black.
Scott is not cloudy.
Lincoln is not bloody.
Harley is not self-confident.
Claude is bloody.
Kianna is bloody.
Claude is not self-confident.
Royce is cloudy.Someone who is eithor delightful or not enchanting is always not bloody.
All black people are bloody.
If there is at least one people who is not self-confident, then Rosie is not delightful.
It can be concluded that Scott is not self-confident and Kianna is cloudy once knowing that Harley is delightful.
If someone is bloody and self-confident, then he is both not delightful and enchanting, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is delightful, then Harley is not black.
Someone being delightful is equivalent to being black.
If someone is not enchanting and self-confident, then he is not delightful, and vice versa.
Claude is not black if and only if Claude is enchanting and Rosie is delightful.
If Kianna is self-confident, then Claude is black and Rosie is delightful, and vice versa.
Someone who is not bloody is always both self-confident and not enchanting.
If someone who is black is also not self-confident, then he is cloudy. | Lincoln is not bloody. | entailment |
Royce is not self-confident.
Scott is not black.
Royce is not bloody.
Claude is black.
Harley is not black.
Scott is not cloudy.
Lincoln is not bloody.
Harley is not self-confident.
Claude is bloody.
Kianna is bloody.
Claude is not self-confident.
Royce is cloudy.Someone who is eithor delightful or not enchanting is always not bloody.
All black people are bloody.
If there is at least one people who is not self-confident, then Rosie is not delightful.
It can be concluded that Scott is not self-confident and Kianna is cloudy once knowing that Harley is delightful.
If someone is bloody and self-confident, then he is both not delightful and enchanting, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is delightful, then Harley is not black.
Someone being delightful is equivalent to being black.
If someone is not enchanting and self-confident, then he is not delightful, and vice versa.
Claude is not black if and only if Claude is enchanting and Rosie is delightful.
If Kianna is self-confident, then Claude is black and Rosie is delightful, and vice versa.
Someone who is not bloody is always both self-confident and not enchanting.
If someone who is black is also not self-confident, then he is cloudy. | Harley is bloody. | neutral |
Royce is not self-confident.
Scott is not black.
Royce is not bloody.
Claude is black.
Harley is not black.
Scott is not cloudy.
Lincoln is not bloody.
Harley is not self-confident.
Claude is bloody.
Kianna is bloody.
Claude is not self-confident.
Royce is cloudy.Someone who is eithor delightful or not enchanting is always not bloody.
All black people are bloody.
If there is at least one people who is not self-confident, then Rosie is not delightful.
It can be concluded that Scott is not self-confident and Kianna is cloudy once knowing that Harley is delightful.
If someone is bloody and self-confident, then he is both not delightful and enchanting, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is delightful, then Harley is not black.
Someone being delightful is equivalent to being black.
If someone is not enchanting and self-confident, then he is not delightful, and vice versa.
Claude is not black if and only if Claude is enchanting and Rosie is delightful.
If Kianna is self-confident, then Claude is black and Rosie is delightful, and vice versa.
Someone who is not bloody is always both self-confident and not enchanting.
If someone who is black is also not self-confident, then he is cloudy. | Royce is not self-confident. | self_contradiction |
Royce is not self-confident.
Scott is not black.
Royce is not bloody.
Claude is black.
Harley is not black.
Scott is not cloudy.
Lincoln is not bloody.
Harley is not self-confident.
Claude is bloody.
Kianna is bloody.
Claude is not self-confident.
Royce is cloudy.Someone who is eithor delightful or not enchanting is always not bloody.
All black people are bloody.
If there is at least one people who is not self-confident, then Rosie is not delightful.
It can be concluded that Scott is not self-confident and Kianna is cloudy once knowing that Harley is delightful.
If someone is bloody and self-confident, then he is both not delightful and enchanting, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is delightful, then Harley is not black.
Someone being delightful is equivalent to being black.
If someone is not enchanting and self-confident, then he is not delightful, and vice versa.
Claude is not black if and only if Claude is enchanting and Rosie is delightful.
If Kianna is self-confident, then Claude is black and Rosie is delightful, and vice versa.
Someone who is not bloody is always both self-confident and not enchanting.
If someone who is black is also not self-confident, then he is cloudy. | Royce is delightful. | contradiction |
Royce is not self-confident.
Scott is not black.
Royce is not bloody.
Claude is black.
Harley is not black.
Scott is not cloudy.
Lincoln is not bloody.
Harley is not self-confident.
Claude is bloody.
Kianna is bloody.
Claude is not self-confident.
Royce is cloudy.Someone who is eithor delightful or not enchanting is always not bloody.
All black people are bloody.
If there is at least one people who is not self-confident, then Rosie is not delightful.
It can be concluded that Scott is not self-confident and Kianna is cloudy once knowing that Harley is delightful.
If someone is bloody and self-confident, then he is both not delightful and enchanting, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is delightful, then Harley is not black.
Someone being delightful is equivalent to being black.
If someone is not enchanting and self-confident, then he is not delightful, and vice versa.
Claude is not black if and only if Claude is enchanting and Rosie is delightful.
If Kianna is self-confident, then Claude is black and Rosie is delightful, and vice versa.
Someone who is not bloody is always both self-confident and not enchanting.
If someone who is black is also not self-confident, then he is cloudy. | Kianna is not delightful. | neutral |
Royce is not self-confident.
Scott is not black.
Royce is not bloody.
Claude is black.
Harley is not black.
Scott is not cloudy.
Lincoln is not bloody.
Harley is not self-confident.
Claude is bloody.
Kianna is bloody.
Claude is not self-confident.
Royce is cloudy.Someone who is eithor delightful or not enchanting is always not bloody.
All black people are bloody.
If there is at least one people who is not self-confident, then Rosie is not delightful.
It can be concluded that Scott is not self-confident and Kianna is cloudy once knowing that Harley is delightful.
If someone is bloody and self-confident, then he is both not delightful and enchanting, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is delightful, then Harley is not black.
Someone being delightful is equivalent to being black.
If someone is not enchanting and self-confident, then he is not delightful, and vice versa.
Claude is not black if and only if Claude is enchanting and Rosie is delightful.
If Kianna is self-confident, then Claude is black and Rosie is delightful, and vice versa.
Someone who is not bloody is always both self-confident and not enchanting.
If someone who is black is also not self-confident, then he is cloudy. | Claude is not bloody. | self_contradiction |
Royce is not self-confident.
Scott is not black.
Royce is not bloody.
Claude is black.
Harley is not black.
Scott is not cloudy.
Lincoln is not bloody.
Harley is not self-confident.
Claude is bloody.
Kianna is bloody.
Claude is not self-confident.
Royce is cloudy.Someone who is eithor delightful or not enchanting is always not bloody.
All black people are bloody.
If there is at least one people who is not self-confident, then Rosie is not delightful.
It can be concluded that Scott is not self-confident and Kianna is cloudy once knowing that Harley is delightful.
If someone is bloody and self-confident, then he is both not delightful and enchanting, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is delightful, then Harley is not black.
Someone being delightful is equivalent to being black.
If someone is not enchanting and self-confident, then he is not delightful, and vice versa.
Claude is not black if and only if Claude is enchanting and Rosie is delightful.
If Kianna is self-confident, then Claude is black and Rosie is delightful, and vice versa.
Someone who is not bloody is always both self-confident and not enchanting.
If someone who is black is also not self-confident, then he is cloudy. | Claude is bloody. | self_contradiction |
Royce is not self-confident.
Scott is not black.
Royce is not bloody.
Claude is black.
Harley is not black.
Scott is not cloudy.
Lincoln is not bloody.
Harley is not self-confident.
Claude is bloody.
Kianna is bloody.
Claude is not self-confident.
Royce is cloudy.Someone who is eithor delightful or not enchanting is always not bloody.
All black people are bloody.
If there is at least one people who is not self-confident, then Rosie is not delightful.
It can be concluded that Scott is not self-confident and Kianna is cloudy once knowing that Harley is delightful.
If someone is bloody and self-confident, then he is both not delightful and enchanting, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is delightful, then Harley is not black.
Someone being delightful is equivalent to being black.
If someone is not enchanting and self-confident, then he is not delightful, and vice versa.
Claude is not black if and only if Claude is enchanting and Rosie is delightful.
If Kianna is self-confident, then Claude is black and Rosie is delightful, and vice versa.
Someone who is not bloody is always both self-confident and not enchanting.
If someone who is black is also not self-confident, then he is cloudy. | Kianna is cloudy. | neutral |
Royce is not self-confident.
Scott is not black.
Royce is not bloody.
Claude is black.
Harley is not black.
Scott is not cloudy.
Lincoln is not bloody.
Harley is not self-confident.
Claude is bloody.
Kianna is bloody.
Claude is not self-confident.
Royce is cloudy.Someone who is eithor delightful or not enchanting is always not bloody.
All black people are bloody.
If there is at least one people who is not self-confident, then Rosie is not delightful.
It can be concluded that Scott is not self-confident and Kianna is cloudy once knowing that Harley is delightful.
If someone is bloody and self-confident, then he is both not delightful and enchanting, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is delightful, then Harley is not black.
Someone being delightful is equivalent to being black.
If someone is not enchanting and self-confident, then he is not delightful, and vice versa.
Claude is not black if and only if Claude is enchanting and Rosie is delightful.
If Kianna is self-confident, then Claude is black and Rosie is delightful, and vice versa.
Someone who is not bloody is always both self-confident and not enchanting.
If someone who is black is also not self-confident, then he is cloudy. | Scott is cloudy. | contradiction |
Royce is not self-confident.
Scott is not black.
Royce is not bloody.
Claude is black.
Harley is not black.
Scott is not cloudy.
Lincoln is not bloody.
Harley is not self-confident.
Claude is bloody.
Kianna is bloody.
Claude is not self-confident.
Royce is cloudy.Someone who is eithor delightful or not enchanting is always not bloody.
All black people are bloody.
If there is at least one people who is not self-confident, then Rosie is not delightful.
It can be concluded that Scott is not self-confident and Kianna is cloudy once knowing that Harley is delightful.
If someone is bloody and self-confident, then he is both not delightful and enchanting, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is delightful, then Harley is not black.
Someone being delightful is equivalent to being black.
If someone is not enchanting and self-confident, then he is not delightful, and vice versa.
Claude is not black if and only if Claude is enchanting and Rosie is delightful.
If Kianna is self-confident, then Claude is black and Rosie is delightful, and vice versa.
Someone who is not bloody is always both self-confident and not enchanting.
If someone who is black is also not self-confident, then he is cloudy. | Royce is cloudy. | entailment |
Royce is not self-confident.
Scott is not black.
Royce is not bloody.
Claude is black.
Harley is not black.
Scott is not cloudy.
Lincoln is not bloody.
Harley is not self-confident.
Claude is bloody.
Kianna is bloody.
Claude is not self-confident.
Royce is cloudy.Someone who is eithor delightful or not enchanting is always not bloody.
All black people are bloody.
If there is at least one people who is not self-confident, then Rosie is not delightful.
It can be concluded that Scott is not self-confident and Kianna is cloudy once knowing that Harley is delightful.
If someone is bloody and self-confident, then he is both not delightful and enchanting, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is delightful, then Harley is not black.
Someone being delightful is equivalent to being black.
If someone is not enchanting and self-confident, then he is not delightful, and vice versa.
Claude is not black if and only if Claude is enchanting and Rosie is delightful.
If Kianna is self-confident, then Claude is black and Rosie is delightful, and vice versa.
Someone who is not bloody is always both self-confident and not enchanting.
If someone who is black is also not self-confident, then he is cloudy. | Rosie is not enchanting. | entailment |
Royce is not self-confident.
Scott is not black.
Royce is not bloody.
Claude is black.
Harley is not black.
Scott is not cloudy.
Lincoln is not bloody.
Harley is not self-confident.
Claude is bloody.
Kianna is bloody.
Claude is not self-confident.
Royce is cloudy.Someone who is eithor delightful or not enchanting is always not bloody.
All black people are bloody.
If there is at least one people who is not self-confident, then Rosie is not delightful.
It can be concluded that Scott is not self-confident and Kianna is cloudy once knowing that Harley is delightful.
If someone is bloody and self-confident, then he is both not delightful and enchanting, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is delightful, then Harley is not black.
Someone being delightful is equivalent to being black.
If someone is not enchanting and self-confident, then he is not delightful, and vice versa.
Claude is not black if and only if Claude is enchanting and Rosie is delightful.
If Kianna is self-confident, then Claude is black and Rosie is delightful, and vice versa.
Someone who is not bloody is always both self-confident and not enchanting.
If someone who is black is also not self-confident, then he is cloudy. | Harley is black. | contradiction |
Royce is not self-confident.
Scott is not black.
Royce is not bloody.
Claude is black.
Harley is not black.
Scott is not cloudy.
Lincoln is not bloody.
Harley is not self-confident.
Claude is bloody.
Kianna is bloody.
Claude is not self-confident.
Royce is cloudy.Someone who is eithor delightful or not enchanting is always not bloody.
All black people are bloody.
If there is at least one people who is not self-confident, then Rosie is not delightful.
It can be concluded that Scott is not self-confident and Kianna is cloudy once knowing that Harley is delightful.
If someone is bloody and self-confident, then he is both not delightful and enchanting, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is delightful, then Harley is not black.
Someone being delightful is equivalent to being black.
If someone is not enchanting and self-confident, then he is not delightful, and vice versa.
Claude is not black if and only if Claude is enchanting and Rosie is delightful.
If Kianna is self-confident, then Claude is black and Rosie is delightful, and vice versa.
