premise
stringlengths 923
1.41k
| hypothesis
stringlengths 11
33
| label
stringclasses 4
values |
|---|---|---|
Randolph is not tense.
Nathalie is not bloody.
Hall is not powerful.
Hall is swift.
Helena is swift.
Randolph is sleepy.
Marvin is powerful.
Hall is not tense.
Jesse is bloody.
Jesse is not wet.
Helena is not tense.
Jesse is sleepy.It can be concluded that Nathalie is not powerful once knowing that Marvin is not bloody or Nathalie is swift.
If there is someone who is bloody, then Randolph is tense and Nathalie is not wet.
If Kerwin is swift and Kerwin is bloody, then Marvin is tense.
Nathalie being sleepy is equivalent to Randolph being tense.
Someone who is bloody is always wet.
As long as someone is sleepy, he is not swift and not bloody.
If Hall is sleepy or Helena is powerful, then Jesse is wet.
If someone is not sleepy and not bloody, then he is not wet, and vice versa.
If someone who is powerful is also not wet, then he is not tense.
If Hall is wet, then Helena is not powerful and Kerwin is not sleepy.
As long as someone is either powerful or tense, he is not sleepy and wet.
If there is at least one people who is not sleepy, then Nathalie is not powerful and Randolph is not swift. | Nathalie is wet. | contradiction |
Randolph is not tense.
Nathalie is not bloody.
Hall is not powerful.
Hall is swift.
Helena is swift.
Randolph is sleepy.
Marvin is powerful.
Hall is not tense.
Jesse is bloody.
Jesse is not wet.
Helena is not tense.
Jesse is sleepy.It can be concluded that Nathalie is not powerful once knowing that Marvin is not bloody or Nathalie is swift.
If there is someone who is bloody, then Randolph is tense and Nathalie is not wet.
If Kerwin is swift and Kerwin is bloody, then Marvin is tense.
Nathalie being sleepy is equivalent to Randolph being tense.
Someone who is bloody is always wet.
As long as someone is sleepy, he is not swift and not bloody.
If Hall is sleepy or Helena is powerful, then Jesse is wet.
If someone is not sleepy and not bloody, then he is not wet, and vice versa.
If someone who is powerful is also not wet, then he is not tense.
If Hall is wet, then Helena is not powerful and Kerwin is not sleepy.
As long as someone is either powerful or tense, he is not sleepy and wet.
If there is at least one people who is not sleepy, then Nathalie is not powerful and Randolph is not swift. | Marvin is powerful. | entailment |
Randolph is not tense.
Nathalie is not bloody.
Hall is not powerful.
Hall is swift.
Helena is swift.
Randolph is sleepy.
Marvin is powerful.
Hall is not tense.
Jesse is bloody.
Jesse is not wet.
Helena is not tense.
Jesse is sleepy.It can be concluded that Nathalie is not powerful once knowing that Marvin is not bloody or Nathalie is swift.
If there is someone who is bloody, then Randolph is tense and Nathalie is not wet.
If Kerwin is swift and Kerwin is bloody, then Marvin is tense.
Nathalie being sleepy is equivalent to Randolph being tense.
Someone who is bloody is always wet.
As long as someone is sleepy, he is not swift and not bloody.
If Hall is sleepy or Helena is powerful, then Jesse is wet.
If someone is not sleepy and not bloody, then he is not wet, and vice versa.
If someone who is powerful is also not wet, then he is not tense.
If Hall is wet, then Helena is not powerful and Kerwin is not sleepy.
As long as someone is either powerful or tense, he is not sleepy and wet.
If there is at least one people who is not sleepy, then Nathalie is not powerful and Randolph is not swift. | Marvin is tense. | neutral |
Randolph is not tense.
Nathalie is not bloody.
Hall is not powerful.
Hall is swift.
Helena is swift.
Randolph is sleepy.
Marvin is powerful.
Hall is not tense.
Jesse is bloody.
Jesse is not wet.
Helena is not tense.
Jesse is sleepy.It can be concluded that Nathalie is not powerful once knowing that Marvin is not bloody or Nathalie is swift.
If there is someone who is bloody, then Randolph is tense and Nathalie is not wet.
If Kerwin is swift and Kerwin is bloody, then Marvin is tense.
Nathalie being sleepy is equivalent to Randolph being tense.
Someone who is bloody is always wet.
As long as someone is sleepy, he is not swift and not bloody.