Someone who is not bloody is always both self-confident and not enchanting.
If someone who is black is also not self-confident, then he is cloudy. | Lincoln is cloudy. | neutral |
Royce is not self-confident.
Scott is not black.
Royce is not bloody.
Claude is black.
Harley is not black.
Scott is not cloudy.
Lincoln is not bloody.
Harley is not self-confident.
Claude is bloody.
Kianna is bloody.
Claude is not self-confident.
Royce is cloudy.Someone who is eithor delightful or not enchanting is always not bloody.
All black people are bloody.
If there is at least one people who is not self-confident, then Rosie is not delightful.
It can be concluded that Scott is not self-confident and Kianna is cloudy once knowing that Harley is delightful.
If someone is bloody and self-confident, then he is both not delightful and enchanting, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is delightful, then Harley is not black.
Someone being delightful is equivalent to being black.
If someone is not enchanting and self-confident, then he is not delightful, and vice versa.
Claude is not black if and only if Claude is enchanting and Rosie is delightful.
If Kianna is self-confident, then Claude is black and Rosie is delightful, and vice versa.
Someone who is not bloody is always both self-confident and not enchanting.
If someone who is black is also not self-confident, then he is cloudy. | Rosie is self-confident. | entailment |
Royce is not self-confident.
Scott is not black.
Royce is not bloody.
Claude is black.
Harley is not black.
Scott is not cloudy.
Lincoln is not bloody.
Harley is not self-confident.
Claude is bloody.
Kianna is bloody.
Claude is not self-confident.
Royce is cloudy.Someone who is eithor delightful or not enchanting is always not bloody.
All black people are bloody.
If there is at least one people who is not self-confident, then Rosie is not delightful.
It can be concluded that Scott is not self-confident and Kianna is cloudy once knowing that Harley is delightful.
If someone is bloody and self-confident, then he is both not delightful and enchanting, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is delightful, then Harley is not black.
Someone being delightful is equivalent to being black.
If someone is not enchanting and self-confident, then he is not delightful, and vice versa.
Claude is not black if and only if Claude is enchanting and Rosie is delightful.
If Kianna is self-confident, then Claude is black and Rosie is delightful, and vice versa.
Someone who is not bloody is always both self-confident and not enchanting.
If someone who is black is also not self-confident, then he is cloudy. | Kianna is not bloody. | contradiction |
Royce is not self-confident.
Scott is not black.
Royce is not bloody.
Claude is black.
Harley is not black.
Scott is not cloudy.
Lincoln is not bloody.
Harley is not self-confident.
Claude is bloody.
Kianna is bloody.
Claude is not self-confident.
Royce is cloudy.Someone who is eithor delightful or not enchanting is always not bloody.
All black people are bloody.
If there is at least one people who is not self-confident, then Rosie is not delightful.
It can be concluded that Scott is not self-confident and Kianna is cloudy once knowing that Harley is delightful.
If someone is bloody and self-confident, then he is both not delightful and enchanting, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is delightful, then Harley is not black.
Someone being delightful is equivalent to being black.
If someone is not enchanting and self-confident, then he is not delightful, and vice versa.
Claude is not black if and only if Claude is enchanting and Rosie is delightful.
If Kianna is self-confident, then Claude is black and Rosie is delightful, and vice versa.
Someone who is not bloody is always both self-confident and not enchanting.
If someone who is black is also not self-confident, then he is cloudy. | Kianna is not self-confident. | neutral |
Royce is not self-confident.
Scott is not black.
Royce is not bloody.
Claude is black.
Harley is not black.
Scott is not cloudy.
Lincoln is not bloody.
Harley is not self-confident.
Claude is bloody.
Kianna is bloody.
Claude is not self-confident.
Royce is cloudy.Someone who is eithor delightful or not enchanting is always not bloody.
All black people are bloody.
If there is at least one people who is not self-confident, then Rosie is not delightful.
It can be concluded that Scott is not self-confident and Kianna is cloudy once knowing that Harley is delightful.
If someone is bloody and self-confident, then he is both not delightful and enchanting, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is delightful, then Harley is not black.
Someone being delightful is equivalent to being black.
If someone is not enchanting and self-confident, then he is not delightful, and vice versa.
Claude is not black if and only if Claude is enchanting and Rosie is delightful.
If Kianna is self-confident, then Claude is black and Rosie is delightful, and vice versa.
Someone who is not bloody is always both self-confident and not enchanting.
If someone who is black is also not self-confident, then he is cloudy. | Claude is not self-confident. | self_contradiction |
Royce is not self-confident.
Scott is not black.
Royce is not bloody.
Claude is black.
Harley is not black.
Scott is not cloudy.
Lincoln is not bloody.
Harley is not self-confident.
Claude is bloody.
Kianna is bloody.
Claude is not self-confident.
Royce is cloudy.Someone who is eithor delightful or not enchanting is always not bloody.
All black people are bloody.
If there is at least one people who is not self-confident, then Rosie is not delightful.
It can be concluded that Scott is not self-confident and Kianna is cloudy once knowing that Harley is delightful.
If someone is bloody and self-confident, then he is both not delightful and enchanting, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is delightful, then Harley is not black.
Someone being delightful is equivalent to being black.
If someone is not enchanting and self-confident, then he is not delightful, and vice versa.
Claude is not black if and only if Claude is enchanting and Rosie is delightful.
If Kianna is self-confident, then Claude is black and Rosie is delightful, and vice versa.
Someone who is not bloody is always both self-confident and not enchanting.
If someone who is black is also not self-confident, then he is cloudy. | Claude is not delightful. | self_contradiction |
Royce is not self-confident.
Scott is not black.
Royce is not bloody.
Claude is black.
Harley is not black.
Scott is not cloudy.
Lincoln is not bloody.
Harley is not self-confident.
Claude is bloody.
Kianna is bloody.
Claude is not self-confident.
Royce is cloudy.Someone who is eithor delightful or not enchanting is always not bloody.
All black people are bloody.
If there is at least one people who is not self-confident, then Rosie is not delightful.
It can be concluded that Scott is not self-confident and Kianna is cloudy once knowing that Harley is delightful.
If someone is bloody and self-confident, then he is both not delightful and enchanting, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is delightful, then Harley is not black.
Someone being delightful is equivalent to being black.
If someone is not enchanting and self-confident, then he is not delightful, and vice versa.
Claude is not black if and only if Claude is enchanting and Rosie is delightful.
If Kianna is self-confident, then Claude is black and Rosie is delightful, and vice versa.
Someone who is not bloody is always both self-confident and not enchanting.
If someone who is black is also not self-confident, then he is cloudy. | Claude is cloudy. | entailment |
Royce is not self-confident.
Scott is not black.
Royce is not bloody.
Claude is black.
Harley is not black.
Scott is not cloudy.
Lincoln is not bloody.
Harley is not self-confident.
Claude is bloody.
Kianna is bloody.
Claude is not self-confident.
Royce is cloudy.Someone who is eithor delightful or not enchanting is always not bloody.
All black people are bloody.
If there is at least one people who is not self-confident, then Rosie is not delightful.
It can be concluded that Scott is not self-confident and Kianna is cloudy once knowing that Harley is delightful.
If someone is bloody and self-confident, then he is both not delightful and enchanting, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is delightful, then Harley is not black.
Someone being delightful is equivalent to being black.
If someone is not enchanting and self-confident, then he is not delightful, and vice versa.
Claude is not black if and only if Claude is enchanting and Rosie is delightful.
If Kianna is self-confident, then Claude is black and Rosie is delightful, and vice versa.
Someone who is not bloody is always both self-confident and not enchanting.
If someone who is black is also not self-confident, then he is cloudy. | Rosie is enchanting. | contradiction |
Tracey is innocent.
Dave is modern.
Isabel is not quaint.
Dave is hurt.
Goddard is hurt.
Dave is innocent.
Isabel is not hurt.
Amos is large.
Dave is large.
Goddard is not large.
Goddard is quaint.
Tracey is not modern.Pierce being innocent or Benton being not hurt implies that Goddard is talented.
Someone is talented and not hurt if and only if he is innocent and large.
If there is at least one people who is hurt, then Goddard is not quaint.
Pierce being innocent and Goddard being not hurt imply that Benton is quaint.
Tracey being not talented or Isabel being hurt implies that Isabel is not modern.
If someone is not large, then he is not hurt, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Goddard is not innocent and Benton is not modern once knowing that Benton is not hurt.
If Isabel is talented, then Amos is modern.
If there is at least one people who is not quaint, then Tracey is not large and Isabel is modern.
It can be concluded that Benton is not talented once knowing that Benton is not quaint and Amos is not large.
If there is someone who is not innocent, then Pierce is large.
If there is at least one people who is not large or talented, then Tracey is not quaint. | Isabel is modern. | entailment |
Tracey is innocent.
Dave is modern.
Isabel is not quaint.
Dave is hurt.
Goddard is hurt.
Dave is innocent.
Isabel is not hurt.
Amos is large.
Dave is large.
Goddard is not large.
Goddard is quaint.
Tracey is not modern.Pierce being innocent or Benton being not hurt implies that Goddard is talented.
Someone is talented and not hurt if and only if he is innocent and large.
If there is at least one people who is hurt, then Goddard is not quaint.
Pierce being innocent and Goddard being not hurt imply that Benton is quaint.
Tracey being not talented or Isabel being hurt implies that Isabel is not modern.
If someone is not large, then he is not hurt, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Goddard is not innocent and Benton is not modern once knowing that Benton is not hurt.
If Isabel is talented, then Amos is modern.
If there is at least one people who is not quaint, then Tracey is not large and Isabel is modern.
It can be concluded that Benton is not talented once knowing that Benton is not quaint and Amos is not large.
If there is someone who is not innocent, then Pierce is large.
If there is at least one people who is not large or talented, then Tracey is not quaint. | Dave is talented. | entailment |
Tracey is innocent.
Dave is modern.
Isabel is not quaint.
Dave is hurt.
Goddard is hurt.
Dave is innocent.
Isabel is not hurt.
Amos is large.
Dave is large.
Goddard is not large.
Goddard is quaint.
Tracey is not modern.Pierce being innocent or Benton being not hurt implies that Goddard is talented.
Someone is talented and not hurt if and only if he is innocent and large.
If there is at least one people who is hurt, then Goddard is not quaint.
Pierce being innocent and Goddard being not hurt imply that Benton is quaint.
Tracey being not talented or Isabel being hurt implies that Isabel is not modern.
If someone is not large, then he is not hurt, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Goddard is not innocent and Benton is not modern once knowing that Benton is not hurt.
If Isabel is talented, then Amos is modern.
If there is at least one people who is not quaint, then Tracey is not large and Isabel is modern.
It can be concluded that Benton is not talented once knowing that Benton is not quaint and Amos is not large.
If there is someone who is not innocent, then Pierce is large.
If there is at least one people who is not large or talented, then Tracey is not quaint. | Goddard is quaint. | self_contradiction |
Tracey is innocent.
Dave is modern.
Isabel is not quaint.
Dave is hurt.
Goddard is hurt.
Dave is innocent.
Isabel is not hurt.
Amos is large.
Dave is large.
Goddard is not large.
Goddard is quaint.
Tracey is not modern.Pierce being innocent or Benton being not hurt implies that Goddard is talented.
Someone is talented and not hurt if and only if he is innocent and large.
If there is at least one people who is hurt, then Goddard is not quaint.
Pierce being innocent and Goddard being not hurt imply that Benton is quaint.
Tracey being not talented or Isabel being hurt implies that Isabel is not modern.
If someone is not large, then he is not hurt, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Goddard is not innocent and Benton is not modern once knowing that Benton is not hurt.
If Isabel is talented, then Amos is modern.
If there is at least one people who is not quaint, then Tracey is not large and Isabel is modern.
It can be concluded that Benton is not talented once knowing that Benton is not quaint and Amos is not large.
If there is someone who is not innocent, then Pierce is large.
If there is at least one people who is not large or talented, then Tracey is not quaint. | Tracey is quaint. | contradiction |
Tracey is innocent.
Dave is modern.
Isabel is not quaint.
Dave is hurt.
Goddard is hurt.
Dave is innocent.
Isabel is not hurt.
Amos is large.
Dave is large.
Goddard is not large.
Goddard is quaint.
Tracey is not modern.Pierce being innocent or Benton being not hurt implies that Goddard is talented.
Someone is talented and not hurt if and only if he is innocent and large.
If there is at least one people who is hurt, then Goddard is not quaint.
Pierce being innocent and Goddard being not hurt imply that Benton is quaint.
Tracey being not talented or Isabel being hurt implies that Isabel is not modern.
If someone is not large, then he is not hurt, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Goddard is not innocent and Benton is not modern once knowing that Benton is not hurt.
If Isabel is talented, then Amos is modern.
If there is at least one people who is not quaint, then Tracey is not large and Isabel is modern.
It can be concluded that Benton is not talented once knowing that Benton is not quaint and Amos is not large.
If there is someone who is not innocent, then Pierce is large.
If there is at least one people who is not large or talented, then Tracey is not quaint. | Dave is not large. | self_contradiction |
Tracey is innocent.
Dave is modern.
Isabel is not quaint.
Dave is hurt.
Goddard is hurt.
Dave is innocent.
Isabel is not hurt.
Amos is large.
Dave is large.
Goddard is not large.
Goddard is quaint.
Tracey is not modern.Pierce being innocent or Benton being not hurt implies that Goddard is talented.
Someone is talented and not hurt if and only if he is innocent and large.
If there is at least one people who is hurt, then Goddard is not quaint.
Pierce being innocent and Goddard being not hurt imply that Benton is quaint.
Tracey being not talented or Isabel being hurt implies that Isabel is not modern.
If someone is not large, then he is not hurt, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Goddard is not innocent and Benton is not modern once knowing that Benton is not hurt.
If Isabel is talented, then Amos is modern.
If there is at least one people who is not quaint, then Tracey is not large and Isabel is modern.
It can be concluded that Benton is not talented once knowing that Benton is not quaint and Amos is not large.
If there is someone who is not innocent, then Pierce is large.
If there is at least one people who is not large or talented, then Tracey is not quaint. | Isabel is not quaint. | entailment |
Tracey is innocent.
Dave is modern.
Isabel is not quaint.
Dave is hurt.
Goddard is hurt.
Dave is innocent.
Isabel is not hurt.
Amos is large.
Dave is large.
Goddard is not large.
Goddard is quaint.
Tracey is not modern.Pierce being innocent or Benton being not hurt implies that Goddard is talented.
Someone is talented and not hurt if and only if he is innocent and large.
If there is at least one people who is hurt, then Goddard is not quaint.
Pierce being innocent and Goddard being not hurt imply that Benton is quaint.
Tracey being not talented or Isabel being hurt implies that Isabel is not modern.
If someone is not large, then he is not hurt, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Goddard is not innocent and Benton is not modern once knowing that Benton is not hurt.
If Isabel is talented, then Amos is modern.
If there is at least one people who is not quaint, then Tracey is not large and Isabel is modern.
It can be concluded that Benton is not talented once knowing that Benton is not quaint and Amos is not large.
If there is someone who is not innocent, then Pierce is large.
If there is at least one people who is not large or talented, then Tracey is not quaint. | Tracey is not large. | entailment |
Tracey is innocent.
Dave is modern.
Isabel is not quaint.
Dave is hurt.
Goddard is hurt.
Dave is innocent.
Isabel is not hurt.
Amos is large.
Dave is large.
Goddard is not large.
Goddard is quaint.
Tracey is not modern.Pierce being innocent or Benton being not hurt implies that Goddard is talented.
Someone is talented and not hurt if and only if he is innocent and large.
If there is at least one people who is hurt, then Goddard is not quaint.
Pierce being innocent and Goddard being not hurt imply that Benton is quaint.
Tracey being not talented or Isabel being hurt implies that Isabel is not modern.
If someone is not large, then he is not hurt, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Goddard is not innocent and Benton is not modern once knowing that Benton is not hurt.
If Isabel is talented, then Amos is modern.
If there is at least one people who is not quaint, then Tracey is not large and Isabel is modern.
It can be concluded that Benton is not talented once knowing that Benton is not quaint and Amos is not large.
If there is someone who is not innocent, then Pierce is large.
If there is at least one people who is not large or talented, then Tracey is not quaint. | Amos is not quaint. | neutral |
Tracey is innocent.
Dave is modern.
Isabel is not quaint.
Dave is hurt.
Goddard is hurt.
Dave is innocent.
Isabel is not hurt.
Amos is large.
Dave is large.
Goddard is not large.
Goddard is quaint.
Tracey is not modern.Pierce being innocent or Benton being not hurt implies that Goddard is talented.
Someone is talented and not hurt if and only if he is innocent and large.
If there is at least one people who is hurt, then Goddard is not quaint.
Pierce being innocent and Goddard being not hurt imply that Benton is quaint.
Tracey being not talented or Isabel being hurt implies that Isabel is not modern.
If someone is not large, then he is not hurt, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Goddard is not innocent and Benton is not modern once knowing that Benton is not hurt.
If Isabel is talented, then Amos is modern.
If there is at least one people who is not quaint, then Tracey is not large and Isabel is modern.
It can be concluded that Benton is not talented once knowing that Benton is not quaint and Amos is not large.
If there is someone who is not innocent, then Pierce is large.
If there is at least one people who is not large or talented, then Tracey is not quaint. | Benton is innocent. | neutral |
Tracey is innocent.
Dave is modern.
Isabel is not quaint.
Dave is hurt.
Goddard is hurt.
Dave is innocent.
Isabel is not hurt.
Amos is large.
Dave is large.
Goddard is not large.
Goddard is quaint.
Tracey is not modern.Pierce being innocent or Benton being not hurt implies that Goddard is talented.
Someone is talented and not hurt if and only if he is innocent and large.
If there is at least one people who is hurt, then Goddard is not quaint.
Pierce being innocent and Goddard being not hurt imply that Benton is quaint.
Tracey being not talented or Isabel being hurt implies that Isabel is not modern.
If someone is not large, then he is not hurt, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Goddard is not innocent and Benton is not modern once knowing that Benton is not hurt.
If Isabel is talented, then Amos is modern.
If there is at least one people who is not quaint, then Tracey is not large and Isabel is modern.
It can be concluded that Benton is not talented once knowing that Benton is not quaint and Amos is not large.
If there is someone who is not innocent, then Pierce is large.
If there is at least one people who is not large or talented, then Tracey is not quaint. | Goddard is not hurt. | self_contradiction |
Tracey is innocent.
Dave is modern.
Isabel is not quaint.
Dave is hurt.
Goddard is hurt.
Dave is innocent.
Isabel is not hurt.
Amos is large.
Dave is large.
Goddard is not large.
Goddard is quaint.
Tracey is not modern.Pierce being innocent or Benton being not hurt implies that Goddard is talented.
Someone is talented and not hurt if and only if he is innocent and large.
If there is at least one people who is hurt, then Goddard is not quaint.
Pierce being innocent and Goddard being not hurt imply that Benton is quaint.
Tracey being not talented or Isabel being hurt implies that Isabel is not modern.
If someone is not large, then he is not hurt, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Goddard is not innocent and Benton is not modern once knowing that Benton is not hurt.
If Isabel is talented, then Amos is modern.
If there is at least one people who is not quaint, then Tracey is not large and Isabel is modern.
It can be concluded that Benton is not talented once knowing that Benton is not quaint and Amos is not large.
If there is someone who is not innocent, then Pierce is large.
If there is at least one people who is not large or talented, then Tracey is not quaint. | Amos is innocent. | neutral |
Tracey is innocent.
Dave is modern.
Isabel is not quaint.
Dave is hurt.
Goddard is hurt.
Dave is innocent.
Isabel is not hurt.
Amos is large.
Dave is large.
Goddard is not large.
Goddard is quaint.
Tracey is not modern.Pierce being innocent or Benton being not hurt implies that Goddard is talented.
Someone is talented and not hurt if and only if he is innocent and large.
If there is at least one people who is hurt, then Goddard is not quaint.
Pierce being innocent and Goddard being not hurt imply that Benton is quaint.
Tracey being not talented or Isabel being hurt implies that Isabel is not modern.
If someone is not large, then he is not hurt, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Goddard is not innocent and Benton is not modern once knowing that Benton is not hurt.
If Isabel is talented, then Amos is modern.
If there is at least one people who is not quaint, then Tracey is not large and Isabel is modern.
It can be concluded that Benton is not talented once knowing that Benton is not quaint and Amos is not large.
If there is someone who is not innocent, then Pierce is large.
If there is at least one people who is not large or talented, then Tracey is not quaint. | Tracey is innocent. | entailment |
Tracey is innocent.
Dave is modern.
Isabel is not quaint.
Dave is hurt.
Goddard is hurt.
Dave is innocent.
Isabel is not hurt.
Amos is large.
Dave is large.
Goddard is not large.
Goddard is quaint.
Tracey is not modern.Pierce being innocent or Benton being not hurt implies that Goddard is talented.
Someone is talented and not hurt if and only if he is innocent and large.
If there is at least one people who is hurt, then Goddard is not quaint.
Pierce being innocent and Goddard being not hurt imply that Benton is quaint.
Tracey being not talented or Isabel being hurt implies that Isabel is not modern.
If someone is not large, then he is not hurt, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Goddard is not innocent and Benton is not modern once knowing that Benton is not hurt.
If Isabel is talented, then Amos is modern.
If there is at least one people who is not quaint, then Tracey is not large and Isabel is modern.
It can be concluded that Benton is not talented once knowing that Benton is not quaint and Amos is not large.
If there is someone who is not innocent, then Pierce is large.
If there is at least one people who is not large or talented, then Tracey is not quaint. | Dave is not quaint. | neutral |
Tracey is innocent.
Dave is modern.
Isabel is not quaint.
Dave is hurt.
Goddard is hurt.
Dave is innocent.
Isabel is not hurt.
Amos is large.
Dave is large.
Goddard is not large.
Goddard is quaint.
Tracey is not modern.Pierce being innocent or Benton being not hurt implies that Goddard is talented.
Someone is talented and not hurt if and only if he is innocent and large.
If there is at least one people who is hurt, then Goddard is not quaint.
Pierce being innocent and Goddard being not hurt imply that Benton is quaint.
Tracey being not talented or Isabel being hurt implies that Isabel is not modern.
If someone is not large, then he is not hurt, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Goddard is not innocent and Benton is not modern once knowing that Benton is not hurt.
If Isabel is talented, then Amos is modern.
If there is at least one people who is not quaint, then Tracey is not large and Isabel is modern.
It can be concluded that Benton is not talented once knowing that Benton is not quaint and Amos is not large.
If there is someone who is not innocent, then Pierce is large.
If there is at least one people who is not large or talented, then Tracey is not quaint. | Dave is not hurt. | self_contradiction |
Tracey is innocent.
Dave is modern.
Isabel is not quaint.
Dave is hurt.
Goddard is hurt.
Dave is innocent.
Isabel is not hurt.
Amos is large.
Dave is large.
Goddard is not large.
Goddard is quaint.
Tracey is not modern.Pierce being innocent or Benton being not hurt implies that Goddard is talented.
Someone is talented and not hurt if and only if he is innocent and large.
If there is at least one people who is hurt, then Goddard is not quaint.
Pierce being innocent and Goddard being not hurt imply that Benton is quaint.
Tracey being not talented or Isabel being hurt implies that Isabel is not modern.
If someone is not large, then he is not hurt, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Goddard is not innocent and Benton is not modern once knowing that Benton is not hurt.
If Isabel is talented, then Amos is modern.
If there is at least one people who is not quaint, then Tracey is not large and Isabel is modern.
It can be concluded that Benton is not talented once knowing that Benton is not quaint and Amos is not large.
If there is someone who is not innocent, then Pierce is large.
If there is at least one people who is not large or talented, then Tracey is not quaint. | Isabel is not modern. | contradiction |
Tracey is innocent.
Dave is modern.
Isabel is not quaint.
Dave is hurt.
Goddard is hurt.
Dave is innocent.
Isabel is not hurt.
Amos is large.
Dave is large.
Goddard is not large.
Goddard is quaint.
Tracey is not modern.Pierce being innocent or Benton being not hurt implies that Goddard is talented.
Someone is talented and not hurt if and only if he is innocent and large.
If there is at least one people who is hurt, then Goddard is not quaint.
Pierce being innocent and Goddard being not hurt imply that Benton is quaint.
Tracey being not talented or Isabel being hurt implies that Isabel is not modern.
If someone is not large, then he is not hurt, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Goddard is not innocent and Benton is not modern once knowing that Benton is not hurt.
If Isabel is talented, then Amos is modern.
If there is at least one people who is not quaint, then Tracey is not large and Isabel is modern.
It can be concluded that Benton is not talented once knowing that Benton is not quaint and Amos is not large.
If there is someone who is not innocent, then Pierce is large.
If there is at least one people who is not large or talented, then Tracey is not quaint. | Dave is large. | self_contradiction |
Tracey is innocent.
Dave is modern.
Isabel is not quaint.
Dave is hurt.
Goddard is hurt.
Dave is innocent.
Isabel is not hurt.
Amos is large.
Dave is large.
Goddard is not large.
Goddard is quaint.
Tracey is not modern.Pierce being innocent or Benton being not hurt implies that Goddard is talented.
Someone is talented and not hurt if and only if he is innocent and large.
If there is at least one people who is hurt, then Goddard is not quaint.
Pierce being innocent and Goddard being not hurt imply that Benton is quaint.
Tracey being not talented or Isabel being hurt implies that Isabel is not modern.
If someone is not large, then he is not hurt, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Goddard is not innocent and Benton is not modern once knowing that Benton is not hurt.
If Isabel is talented, then Amos is modern.
If there is at least one people who is not quaint, then Tracey is not large and Isabel is modern.
It can be concluded that Benton is not talented once knowing that Benton is not quaint and Amos is not large.
If there is someone who is not innocent, then Pierce is large.
If there is at least one people who is not large or talented, then Tracey is not quaint. | Pierce is innocent. | neutral |
Tracey is innocent.
Dave is modern.
Isabel is not quaint.
Dave is hurt.
Goddard is hurt.
Dave is innocent.
Isabel is not hurt.
Amos is large.
Dave is large.
Goddard is not large.
Goddard is quaint.
Tracey is not modern.Pierce being innocent or Benton being not hurt implies that Goddard is talented.
Someone is talented and not hurt if and only if he is innocent and large.
If there is at least one people who is hurt, then Goddard is not quaint.
Pierce being innocent and Goddard being not hurt imply that Benton is quaint.
Tracey being not talented or Isabel being hurt implies that Isabel is not modern.
If someone is not large, then he is not hurt, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Goddard is not innocent and Benton is not modern once knowing that Benton is not hurt.
If Isabel is talented, then Amos is modern.
If there is at least one people who is not quaint, then Tracey is not large and Isabel is modern.
It can be concluded that Benton is not talented once knowing that Benton is not quaint and Amos is not large.
If there is someone who is not innocent, then Pierce is large.
If there is at least one people who is not large or talented, then Tracey is not quaint. | Goddard is large. | contradiction |
Tracey is innocent.
Dave is modern.
Isabel is not quaint.
Dave is hurt.
Goddard is hurt.
Dave is innocent.
Isabel is not hurt.
Amos is large.
Dave is large.
Goddard is not large.
Goddard is quaint.
Tracey is not modern.Pierce being innocent or Benton being not hurt implies that Goddard is talented.
Someone is talented and not hurt if and only if he is innocent and large.
If there is at least one people who is hurt, then Goddard is not quaint.
Pierce being innocent and Goddard being not hurt imply that Benton is quaint.
Tracey being not talented or Isabel being hurt implies that Isabel is not modern.
If someone is not large, then he is not hurt, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Goddard is not innocent and Benton is not modern once knowing that Benton is not hurt.
If Isabel is talented, then Amos is modern.
If there is at least one people who is not quaint, then Tracey is not large and Isabel is modern.
It can be concluded that Benton is not talented once knowing that Benton is not quaint and Amos is not large.
If there is someone who is not innocent, then Pierce is large.
If there is at least one people who is not large or talented, then Tracey is not quaint. | Isabel is hurt. | contradiction |
Tracey is innocent.
Dave is modern.
Isabel is not quaint.
Dave is hurt.
Goddard is hurt.
Dave is innocent.
Isabel is not hurt.
Amos is large.
Dave is large.
Goddard is not large.
Goddard is quaint.
Tracey is not modern.Pierce being innocent or Benton being not hurt implies that Goddard is talented.
Someone is talented and not hurt if and only if he is innocent and large.
If there is at least one people who is hurt, then Goddard is not quaint.
Pierce being innocent and Goddard being not hurt imply that Benton is quaint.
Tracey being not talented or Isabel being hurt implies that Isabel is not modern.
If someone is not large, then he is not hurt, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Goddard is not innocent and Benton is not modern once knowing that Benton is not hurt.
If Isabel is talented, then Amos is modern.
If there is at least one people who is not quaint, then Tracey is not large and Isabel is modern.
It can be concluded that Benton is not talented once knowing that Benton is not quaint and Amos is not large.
If there is someone who is not innocent, then Pierce is large.
If there is at least one people who is not large or talented, then Tracey is not quaint. | Dave is not modern. | contradiction |
Charlie is not sweet.
Charlie is naughty.
Hamlin is not modern.
Nathalie is naughty.
Hamlin is sweet.
Mark is not sweet.
Hamlin is naughty.
Morris is not messy.
Neil is sweet.
Neil is modern.
Morris is global.
Charlie is global.As long as someone is sweet, he is messy and not modern.
Neil being not modern is equivalent to Hamlin being massive.
If someone is both massive and not global, then he is modern.
If there is at least one people who is global or sweet, then Mark is modern.
Conan being messy and Neil being sweet imply that Mark is global.
Someone being both massive and not modern is equivalent to being naughty.
Mark being sweet and Conan being not massive imply that Nathalie is modern and Hamlin is not global.
It can be concluded that Nathalie is sweet once knowing that Conan is naughty and Conan is global.
Someone is not modern if and only if he is not messy.
If Mark is messy, then Neil is global, and vice versa.
If Charlie is not messy, then Neil is not massive and Hamlin is not sweet, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either messy or not global, he is not modern and not massive. | Nathalie is not global. | neutral |
Charlie is not sweet.
Charlie is naughty.
Hamlin is not modern.
Nathalie is naughty.
Hamlin is sweet.
Mark is not sweet.
Hamlin is naughty.
Morris is not messy.
Neil is sweet.
Neil is modern.
Morris is global.
Charlie is global.As long as someone is sweet, he is messy and not modern.
Neil being not modern is equivalent to Hamlin being massive.
If someone is both massive and not global, then he is modern.
If there is at least one people who is global or sweet, then Mark is modern.
Conan being messy and Neil being sweet imply that Mark is global.
Someone being both massive and not modern is equivalent to being naughty.
Mark being sweet and Conan being not massive imply that Nathalie is modern and Hamlin is not global.
It can be concluded that Nathalie is sweet once knowing that Conan is naughty and Conan is global.
Someone is not modern if and only if he is not messy.
If Mark is messy, then Neil is global, and vice versa.
If Charlie is not messy, then Neil is not massive and Hamlin is not sweet, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either messy or not global, he is not modern and not massive. | Charlie is global. | entailment |
Charlie is not sweet.
Charlie is naughty.
Hamlin is not modern.
Nathalie is naughty.
Hamlin is sweet.
Mark is not sweet.
Hamlin is naughty.
Morris is not messy.
Neil is sweet.
Neil is modern.
Morris is global.
Charlie is global.As long as someone is sweet, he is messy and not modern.
Neil being not modern is equivalent to Hamlin being massive.
If someone is both massive and not global, then he is modern.
If there is at least one people who is global or sweet, then Mark is modern.
Conan being messy and Neil being sweet imply that Mark is global.
Someone being both massive and not modern is equivalent to being naughty.
Mark being sweet and Conan being not massive imply that Nathalie is modern and Hamlin is not global.
It can be concluded that Nathalie is sweet once knowing that Conan is naughty and Conan is global.
Someone is not modern if and only if he is not messy.
If Mark is messy, then Neil is global, and vice versa.
If Charlie is not messy, then Neil is not massive and Hamlin is not sweet, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either messy or not global, he is not modern and not massive. | Charlie is sweet. | contradiction |
Charlie is not sweet.
Charlie is naughty.
Hamlin is not modern.
Nathalie is naughty.
Hamlin is sweet.
Mark is not sweet.
Hamlin is naughty.
Morris is not messy.
Neil is sweet.
Neil is modern.
Morris is global.
Charlie is global.As long as someone is sweet, he is messy and not modern.
Neil being not modern is equivalent to Hamlin being massive.
If someone is both massive and not global, then he is modern.
If there is at least one people who is global or sweet, then Mark is modern.
Conan being messy and Neil being sweet imply that Mark is global.
Someone being both massive and not modern is equivalent to being naughty.
Mark being sweet and Conan being not massive imply that Nathalie is modern and Hamlin is not global.
It can be concluded that Nathalie is sweet once knowing that Conan is naughty and Conan is global.
Someone is not modern if and only if he is not messy.
If Mark is messy, then Neil is global, and vice versa.
If Charlie is not messy, then Neil is not massive and Hamlin is not sweet, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either messy or not global, he is not modern and not massive. | Conan is not global. | neutral |
Charlie is not sweet.
Charlie is naughty.
Hamlin is not modern.
Nathalie is naughty.
Hamlin is sweet.
Mark is not sweet.
Hamlin is naughty.
Morris is not messy.
Neil is sweet.
Neil is modern.
Morris is global.
Charlie is global.As long as someone is sweet, he is messy and not modern.
Neil being not modern is equivalent to Hamlin being massive.
If someone is both massive and not global, then he is modern.
If there is at least one people who is global or sweet, then Mark is modern.
Conan being messy and Neil being sweet imply that Mark is global.
Someone being both massive and not modern is equivalent to being naughty.
Mark being sweet and Conan being not massive imply that Nathalie is modern and Hamlin is not global.
It can be concluded that Nathalie is sweet once knowing that Conan is naughty and Conan is global.
Someone is not modern if and only if he is not messy.
If Mark is messy, then Neil is global, and vice versa.
If Charlie is not messy, then Neil is not massive and Hamlin is not sweet, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either messy or not global, he is not modern and not massive. | Hamlin is messy. | self_contradiction |
Charlie is not sweet.
Charlie is naughty.
Hamlin is not modern.
Nathalie is naughty.
Hamlin is sweet.
Mark is not sweet.
Hamlin is naughty.
Morris is not messy.
Neil is sweet.
Neil is modern.
Morris is global.
Charlie is global.As long as someone is sweet, he is messy and not modern.
Neil being not modern is equivalent to Hamlin being massive.
If someone is both massive and not global, then he is modern.
If there is at least one people who is global or sweet, then Mark is modern.
Conan being messy and Neil being sweet imply that Mark is global.
Someone being both massive and not modern is equivalent to being naughty.
Mark being sweet and Conan being not massive imply that Nathalie is modern and Hamlin is not global.
It can be concluded that Nathalie is sweet once knowing that Conan is naughty and Conan is global.
Someone is not modern if and only if he is not messy.
If Mark is messy, then Neil is global, and vice versa.
If Charlie is not messy, then Neil is not massive and Hamlin is not sweet, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either messy or not global, he is not modern and not massive. | Neil is messy. | self_contradiction |
Charlie is not sweet.
Charlie is naughty.
Hamlin is not modern.
Nathalie is naughty.
Hamlin is sweet.
Mark is not sweet.
Hamlin is naughty.
Morris is not messy.
Neil is sweet.
Neil is modern.
Morris is global.
Charlie is global.As long as someone is sweet, he is messy and not modern.
Neil being not modern is equivalent to Hamlin being massive.
If someone is both massive and not global, then he is modern.
If there is at least one people who is global or sweet, then Mark is modern.
Conan being messy and Neil being sweet imply that Mark is global.
Someone being both massive and not modern is equivalent to being naughty.
Mark being sweet and Conan being not massive imply that Nathalie is modern and Hamlin is not global.
It can be concluded that Nathalie is sweet once knowing that Conan is naughty and Conan is global.
Someone is not modern if and only if he is not messy.
If Mark is messy, then Neil is global, and vice versa.
If Charlie is not messy, then Neil is not massive and Hamlin is not sweet, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either messy or not global, he is not modern and not massive. | Mark is not modern. | contradiction |
Charlie is not sweet.
Charlie is naughty.
Hamlin is not modern.
Nathalie is naughty.
Hamlin is sweet.
Mark is not sweet.
Hamlin is naughty.
Morris is not messy.
Neil is sweet.
Neil is modern.
Morris is global.
Charlie is global.As long as someone is sweet, he is messy and not modern.
Neil being not modern is equivalent to Hamlin being massive.
If someone is both massive and not global, then he is modern.
If there is at least one people who is global or sweet, then Mark is modern.
Conan being messy and Neil being sweet imply that Mark is global.
Someone being both massive and not modern is equivalent to being naughty.
Mark being sweet and Conan being not massive imply that Nathalie is modern and Hamlin is not global.
It can be concluded that Nathalie is sweet once knowing that Conan is naughty and Conan is global.
Someone is not modern if and only if he is not messy.
If Mark is messy, then Neil is global, and vice versa.
If Charlie is not messy, then Neil is not massive and Hamlin is not sweet, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either messy or not global, he is not modern and not massive. | Morris is not naughty. | neutral |
Charlie is not sweet.
Charlie is naughty.
Hamlin is not modern.
Nathalie is naughty.
Hamlin is sweet.
Mark is not sweet.
Hamlin is naughty.
Morris is not messy.
Neil is sweet.
Neil is modern.
Morris is global.
Charlie is global.As long as someone is sweet, he is messy and not modern.
Neil being not modern is equivalent to Hamlin being massive.
If someone is both massive and not global, then he is modern.
If there is at least one people who is global or sweet, then Mark is modern.
Conan being messy and Neil being sweet imply that Mark is global.
Someone being both massive and not modern is equivalent to being naughty.
Mark being sweet and Conan being not massive imply that Nathalie is modern and Hamlin is not global.
It can be concluded that Nathalie is sweet once knowing that Conan is naughty and Conan is global.
Someone is not modern if and only if he is not messy.
If Mark is messy, then Neil is global, and vice versa.
If Charlie is not messy, then Neil is not massive and Hamlin is not sweet, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either messy or not global, he is not modern and not massive. | Nathalie is naughty. | entailment |
Charlie is not sweet.
Charlie is naughty.
Hamlin is not modern.
Nathalie is naughty.
Hamlin is sweet.
Mark is not sweet.
Hamlin is naughty.
Morris is not messy.
Neil is sweet.
Neil is modern.
Morris is global.
Charlie is global.As long as someone is sweet, he is messy and not modern.
Neil being not modern is equivalent to Hamlin being massive.
If someone is both massive and not global, then he is modern.
If there is at least one people who is global or sweet, then Mark is modern.
Conan being messy and Neil being sweet imply that Mark is global.
Someone being both massive and not modern is equivalent to being naughty.
Mark being sweet and Conan being not massive imply that Nathalie is modern and Hamlin is not global.
It can be concluded that Nathalie is sweet once knowing that Conan is naughty and Conan is global.
Someone is not modern if and only if he is not messy.
If Mark is messy, then Neil is global, and vice versa.
If Charlie is not messy, then Neil is not massive and Hamlin is not sweet, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either messy or not global, he is not modern and not massive. | Nathalie is massive. | entailment |
Charlie is not sweet.
Charlie is naughty.
Hamlin is not modern.
Nathalie is naughty.
Hamlin is sweet.
Mark is not sweet.
Hamlin is naughty.
Morris is not messy.
Neil is sweet.
Neil is modern.
Morris is global.
Charlie is global.As long as someone is sweet, he is messy and not modern.
Neil being not modern is equivalent to Hamlin being massive.
If someone is both massive and not global, then he is modern.
If there is at least one people who is global or sweet, then Mark is modern.
Conan being messy and Neil being sweet imply that Mark is global.
Someone being both massive and not modern is equivalent to being naughty.
Mark being sweet and Conan being not massive imply that Nathalie is modern and Hamlin is not global.
It can be concluded that Nathalie is sweet once knowing that Conan is naughty and Conan is global.
Someone is not modern if and only if he is not messy.
If Mark is messy, then Neil is global, and vice versa.
If Charlie is not messy, then Neil is not massive and Hamlin is not sweet, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either messy or not global, he is not modern and not massive. | Charlie is not modern. | entailment |
Charlie is not sweet.
Charlie is naughty.
Hamlin is not modern.
Nathalie is naughty.
Hamlin is sweet.
Mark is not sweet.
Hamlin is naughty.
Morris is not messy.
Neil is sweet.
Neil is modern.
Morris is global.
Charlie is global.As long as someone is sweet, he is messy and not modern.
Neil being not modern is equivalent to Hamlin being massive.
If someone is both massive and not global, then he is modern.
If there is at least one people who is global or sweet, then Mark is modern.
Conan being messy and Neil being sweet imply that Mark is global.
Someone being both massive and not modern is equivalent to being naughty.
Mark being sweet and Conan being not massive imply that Nathalie is modern and Hamlin is not global.
It can be concluded that Nathalie is sweet once knowing that Conan is naughty and Conan is global.
Someone is not modern if and only if he is not messy.
If Mark is messy, then Neil is global, and vice versa.
If Charlie is not messy, then Neil is not massive and Hamlin is not sweet, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either messy or not global, he is not modern and not massive. | Conan is modern. | neutral |
Charlie is not sweet.
Charlie is naughty.
Hamlin is not modern.
Nathalie is naughty.
Hamlin is sweet.
Mark is not sweet.
Hamlin is naughty.
Morris is not messy.
Neil is sweet.
Neil is modern.
Morris is global.
Charlie is global.As long as someone is sweet, he is messy and not modern.
Neil being not modern is equivalent to Hamlin being massive.
If someone is both massive and not global, then he is modern.
If there is at least one people who is global or sweet, then Mark is modern.
Conan being messy and Neil being sweet imply that Mark is global.
Someone being both massive and not modern is equivalent to being naughty.
Mark being sweet and Conan being not massive imply that Nathalie is modern and Hamlin is not global.
It can be concluded that Nathalie is sweet once knowing that Conan is naughty and Conan is global.
Someone is not modern if and only if he is not messy.
If Mark is messy, then Neil is global, and vice versa.
If Charlie is not messy, then Neil is not massive and Hamlin is not sweet, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either messy or not global, he is not modern and not massive. | Mark is not sweet. | entailment |
Charlie is not sweet.
Charlie is naughty.
Hamlin is not modern.
Nathalie is naughty.
Hamlin is sweet.
Mark is not sweet.
Hamlin is naughty.
Morris is not messy.
Neil is sweet.
Neil is modern.
Morris is global.
Charlie is global.As long as someone is sweet, he is messy and not modern.
Neil being not modern is equivalent to Hamlin being massive.
If someone is both massive and not global, then he is modern.
If there is at least one people who is global or sweet, then Mark is modern.
Conan being messy and Neil being sweet imply that Mark is global.
Someone being both massive and not modern is equivalent to being naughty.
Mark being sweet and Conan being not massive imply that Nathalie is modern and Hamlin is not global.
It can be concluded that Nathalie is sweet once knowing that Conan is naughty and Conan is global.
Someone is not modern if and only if he is not messy.
If Mark is messy, then Neil is global, and vice versa.
If Charlie is not messy, then Neil is not massive and Hamlin is not sweet, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either messy or not global, he is not modern and not massive. | Neil is naughty. | neutral |
Charlie is not sweet.
Charlie is naughty.
Hamlin is not modern.
Nathalie is naughty.
Hamlin is sweet.
Mark is not sweet.
Hamlin is naughty.
Morris is not messy.
Neil is sweet.
Neil is modern.
Morris is global.
Charlie is global.As long as someone is sweet, he is messy and not modern.
Neil being not modern is equivalent to Hamlin being massive.
If someone is both massive and not global, then he is modern.
If there is at least one people who is global or sweet, then Mark is modern.
Conan being messy and Neil being sweet imply that Mark is global.
Someone being both massive and not modern is equivalent to being naughty.
Mark being sweet and Conan being not massive imply that Nathalie is modern and Hamlin is not global.
It can be concluded that Nathalie is sweet once knowing that Conan is naughty and Conan is global.
Someone is not modern if and only if he is not messy.
If Mark is messy, then Neil is global, and vice versa.
If Charlie is not messy, then Neil is not massive and Hamlin is not sweet, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either messy or not global, he is not modern and not massive. | Hamlin is not naughty. | contradiction |
Charlie is not sweet.
Charlie is naughty.
Hamlin is not modern.
Nathalie is naughty.
Hamlin is sweet.
Mark is not sweet.
Hamlin is naughty.
Morris is not messy.
Neil is sweet.
Neil is modern.
Morris is global.
Charlie is global.As long as someone is sweet, he is messy and not modern.
Neil being not modern is equivalent to Hamlin being massive.
If someone is both massive and not global, then he is modern.
If there is at least one people who is global or sweet, then Mark is modern.
Conan being messy and Neil being sweet imply that Mark is global.
Someone being both massive and not modern is equivalent to being naughty.
Mark being sweet and Conan being not massive imply that Nathalie is modern and Hamlin is not global.
It can be concluded that Nathalie is sweet once knowing that Conan is naughty and Conan is global.
Someone is not modern if and only if he is not messy.
If Mark is messy, then Neil is global, and vice versa.
If Charlie is not messy, then Neil is not massive and Hamlin is not sweet, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either messy or not global, he is not modern and not massive. | Hamlin is massive. | self_contradiction |
Charlie is not sweet.
Charlie is naughty.
Hamlin is not modern.
Nathalie is naughty.
Hamlin is sweet.
Mark is not sweet.
Hamlin is naughty.
Morris is not messy.
Neil is sweet.
Neil is modern.
Morris is global.
Charlie is global.As long as someone is sweet, he is messy and not modern.
Neil being not modern is equivalent to Hamlin being massive.
If someone is both massive and not global, then he is modern.
If there is at least one people who is global or sweet, then Mark is modern.
Conan being messy and Neil being sweet imply that Mark is global.
Someone being both massive and not modern is equivalent to being naughty.
Mark being sweet and Conan being not massive imply that Nathalie is modern and Hamlin is not global.
It can be concluded that Nathalie is sweet once knowing that Conan is naughty and Conan is global.
Someone is not modern if and only if he is not messy.
If Mark is messy, then Neil is global, and vice versa.
If Charlie is not messy, then Neil is not massive and Hamlin is not sweet, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either messy or not global, he is not modern and not massive. | Neil is not messy. | self_contradiction |
Charlie is not sweet.
Charlie is naughty.
Hamlin is not modern.
Nathalie is naughty.
Hamlin is sweet.
Mark is not sweet.
Hamlin is naughty.
Morris is not messy.
Neil is sweet.
Neil is modern.
Morris is global.
Charlie is global.As long as someone is sweet, he is messy and not modern.
Neil being not modern is equivalent to Hamlin being massive.
If someone is both massive and not global, then he is modern.
If there is at least one people who is global or sweet, then Mark is modern.
Conan being messy and Neil being sweet imply that Mark is global.
Someone being both massive and not modern is equivalent to being naughty.
Mark being sweet and Conan being not massive imply that Nathalie is modern and Hamlin is not global.
It can be concluded that Nathalie is sweet once knowing that Conan is naughty and Conan is global.
Someone is not modern if and only if he is not messy.
If Mark is messy, then Neil is global, and vice versa.
If Charlie is not messy, then Neil is not massive and Hamlin is not sweet, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either messy or not global, he is not modern and not massive. | Hamlin is not massive. | self_contradiction |
Charlie is not sweet.
Charlie is naughty.
Hamlin is not modern.
Nathalie is naughty.
Hamlin is sweet.
Mark is not sweet.
Hamlin is naughty.
Morris is not messy.
Neil is sweet.
Neil is modern.
Morris is global.
Charlie is global.As long as someone is sweet, he is messy and not modern.
Neil being not modern is equivalent to Hamlin being massive.
If someone is both massive and not global, then he is modern.
If there is at least one people who is global or sweet, then Mark is modern.
Conan being messy and Neil being sweet imply that Mark is global.
Someone being both massive and not modern is equivalent to being naughty.
Mark being sweet and Conan being not massive imply that Nathalie is modern and Hamlin is not global.
It can be concluded that Nathalie is sweet once knowing that Conan is naughty and Conan is global.
Someone is not modern if and only if he is not messy.
If Mark is messy, then Neil is global, and vice versa.
If Charlie is not messy, then Neil is not massive and Hamlin is not sweet, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either messy or not global, he is not modern and not massive. | Nathalie is not massive. | contradiction |
Charlie is not sweet.
Charlie is naughty.
Hamlin is not modern.
Nathalie is naughty.
Hamlin is sweet.
Mark is not sweet.
Hamlin is naughty.
Morris is not messy.
Neil is sweet.
Neil is modern.
Morris is global.
Charlie is global.As long as someone is sweet, he is messy and not modern.
Neil being not modern is equivalent to Hamlin being massive.
If someone is both massive and not global, then he is modern.
If there is at least one people who is global or sweet, then Mark is modern.
Conan being messy and Neil being sweet imply that Mark is global.
Someone being both massive and not modern is equivalent to being naughty.
Mark being sweet and Conan being not massive imply that Nathalie is modern and Hamlin is not global.
It can be concluded that Nathalie is sweet once knowing that Conan is naughty and Conan is global.
Someone is not modern if and only if he is not messy.
If Mark is messy, then Neil is global, and vice versa.
If Charlie is not messy, then Neil is not massive and Hamlin is not sweet, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either messy or not global, he is not modern and not massive. | Charlie is not massive. | contradiction |
Gilbert is not sweet.
Stanley is not traditional.
Lionel is not angry.
Gilbert is angry.
Stanley is competitive.
Norris is not traditional.
Hanna is rich.
Norris is competitive.
Gilbert is not rich.
Isabel is traditional.
Lionel is modern.
Norris is not angry.If someone who is not sweet is also not angry, then he is not rich.
If someone is sweet or not traditional, then he is not angry.
If there is someone who is either not angry or not competitive, then Gilbert is sweet.
if there is at least one people who is competitive and modern, then Norris is angry and Stanley is traditional.
If all people are not rich, then Clark is not sweet.
If there is someone who is both not angry and traditional, then Norris is competitive.
It can be concluded that Norris is not angry and Stanley is sweet once knowing that Norris is traditional.
Someone being not rich is equivalent to being not modern.
If someone is rich or not modern, then he is competitive.
Someone is not traditional and sweet if and only if he is competitive.
Norris being not sweet and Norris being not rich are equivalent to Hanna being not modern and Lionel being traditional.
If there is at least one people who is not modern or traditional, then Clark is competitive. | Lionel is modern. | entailment |
Gilbert is not sweet.
Stanley is not traditional.
Lionel is not angry.
Gilbert is angry.
Stanley is competitive.
Norris is not traditional.
Hanna is rich.
Norris is competitive.
Gilbert is not rich.
Isabel is traditional.
Lionel is modern.
Norris is not angry.If someone who is not sweet is also not angry, then he is not rich.
If someone is sweet or not traditional, then he is not angry.
If there is someone who is either not angry or not competitive, then Gilbert is sweet.
if there is at least one people who is competitive and modern, then Norris is angry and Stanley is traditional.
If all people are not rich, then Clark is not sweet.
If there is someone who is both not angry and traditional, then Norris is competitive.
It can be concluded that Norris is not angry and Stanley is sweet once knowing that Norris is traditional.
Someone being not rich is equivalent to being not modern.
If someone is rich or not modern, then he is competitive.
Someone is not traditional and sweet if and only if he is competitive.
Norris being not sweet and Norris being not rich are equivalent to Hanna being not modern and Lionel being traditional.
If there is at least one people who is not modern or traditional, then Clark is competitive. | Stanley is not sweet. | contradiction |
Gilbert is not sweet.
Stanley is not traditional.
Lionel is not angry.
Gilbert is angry.
Stanley is competitive.
Norris is not traditional.
Hanna is rich.
Norris is competitive.
Gilbert is not rich.
Isabel is traditional.
Lionel is modern.
Norris is not angry.If someone who is not sweet is also not angry, then he is not rich.
If someone is sweet or not traditional, then he is not angry.
If there is someone who is either not angry or not competitive, then Gilbert is sweet.
if there is at least one people who is competitive and modern, then Norris is angry and Stanley is traditional.
If all people are not rich, then Clark is not sweet.
If there is someone who is both not angry and traditional, then Norris is competitive.
It can be concluded that Norris is not angry and Stanley is sweet once knowing that Norris is traditional.
Someone being not rich is equivalent to being not modern.
If someone is rich or not modern, then he is competitive.
Someone is not traditional and sweet if and only if he is competitive.
Norris being not sweet and Norris being not rich are equivalent to Hanna being not modern and Lionel being traditional.
If there is at least one people who is not modern or traditional, then Clark is competitive. | Clark is traditional. | contradiction |
Gilbert is not sweet.
Stanley is not traditional.
Lionel is not angry.
Gilbert is angry.
Stanley is competitive.
Norris is not traditional.
Hanna is rich.
Norris is competitive.
Gilbert is not rich.
Isabel is traditional.
Lionel is modern.
Norris is not angry.If someone who is not sweet is also not angry, then he is not rich.
If someone is sweet or not traditional, then he is not angry.
If there is someone who is either not angry or not competitive, then Gilbert is sweet.
if there is at least one people who is competitive and modern, then Norris is angry and Stanley is traditional.
If all people are not rich, then Clark is not sweet.
If there is someone who is both not angry and traditional, then Norris is competitive.
It can be concluded that Norris is not angry and Stanley is sweet once knowing that Norris is traditional.
Someone being not rich is equivalent to being not modern.
If someone is rich or not modern, then he is competitive.
Someone is not traditional and sweet if and only if he is competitive.
Norris being not sweet and Norris being not rich are equivalent to Hanna being not modern and Lionel being traditional.
If there is at least one people who is not modern or traditional, then Clark is competitive. | Clark is rich. | neutral |
Gilbert is not sweet.
Stanley is not traditional.
Lionel is not angry.
Gilbert is angry.
Stanley is competitive.
Norris is not traditional.
Hanna is rich.
Norris is competitive.
Gilbert is not rich.
Isabel is traditional.
Lionel is modern.
Norris is not angry.If someone who is not sweet is also not angry, then he is not rich.
If someone is sweet or not traditional, then he is not angry.
If there is someone who is either not angry or not competitive, then Gilbert is sweet.
if there is at least one people who is competitive and modern, then Norris is angry and Stanley is traditional.
If all people are not rich, then Clark is not sweet.
If there is someone who is both not angry and traditional, then Norris is competitive.
It can be concluded that Norris is not angry and Stanley is sweet once knowing that Norris is traditional.
Someone being not rich is equivalent to being not modern.
If someone is rich or not modern, then he is competitive.
Someone is not traditional and sweet if and only if he is competitive.
Norris being not sweet and Norris being not rich are equivalent to Hanna being not modern and Lionel being traditional.
If there is at least one people who is not modern or traditional, then Clark is competitive. | Gilbert is not modern. | entailment |
Gilbert is not sweet.
Stanley is not traditional.
Lionel is not angry.
Gilbert is angry.
Stanley is competitive.
Norris is not traditional.
Hanna is rich.
Norris is competitive.
Gilbert is not rich.
Isabel is traditional.
Lionel is modern.
Norris is not angry.If someone who is not sweet is also not angry, then he is not rich.
If someone is sweet or not traditional, then he is not angry.
If there is someone who is either not angry or not competitive, then Gilbert is sweet.
if there is at least one people who is competitive and modern, then Norris is angry and Stanley is traditional.
If all people are not rich, then Clark is not sweet.
If there is someone who is both not angry and traditional, then Norris is competitive.
It can be concluded that Norris is not angry and Stanley is sweet once knowing that Norris is traditional.
Someone being not rich is equivalent to being not modern.
If someone is rich or not modern, then he is competitive.
Someone is not traditional and sweet if and only if he is competitive.
Norris being not sweet and Norris being not rich are equivalent to Hanna being not modern and Lionel being traditional.
If there is at least one people who is not modern or traditional, then Clark is competitive. | Lionel is sweet. | neutral |
Gilbert is not sweet.
Stanley is not traditional.
Lionel is not angry.
Gilbert is angry.
Stanley is competitive.
Norris is not traditional.
Hanna is rich.
Norris is competitive.
Gilbert is not rich.
Isabel is traditional.
Lionel is modern.
Norris is not angry.If someone who is not sweet is also not angry, then he is not rich.
If someone is sweet or not traditional, then he is not angry.
If there is someone who is either not angry or not competitive, then Gilbert is sweet.
if there is at least one people who is competitive and modern, then Norris is angry and Stanley is traditional.
If all people are not rich, then Clark is not sweet.
If there is someone who is both not angry and traditional, then Norris is competitive.
It can be concluded that Norris is not angry and Stanley is sweet once knowing that Norris is traditional.
Someone being not rich is equivalent to being not modern.
If someone is rich or not modern, then he is competitive.
Someone is not traditional and sweet if and only if he is competitive.
Norris being not sweet and Norris being not rich are equivalent to Hanna being not modern and Lionel being traditional.
If there is at least one people who is not modern or traditional, then Clark is competitive. | Norris is not competitive. | contradiction |
Gilbert is not sweet.
Stanley is not traditional.
Lionel is not angry.
Gilbert is angry.
Stanley is competitive.
Norris is not traditional.
Hanna is rich.
Norris is competitive.
Gilbert is not rich.
Isabel is traditional.
Lionel is modern.
Norris is not angry.If someone who is not sweet is also not angry, then he is not rich.
If someone is sweet or not traditional, then he is not angry.
If there is someone who is either not angry or not competitive, then Gilbert is sweet.
if there is at least one people who is competitive and modern, then Norris is angry and Stanley is traditional.
If all people are not rich, then Clark is not sweet.
If there is someone who is both not angry and traditional, then Norris is competitive.
It can be concluded that Norris is not angry and Stanley is sweet once knowing that Norris is traditional.
Someone being not rich is equivalent to being not modern.
If someone is rich or not modern, then he is competitive.
Someone is not traditional and sweet if and only if he is competitive.
Norris being not sweet and Norris being not rich are equivalent to Hanna being not modern and Lionel being traditional.
If there is at least one people who is not modern or traditional, then Clark is competitive. | Gilbert is not competitive. | contradiction |
Gilbert is not sweet.
Stanley is not traditional.
Lionel is not angry.
Gilbert is angry.
Stanley is competitive.
Norris is not traditional.
Hanna is rich.
Norris is competitive.
Gilbert is not rich.
Isabel is traditional.
Lionel is modern.
Norris is not angry.If someone who is not sweet is also not angry, then he is not rich.
If someone is sweet or not traditional, then he is not angry.
If there is someone who is either not angry or not competitive, then Gilbert is sweet.
if there is at least one people who is competitive and modern, then Norris is angry and Stanley is traditional.
If all people are not rich, then Clark is not sweet.
If there is someone who is both not angry and traditional, then Norris is competitive.
It can be concluded that Norris is not angry and Stanley is sweet once knowing that Norris is traditional.
Someone being not rich is equivalent to being not modern.
If someone is rich or not modern, then he is competitive.
Someone is not traditional and sweet if and only if he is competitive.
Norris being not sweet and Norris being not rich are equivalent to Hanna being not modern and Lionel being traditional.
If there is at least one people who is not modern or traditional, then Clark is competitive. | Stanley is not modern. | neutral |
Gilbert is not sweet.
Stanley is not traditional.
Lionel is not angry.
Gilbert is angry.
Stanley is competitive.
Norris is not traditional.
Hanna is rich.
Norris is competitive.
Gilbert is not rich.
Isabel is traditional.
Lionel is modern.
Norris is not angry.If someone who is not sweet is also not angry, then he is not rich.
If someone is sweet or not traditional, then he is not angry.
If there is someone who is either not angry or not competitive, then Gilbert is sweet.
if there is at least one people who is competitive and modern, then Norris is angry and Stanley is traditional.
If all people are not rich, then Clark is not sweet.
If there is someone who is both not angry and traditional, then Norris is competitive.
It can be concluded that Norris is not angry and Stanley is sweet once knowing that Norris is traditional.
Someone being not rich is equivalent to being not modern.
If someone is rich or not modern, then he is competitive.
Someone is not traditional and sweet if and only if he is competitive.
Norris being not sweet and Norris being not rich are equivalent to Hanna being not modern and Lionel being traditional.
If there is at least one people who is not modern or traditional, then Clark is competitive. | Stanley is not traditional. | self_contradiction |
Gilbert is not sweet.
Stanley is not traditional.
Lionel is not angry.
Gilbert is angry.
Stanley is competitive.
Norris is not traditional.
Hanna is rich.
Norris is competitive.
Gilbert is not rich.
Isabel is traditional.
Lionel is modern.
Norris is not angry.If someone who is not sweet is also not angry, then he is not rich.
If someone is sweet or not traditional, then he is not angry.
If there is someone who is either not angry or not competitive, then Gilbert is sweet.
if there is at least one people who is competitive and modern, then Norris is angry and Stanley is traditional.
If all people are not rich, then Clark is not sweet.
If there is someone who is both not angry and traditional, then Norris is competitive.
It can be concluded that Norris is not angry and Stanley is sweet once knowing that Norris is traditional.
Someone being not rich is equivalent to being not modern.
If someone is rich or not modern, then he is competitive.
Someone is not traditional and sweet if and only if he is competitive.
Norris being not sweet and Norris being not rich are equivalent to Hanna being not modern and Lionel being traditional.
If there is at least one people who is not modern or traditional, then Clark is competitive. | Isabel is traditional. | entailment |
Gilbert is not sweet.
Stanley is not traditional.
Lionel is not angry.
Gilbert is angry.
Stanley is competitive.
Norris is not traditional.
Hanna is rich.
Norris is competitive.
Gilbert is not rich.
Isabel is traditional.
Lionel is modern.
Norris is not angry.If someone who is not sweet is also not angry, then he is not rich.
If someone is sweet or not traditional, then he is not angry.
If there is someone who is either not angry or not competitive, then Gilbert is sweet.
if there is at least one people who is competitive and modern, then Norris is angry and Stanley is traditional.
If all people are not rich, then Clark is not sweet.
If there is someone who is both not angry and traditional, then Norris is competitive.
It can be concluded that Norris is not angry and Stanley is sweet once knowing that Norris is traditional.
Someone being not rich is equivalent to being not modern.
If someone is rich or not modern, then he is competitive.
Someone is not traditional and sweet if and only if he is competitive.
Norris being not sweet and Norris being not rich are equivalent to Hanna being not modern and Lionel being traditional.
If there is at least one people who is not modern or traditional, then Clark is competitive. | Hanna is traditional. | contradiction |
Gilbert is not sweet.
Stanley is not traditional.
Lionel is not angry.
Gilbert is angry.
Stanley is competitive.
Norris is not traditional.
Hanna is rich.
Norris is competitive.
Gilbert is not rich.
Isabel is traditional.
Lionel is modern.
Norris is not angry.If someone who is not sweet is also not angry, then he is not rich.
If someone is sweet or not traditional, then he is not angry.
If there is someone who is either not angry or not competitive, then Gilbert is sweet.
if there is at least one people who is competitive and modern, then Norris is angry and Stanley is traditional.
If all people are not rich, then Clark is not sweet.
If there is someone who is both not angry and traditional, then Norris is competitive.
It can be concluded that Norris is not angry and Stanley is sweet once knowing that Norris is traditional.
Someone being not rich is equivalent to being not modern.
If someone is rich or not modern, then he is competitive.
Someone is not traditional and sweet if and only if he is competitive.
Norris being not sweet and Norris being not rich are equivalent to Hanna being not modern and Lionel being traditional.
If there is at least one people who is not modern or traditional, then Clark is competitive. | Gilbert is not rich. | entailment |
Gilbert is not sweet.
Stanley is not traditional.
Lionel is not angry.
Gilbert is angry.
Stanley is competitive.
Norris is not traditional.
Hanna is rich.
Norris is competitive.
Gilbert is not rich.
Isabel is traditional.
Lionel is modern.
Norris is not angry.If someone who is not sweet is also not angry, then he is not rich.
If someone is sweet or not traditional, then he is not angry.
If there is someone who is either not angry or not competitive, then Gilbert is sweet.
if there is at least one people who is competitive and modern, then Norris is angry and Stanley is traditional.
If all people are not rich, then Clark is not sweet.
If there is someone who is both not angry and traditional, then Norris is competitive.
It can be concluded that Norris is not angry and Stanley is sweet once knowing that Norris is traditional.
Someone being not rich is equivalent to being not modern.
If someone is rich or not modern, then he is competitive.
Someone is not traditional and sweet if and only if he is competitive.
Norris being not sweet and Norris being not rich are equivalent to Hanna being not modern and Lionel being traditional.
If there is at least one people who is not modern or traditional, then Clark is competitive. | Isabel is modern. | neutral |
Gilbert is not sweet.
Stanley is not traditional.
Lionel is not angry.
Gilbert is angry.
Stanley is competitive.
Norris is not traditional.
Hanna is rich.
Norris is competitive.
Gilbert is not rich.
Isabel is traditional.
Lionel is modern.
Norris is not angry.If someone who is not sweet is also not angry, then he is not rich.
If someone is sweet or not traditional, then he is not angry.
If there is someone who is either not angry or not competitive, then Gilbert is sweet.
if there is at least one people who is competitive and modern, then Norris is angry and Stanley is traditional.
If all people are not rich, then Clark is not sweet.
If there is someone who is both not angry and traditional, then Norris is competitive.
It can be concluded that Norris is not angry and Stanley is sweet once knowing that Norris is traditional.
Someone being not rich is equivalent to being not modern.
If someone is rich or not modern, then he is competitive.
Someone is not traditional and sweet if and only if he is competitive.
Norris being not sweet and Norris being not rich are equivalent to Hanna being not modern and Lionel being traditional.
If there is at least one people who is not modern or traditional, then Clark is competitive. | Gilbert is sweet. | self_contradiction |
Gilbert is not sweet.
Stanley is not traditional.
Lionel is not angry.
Gilbert is angry.
Stanley is competitive.
Norris is not traditional.
Hanna is rich.
Norris is competitive.
Gilbert is not rich.
Isabel is traditional.
Lionel is modern.
Norris is not angry.If someone who is not sweet is also not angry, then he is not rich.
If someone is sweet or not traditional, then he is not angry.
If there is someone who is either not angry or not competitive, then Gilbert is sweet.
if there is at least one people who is competitive and modern, then Norris is angry and Stanley is traditional.
If all people are not rich, then Clark is not sweet.
If there is someone who is both not angry and traditional, then Norris is competitive.
It can be concluded that Norris is not angry and Stanley is sweet once knowing that Norris is traditional.
Someone being not rich is equivalent to being not modern.
If someone is rich or not modern, then he is competitive.
Someone is not traditional and sweet if and only if he is competitive.
Norris being not sweet and Norris being not rich are equivalent to Hanna being not modern and Lionel being traditional.
If there is at least one people who is not modern or traditional, then Clark is competitive. | Norris is not angry. | self_contradiction |
Gilbert is not sweet.
Stanley is not traditional.
Lionel is not angry.
Gilbert is angry.
Stanley is competitive.
Norris is not traditional.
Hanna is rich.
Norris is competitive.
Gilbert is not rich.
Isabel is traditional.
Lionel is modern.
Norris is not angry.If someone who is not sweet is also not angry, then he is not rich.
If someone is sweet or not traditional, then he is not angry.
If there is someone who is either not angry or not competitive, then Gilbert is sweet.
if there is at least one people who is competitive and modern, then Norris is angry and Stanley is traditional.
If all people are not rich, then Clark is not sweet.
If there is someone who is both not angry and traditional, then Norris is competitive.
It can be concluded that Norris is not angry and Stanley is sweet once knowing that Norris is traditional.
Someone being not rich is equivalent to being not modern.
If someone is rich or not modern, then he is competitive.
Someone is not traditional and sweet if and only if he is competitive.
Norris being not sweet and Norris being not rich are equivalent to Hanna being not modern and Lionel being traditional.
If there is at least one people who is not modern or traditional, then Clark is competitive. | Norris is modern. | neutral |
Gilbert is not sweet.
Stanley is not traditional.
Lionel is not angry.
Gilbert is angry.
Stanley is competitive.
Norris is not traditional.
Hanna is rich.
Norris is competitive.
Gilbert is not rich.
Isabel is traditional.
Lionel is modern.
Norris is not angry.If someone who is not sweet is also not angry, then he is not rich.
If someone is sweet or not traditional, then he is not angry.
If there is someone who is either not angry or not competitive, then Gilbert is sweet.
if there is at least one people who is competitive and modern, then Norris is angry and Stanley is traditional.
If all people are not rich, then Clark is not sweet.
If there is someone who is both not angry and traditional, then Norris is competitive.
It can be concluded that Norris is not angry and Stanley is sweet once knowing that Norris is traditional.
Someone being not rich is equivalent to being not modern.
If someone is rich or not modern, then he is competitive.
Someone is not traditional and sweet if and only if he is competitive.
Norris being not sweet and Norris being not rich are equivalent to Hanna being not modern and Lionel being traditional.
If there is at least one people who is not modern or traditional, then Clark is competitive. | Gilbert is angry. | self_contradiction |
Gilbert is not sweet.
Stanley is not traditional.
Lionel is not angry.
Gilbert is angry.
Stanley is competitive.
Norris is not traditional.
Hanna is rich.
Norris is competitive.
Gilbert is not rich.
Isabel is traditional.
Lionel is modern.
Norris is not angry.If someone who is not sweet is also not angry, then he is not rich.
If someone is sweet or not traditional, then he is not angry.
If there is someone who is either not angry or not competitive, then Gilbert is sweet.
if there is at least one people who is competitive and modern, then Norris is angry and Stanley is traditional.
If all people are not rich, then Clark is not sweet.
If there is someone who is both not angry and traditional, then Norris is competitive.
It can be concluded that Norris is not angry and Stanley is sweet once knowing that Norris is traditional.
Someone being not rich is equivalent to being not modern.
If someone is rich or not modern, then he is competitive.
Someone is not traditional and sweet if and only if he is competitive.
Norris being not sweet and Norris being not rich are equivalent to Hanna being not modern and Lionel being traditional.
If there is at least one people who is not modern or traditional, then Clark is competitive. | Gilbert is not angry. | self_contradiction |
Gilbert is not sweet.
Stanley is not traditional.
Lionel is not angry.
Gilbert is angry.
Stanley is competitive.
Norris is not traditional.
Hanna is rich.
Norris is competitive.
Gilbert is not rich.
Isabel is traditional.
Lionel is modern.
Norris is not angry.If someone who is not sweet is also not angry, then he is not rich.
If someone is sweet or not traditional, then he is not angry.
If there is someone who is either not angry or not competitive, then Gilbert is sweet.
if there is at least one people who is competitive and modern, then Norris is angry and Stanley is traditional.
If all people are not rich, then Clark is not sweet.
If there is someone who is both not angry and traditional, then Norris is competitive.
It can be concluded that Norris is not angry and Stanley is sweet once knowing that Norris is traditional.
Someone being not rich is equivalent to being not modern.
If someone is rich or not modern, then he is competitive.
Someone is not traditional and sweet if and only if he is competitive.
Norris being not sweet and Norris being not rich are equivalent to Hanna being not modern and Lionel being traditional.
If there is at least one people who is not modern or traditional, then Clark is competitive. | Norris is sweet. | entailment |
Charlie is not wooden.
Curtis is cute.
Stefan is not open.
Quinn is not cute.
Bert is dishonest.
Bert is mellow.
Quinn is not dishonest.
Curtis is not quiet.
Quinn is not wooden.
Stefan is quiet.
Jorge is not dishonest.
Jorge is open.Someone being both quiet and not open is equivalent to being not cute and wooden.
If Curtis is mellow, then Gresham is not wooden, and vice versa.
If Gresham is dishonest or Jorge is open, then Quinn is not mellow.
Curtis being open implies that Gresham is quiet.
If there is someone who is not mellow, then Stefan is not quiet.
Stefan being not dishonest is equivalent to Bert being not mellow.
If someone is cute or he is not wooden, then he is not open.
If there is someone who is both not dishonest and not wooden, then Quinn is open.
It can be concluded that Stefan is not open once knowing that Stefan is not cute or Curtis is not quiet.
If all people are not open, then Curtis is not quiet.
Someone who is eithor not wooden or dishonest is always mellow.
Quinn being not cute implies that Quinn is not open and Bert is mellow. | Quinn is not cute. | entailment |
Charlie is not wooden.
Curtis is cute.
Stefan is not open.
Quinn is not cute.
Bert is dishonest.
Bert is mellow.
Quinn is not dishonest.
Curtis is not quiet.
Quinn is not wooden.
Stefan is quiet.
Jorge is not dishonest.
Jorge is open.Someone being both quiet and not open is equivalent to being not cute and wooden.
If Curtis is mellow, then Gresham is not wooden, and vice versa.
If Gresham is dishonest or Jorge is open, then Quinn is not mellow.
Curtis being open implies that Gresham is quiet.
If there is someone who is not mellow, then Stefan is not quiet.
Stefan being not dishonest is equivalent to Bert being not mellow.
If someone is cute or he is not wooden, then he is not open.
If there is someone who is both not dishonest and not wooden, then Quinn is open.
It can be concluded that Stefan is not open once knowing that Stefan is not cute or Curtis is not quiet.
If all people are not open, then Curtis is not quiet.
Someone who is eithor not wooden or dishonest is always mellow.
Quinn being not cute implies that Quinn is not open and Bert is mellow. | Quinn is open. | self_contradiction |
Charlie is not wooden.
Curtis is cute.
Stefan is not open.
Quinn is not cute.
Bert is dishonest.
Bert is mellow.
Quinn is not dishonest.
Curtis is not quiet.
Quinn is not wooden.
Stefan is quiet.
Jorge is not dishonest.
Jorge is open.Someone being both quiet and not open is equivalent to being not cute and wooden.
If Curtis is mellow, then Gresham is not wooden, and vice versa.
If Gresham is dishonest or Jorge is open, then Quinn is not mellow.
Curtis being open implies that Gresham is quiet.
If there is someone who is not mellow, then Stefan is not quiet.
Stefan being not dishonest is equivalent to Bert being not mellow.
If someone is cute or he is not wooden, then he is not open.
If there is someone who is both not dishonest and not wooden, then Quinn is open.
It can be concluded that Stefan is not open once knowing that Stefan is not cute or Curtis is not quiet.
If all people are not open, then Curtis is not quiet.
Someone who is eithor not wooden or dishonest is always mellow.
Quinn being not cute implies that Quinn is not open and Bert is mellow. | Jorge is not quiet. | neutral |
Charlie is not wooden.
Curtis is cute.
Stefan is not open.
Quinn is not cute.
Bert is dishonest.
Bert is mellow.
Quinn is not dishonest.
Curtis is not quiet.
Quinn is not wooden.
Stefan is quiet.
Jorge is not dishonest.
Jorge is open.Someone being both quiet and not open is equivalent to being not cute and wooden.
If Curtis is mellow, then Gresham is not wooden, and vice versa.
If Gresham is dishonest or Jorge is open, then Quinn is not mellow.
Curtis being open implies that Gresham is quiet.
If there is someone who is not mellow, then Stefan is not quiet.
Stefan being not dishonest is equivalent to Bert being not mellow.
If someone is cute or he is not wooden, then he is not open.
If there is someone who is both not dishonest and not wooden, then Quinn is open.
It can be concluded that Stefan is not open once knowing that Stefan is not cute or Curtis is not quiet.
If all people are not open, then Curtis is not quiet.
Someone who is eithor not wooden or dishonest is always mellow.
Quinn being not cute implies that Quinn is not open and Bert is mellow. | Charlie is mellow. | entailment |
Charlie is not wooden.
Curtis is cute.
Stefan is not open.
Quinn is not cute.
Bert is dishonest.
Bert is mellow.
Quinn is not dishonest.
Curtis is not quiet.
Quinn is not wooden.
Stefan is quiet.
Jorge is not dishonest.
Jorge is open.Someone being both quiet and not open is equivalent to being not cute and wooden.
If Curtis is mellow, then Gresham is not wooden, and vice versa.
If Gresham is dishonest or Jorge is open, then Quinn is not mellow.
Curtis being open implies that Gresham is quiet.
If there is someone who is not mellow, then Stefan is not quiet.
Stefan being not dishonest is equivalent to Bert being not mellow.
If someone is cute or he is not wooden, then he is not open.
If there is someone who is both not dishonest and not wooden, then Quinn is open.
It can be concluded that Stefan is not open once knowing that Stefan is not cute or Curtis is not quiet.
If all people are not open, then Curtis is not quiet.
Someone who is eithor not wooden or dishonest is always mellow.
Quinn being not cute implies that Quinn is not open and Bert is mellow. | Stefan is dishonest. | neutral |
Charlie is not wooden.
Curtis is cute.
Stefan is not open.
Quinn is not cute.
Bert is dishonest.
Bert is mellow.
Quinn is not dishonest.
Curtis is not quiet.
Quinn is not wooden.
Stefan is quiet.
Jorge is not dishonest.
Jorge is open.Someone being both quiet and not open is equivalent to being not cute and wooden.
If Curtis is mellow, then Gresham is not wooden, and vice versa.
If Gresham is dishonest or Jorge is open, then Quinn is not mellow.
Curtis being open implies that Gresham is quiet.
If there is someone who is not mellow, then Stefan is not quiet.
Stefan being not dishonest is equivalent to Bert being not mellow.
If someone is cute or he is not wooden, then he is not open.
If there is someone who is both not dishonest and not wooden, then Quinn is open.
It can be concluded that Stefan is not open once knowing that Stefan is not cute or Curtis is not quiet.
If all people are not open, then Curtis is not quiet.
Someone who is eithor not wooden or dishonest is always mellow.
Quinn being not cute implies that Quinn is not open and Bert is mellow. | Quinn is not mellow. | self_contradiction |
Charlie is not wooden.
Curtis is cute.
Stefan is not open.
Quinn is not cute.
Bert is dishonest.
Bert is mellow.
Quinn is not dishonest.
Curtis is not quiet.
Quinn is not wooden.
Stefan is quiet.
Jorge is not dishonest.
Jorge is open.Someone being both quiet and not open is equivalent to being not cute and wooden.
If Curtis is mellow, then Gresham is not wooden, and vice versa.
If Gresham is dishonest or Jorge is open, then Quinn is not mellow.
Curtis being open implies that Gresham is quiet.
If there is someone who is not mellow, then Stefan is not quiet.
Stefan being not dishonest is equivalent to Bert being not mellow.
If someone is cute or he is not wooden, then he is not open.
If there is someone who is both not dishonest and not wooden, then Quinn is open.
It can be concluded that Stefan is not open once knowing that Stefan is not cute or Curtis is not quiet.
If all people are not open, then Curtis is not quiet.
Someone who is eithor not wooden or dishonest is always mellow.
Quinn being not cute implies that Quinn is not open and Bert is mellow. | Quinn is not wooden. | entailment |
Charlie is not wooden.
Curtis is cute.
Stefan is not open.
Quinn is not cute.
Bert is dishonest.
Bert is mellow.
Quinn is not dishonest.
Curtis is not quiet.
Quinn is not wooden.
Stefan is quiet.
Jorge is not dishonest.
Jorge is open.Someone being both quiet and not open is equivalent to being not cute and wooden.
If Curtis is mellow, then Gresham is not wooden, and vice versa.
If Gresham is dishonest or Jorge is open, then Quinn is not mellow.
Curtis being open implies that Gresham is quiet.
If there is someone who is not mellow, then Stefan is not quiet.
Stefan being not dishonest is equivalent to Bert being not mellow.
If someone is cute or he is not wooden, then he is not open.
If there is someone who is both not dishonest and not wooden, then Quinn is open.
It can be concluded that Stefan is not open once knowing that Stefan is not cute or Curtis is not quiet.
If all people are not open, then Curtis is not quiet.
Someone who is eithor not wooden or dishonest is always mellow.
Quinn being not cute implies that Quinn is not open and Bert is mellow. | Quinn is quiet. | neutral |
Charlie is not wooden.
Curtis is cute.
Stefan is not open.
Quinn is not cute.
Bert is dishonest.
Bert is mellow.
Quinn is not dishonest.
Curtis is not quiet.
Quinn is not wooden.
Stefan is quiet.
Jorge is not dishonest.
Jorge is open.Someone being both quiet and not open is equivalent to being not cute and wooden.
If Curtis is mellow, then Gresham is not wooden, and vice versa.
If Gresham is dishonest or Jorge is open, then Quinn is not mellow.
Curtis being open implies that Gresham is quiet.
If there is someone who is not mellow, then Stefan is not quiet.
Stefan being not dishonest is equivalent to Bert being not mellow.
If someone is cute or he is not wooden, then he is not open.
If there is someone who is both not dishonest and not wooden, then Quinn is open.
It can be concluded that Stefan is not open once knowing that Stefan is not cute or Curtis is not quiet.
If all people are not open, then Curtis is not quiet.
Someone who is eithor not wooden or dishonest is always mellow.
Quinn being not cute implies that Quinn is not open and Bert is mellow. | Stefan is not quiet. | self_contradiction |
Charlie is not wooden.
Curtis is cute.
Stefan is not open.
Quinn is not cute.
Bert is dishonest.
Bert is mellow.
Quinn is not dishonest.
Curtis is not quiet.
Quinn is not wooden.
Stefan is quiet.
Jorge is not dishonest.
Jorge is open.Someone being both quiet and not open is equivalent to being not cute and wooden.
If Curtis is mellow, then Gresham is not wooden, and vice versa.
If Gresham is dishonest or Jorge is open, then Quinn is not mellow.
Curtis being open implies that Gresham is quiet.
If there is someone who is not mellow, then Stefan is not quiet.
Stefan being not dishonest is equivalent to Bert being not mellow.
If someone is cute or he is not wooden, then he is not open.
If there is someone who is both not dishonest and not wooden, then Quinn is open.
It can be concluded that Stefan is not open once knowing that Stefan is not cute or Curtis is not quiet.
If all people are not open, then Curtis is not quiet.
Someone who is eithor not wooden or dishonest is always mellow.
Quinn being not cute implies that Quinn is not open and Bert is mellow. | Bert is cute. | neutral |
Charlie is not wooden.
Curtis is cute.
Stefan is not open.
Quinn is not cute.
Bert is dishonest.
Bert is mellow.
Quinn is not dishonest.
Curtis is not quiet.
Quinn is not wooden.
Stefan is quiet.
Jorge is not dishonest.
Jorge is open.Someone being both quiet and not open is equivalent to being not cute and wooden.
If Curtis is mellow, then Gresham is not wooden, and vice versa.
If Gresham is dishonest or Jorge is open, then Quinn is not mellow.
Curtis being open implies that Gresham is quiet.
If there is someone who is not mellow, then Stefan is not quiet.
Stefan being not dishonest is equivalent to Bert being not mellow.
If someone is cute or he is not wooden, then he is not open.
If there is someone who is both not dishonest and not wooden, then Quinn is open.
It can be concluded that Stefan is not open once knowing that Stefan is not cute or Curtis is not quiet.
If all people are not open, then Curtis is not quiet.
Someone who is eithor not wooden or dishonest is always mellow.
Quinn being not cute implies that Quinn is not open and Bert is mellow. | Quinn is not open. | self_contradiction |
Charlie is not wooden.
Curtis is cute.
Stefan is not open.
Quinn is not cute.
Bert is dishonest.
Bert is mellow.
Quinn is not dishonest.
Curtis is not quiet.
Quinn is not wooden.
Stefan is quiet.
Jorge is not dishonest.
Jorge is open.Someone being both quiet and not open is equivalent to being not cute and wooden.
If Curtis is mellow, then Gresham is not wooden, and vice versa.
If Gresham is dishonest or Jorge is open, then Quinn is not mellow.
Curtis being open implies that Gresham is quiet.
If there is someone who is not mellow, then Stefan is not quiet.
Stefan being not dishonest is equivalent to Bert being not mellow.
If someone is cute or he is not wooden, then he is not open.
If there is someone who is both not dishonest and not wooden, then Quinn is open.
It can be concluded that Stefan is not open once knowing that Stefan is not cute or Curtis is not quiet.
If all people are not open, then Curtis is not quiet.
Someone who is eithor not wooden or dishonest is always mellow.
Quinn being not cute implies that Quinn is not open and Bert is mellow. | Charlie is open. | contradiction |
Charlie is not wooden.
Curtis is cute.
Stefan is not open.
Quinn is not cute.
Bert is dishonest.
Bert is mellow.
Quinn is not dishonest.
Curtis is not quiet.
Quinn is not wooden.
Stefan is quiet.
Jorge is not dishonest.
Jorge is open.Someone being both quiet and not open is equivalent to being not cute and wooden.
If Curtis is mellow, then Gresham is not wooden, and vice versa.
If Gresham is dishonest or Jorge is open, then Quinn is not mellow.
Curtis being open implies that Gresham is quiet.
If there is someone who is not mellow, then Stefan is not quiet.
Stefan being not dishonest is equivalent to Bert being not mellow.
If someone is cute or he is not wooden, then he is not open.
If there is someone who is both not dishonest and not wooden, then Quinn is open.
It can be concluded that Stefan is not open once knowing that Stefan is not cute or Curtis is not quiet.
If all people are not open, then Curtis is not quiet.
Someone who is eithor not wooden or dishonest is always mellow.
Quinn being not cute implies that Quinn is not open and Bert is mellow. | Quinn is dishonest. | contradiction |
Charlie is not wooden.
Curtis is cute.
Stefan is not open.
Quinn is not cute.
Bert is dishonest.
Bert is mellow.
Quinn is not dishonest.
Curtis is not quiet.
Quinn is not wooden.
Stefan is quiet.
Jorge is not dishonest.
Jorge is open.Someone being both quiet and not open is equivalent to being not cute and wooden.
If Curtis is mellow, then Gresham is not wooden, and vice versa.
If Gresham is dishonest or Jorge is open, then Quinn is not mellow.
Curtis being open implies that Gresham is quiet.
If there is someone who is not mellow, then Stefan is not quiet.
Stefan being not dishonest is equivalent to Bert being not mellow.
If someone is cute or he is not wooden, then he is not open.
If there is someone who is both not dishonest and not wooden, then Quinn is open.
It can be concluded that Stefan is not open once knowing that Stefan is not cute or Curtis is not quiet.
If all people are not open, then Curtis is not quiet.
Someone who is eithor not wooden or dishonest is always mellow.
Quinn being not cute implies that Quinn is not open and Bert is mellow. | Stefan is not wooden. | contradiction |
Charlie is not wooden.
Curtis is cute.
Stefan is not open.
Quinn is not cute.
Bert is dishonest.
Bert is mellow.
Quinn is not dishonest.
Curtis is not quiet.
Quinn is not wooden.
Stefan is quiet.
Jorge is not dishonest.
Jorge is open.Someone being both quiet and not open is equivalent to being not cute and wooden.
If Curtis is mellow, then Gresham is not wooden, and vice versa.
If Gresham is dishonest or Jorge is open, then Quinn is not mellow.
Curtis being open implies that Gresham is quiet.
If there is someone who is not mellow, then Stefan is not quiet.
Stefan being not dishonest is equivalent to Bert being not mellow.
If someone is cute or he is not wooden, then he is not open.
If there is someone who is both not dishonest and not wooden, then Quinn is open.
It can be concluded that Stefan is not open once knowing that Stefan is not cute or Curtis is not quiet.
If all people are not open, then Curtis is not quiet.
Someone who is eithor not wooden or dishonest is always mellow.
Quinn being not cute implies that Quinn is not open and Bert is mellow. | Charlie is cute. | neutral |
Charlie is not wooden.
Curtis is cute.
Stefan is not open.
Quinn is not cute.
Bert is dishonest.
Bert is mellow.
Quinn is not dishonest.
Curtis is not quiet.
Quinn is not wooden.
Stefan is quiet.
Jorge is not dishonest.
Jorge is open.Someone being both quiet and not open is equivalent to being not cute and wooden.
If Curtis is mellow, then Gresham is not wooden, and vice versa.
If Gresham is dishonest or Jorge is open, then Quinn is not mellow.
Curtis being open implies that Gresham is quiet.
If there is someone who is not mellow, then Stefan is not quiet.
Stefan being not dishonest is equivalent to Bert being not mellow.
If someone is cute or he is not wooden, then he is not open.
If there is someone who is both not dishonest and not wooden, then Quinn is open.
It can be concluded that Stefan is not open once knowing that Stefan is not cute or Curtis is not quiet.
If all people are not open, then Curtis is not quiet.
Someone who is eithor not wooden or dishonest is always mellow.
Quinn being not cute implies that Quinn is not open and Bert is mellow. | Stefan is wooden. | entailment |
Charlie is not wooden.
Curtis is cute.
Stefan is not open.
Quinn is not cute.
Bert is dishonest.
Bert is mellow.
Quinn is not dishonest.
Curtis is not quiet.
Quinn is not wooden.
Stefan is quiet.
Jorge is not dishonest.
Jorge is open.Someone being both quiet and not open is equivalent to being not cute and wooden.
If Curtis is mellow, then Gresham is not wooden, and vice versa.
If Gresham is dishonest or Jorge is open, then Quinn is not mellow.
Curtis being open implies that Gresham is quiet.
If there is someone who is not mellow, then Stefan is not quiet.
Stefan being not dishonest is equivalent to Bert being not mellow.
If someone is cute or he is not wooden, then he is not open.
If there is someone who is both not dishonest and not wooden, then Quinn is open.
It can be concluded that Stefan is not open once knowing that Stefan is not cute or Curtis is not quiet.
If all people are not open, then Curtis is not quiet.
Someone who is eithor not wooden or dishonest is always mellow.
Quinn being not cute implies that Quinn is not open and Bert is mellow. | Jorge is dishonest. | contradiction |
Charlie is not wooden.
Curtis is cute.
Stefan is not open.
Quinn is not cute.
Bert is dishonest.
Bert is mellow.
Quinn is not dishonest.
Curtis is not quiet.
Quinn is not wooden.
Stefan is quiet.
Jorge is not dishonest.
Jorge is open.Someone being both quiet and not open is equivalent to being not cute and wooden.
If Curtis is mellow, then Gresham is not wooden, and vice versa.
If Gresham is dishonest or Jorge is open, then Quinn is not mellow.
Curtis being open implies that Gresham is quiet.
If there is someone who is not mellow, then Stefan is not quiet.
Stefan being not dishonest is equivalent to Bert being not mellow.
If someone is cute or he is not wooden, then he is not open.
If there is someone who is both not dishonest and not wooden, then Quinn is open.
It can be concluded that Stefan is not open once knowing that Stefan is not cute or Curtis is not quiet.
If all people are not open, then Curtis is not quiet.
Someone who is eithor not wooden or dishonest is always mellow.
Quinn being not cute implies that Quinn is not open and Bert is mellow. | Curtis is quiet. | contradiction |
Charlie is not wooden.
Curtis is cute.
Stefan is not open.
Quinn is not cute.
Bert is dishonest.
Bert is mellow.
Quinn is not dishonest.
Curtis is not quiet.
Quinn is not wooden.
Stefan is quiet.
Jorge is not dishonest.
Jorge is open.Someone being both quiet and not open is equivalent to being not cute and wooden.
If Curtis is mellow, then Gresham is not wooden, and vice versa.
If Gresham is dishonest or Jorge is open, then Quinn is not mellow.
Curtis being open implies that Gresham is quiet.
If there is someone who is not mellow, then Stefan is not quiet.
Stefan being not dishonest is equivalent to Bert being not mellow.
If someone is cute or he is not wooden, then he is not open.
If there is someone who is both not dishonest and not wooden, then Quinn is open.
It can be concluded that Stefan is not open once knowing that Stefan is not cute or Curtis is not quiet.
If all people are not open, then Curtis is not quiet.
Someone who is eithor not wooden or dishonest is always mellow.
Quinn being not cute implies that Quinn is not open and Bert is mellow. | Charlie is not open. | entailment |
Charlie is not wooden.
Curtis is cute.
Stefan is not open.
Quinn is not cute.
Bert is dishonest.
Bert is mellow.
Quinn is not dishonest.
Curtis is not quiet.
Quinn is not wooden.
Stefan is quiet.
Jorge is not dishonest.
Jorge is open.Someone being both quiet and not open is equivalent to being not cute and wooden.
If Curtis is mellow, then Gresham is not wooden, and vice versa.
If Gresham is dishonest or Jorge is open, then Quinn is not mellow.
Curtis being open implies that Gresham is quiet.
If there is someone who is not mellow, then Stefan is not quiet.
Stefan being not dishonest is equivalent to Bert being not mellow.
If someone is cute or he is not wooden, then he is not open.
If there is someone who is both not dishonest and not wooden, then Quinn is open.
It can be concluded that Stefan is not open once knowing that Stefan is not cute or Curtis is not quiet.
If all people are not open, then Curtis is not quiet.
Someone who is eithor not wooden or dishonest is always mellow.
Quinn being not cute implies that Quinn is not open and Bert is mellow. | Stefan is quiet. | self_contradiction |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.