If Hall is sleepy or Helena is powerful, then Jesse is wet.
If someone is not sleepy and not bloody, then he is not wet, and vice versa.
If someone who is powerful is also not wet, then he is not tense.
If Hall is wet, then Helena is not powerful and Kerwin is not sleepy.
As long as someone is either powerful or tense, he is not sleepy and wet.
If there is at least one people who is not sleepy, then Nathalie is not powerful and Randolph is not swift. | Nathalie is not powerful. | entailment |
Randolph is not tense.
Nathalie is not bloody.
Hall is not powerful.
Hall is swift.
Helena is swift.
Randolph is sleepy.
Marvin is powerful.
Hall is not tense.
Jesse is bloody.
Jesse is not wet.
Helena is not tense.
Jesse is sleepy.It can be concluded that Nathalie is not powerful once knowing that Marvin is not bloody or Nathalie is swift.
If there is someone who is bloody, then Randolph is tense and Nathalie is not wet.
If Kerwin is swift and Kerwin is bloody, then Marvin is tense.
Nathalie being sleepy is equivalent to Randolph being tense.
Someone who is bloody is always wet.
As long as someone is sleepy, he is not swift and not bloody.
If Hall is sleepy or Helena is powerful, then Jesse is wet.
If someone is not sleepy and not bloody, then he is not wet, and vice versa.
If someone who is powerful is also not wet, then he is not tense.
If Hall is wet, then Helena is not powerful and Kerwin is not sleepy.
As long as someone is either powerful or tense, he is not sleepy and wet.
If there is at least one people who is not sleepy, then Nathalie is not powerful and Randolph is not swift. | Marvin is not powerful. | contradiction |
Randolph is not tense.
Nathalie is not bloody.
Hall is not powerful.
Hall is swift.
Helena is swift.
Randolph is sleepy.
Marvin is powerful.
Hall is not tense.
Jesse is bloody.
Jesse is not wet.
Helena is not tense.
Jesse is sleepy.It can be concluded that Nathalie is not powerful once knowing that Marvin is not bloody or Nathalie is swift.
If there is someone who is bloody, then Randolph is tense and Nathalie is not wet.
If Kerwin is swift and Kerwin is bloody, then Marvin is tense.
Nathalie being sleepy is equivalent to Randolph being tense.
Someone who is bloody is always wet.
As long as someone is sleepy, he is not swift and not bloody.
If Hall is sleepy or Helena is powerful, then Jesse is wet.
If someone is not sleepy and not bloody, then he is not wet, and vice versa.
If someone who is powerful is also not wet, then he is not tense.
If Hall is wet, then Helena is not powerful and Kerwin is not sleepy.
As long as someone is either powerful or tense, he is not sleepy and wet.
If there is at least one people who is not sleepy, then Nathalie is not powerful and Randolph is not swift. | Helena is not tense. | entailment |
Randolph is not tense.
Nathalie is not bloody.
Hall is not powerful.
Hall is swift.
Helena is swift.
Randolph is sleepy.
Marvin is powerful.
Hall is not tense.
Jesse is bloody.
Jesse is not wet.
Helena is not tense.
Jesse is sleepy.It can be concluded that Nathalie is not powerful once knowing that Marvin is not bloody or Nathalie is swift.
If there is someone who is bloody, then Randolph is tense and Nathalie is not wet.
If Kerwin is swift and Kerwin is bloody, then Marvin is tense.
Nathalie being sleepy is equivalent to Randolph being tense.
Someone who is bloody is always wet.
As long as someone is sleepy, he is not swift and not bloody.
If Hall is sleepy or Helena is powerful, then Jesse is wet.
If someone is not sleepy and not bloody, then he is not wet, and vice versa.
If someone who is powerful is also not wet, then he is not tense.
If Hall is wet, then Helena is not powerful and Kerwin is not sleepy.
As long as someone is either powerful or tense, he is not sleepy and wet.
If there is at least one people who is not sleepy, then Nathalie is not powerful and Randolph is not swift. | Nathalie is tense. | neutral |
Randolph is not tense.
Nathalie is not bloody.
Hall is not powerful.
Hall is swift.
Helena is swift.
Randolph is sleepy.
Marvin is powerful.
Hall is not tense.
Jesse is bloody.
Jesse is not wet.
Helena is not tense.
Jesse is sleepy.It can be concluded that Nathalie is not powerful once knowing that Marvin is not bloody or Nathalie is swift.
If there is someone who is bloody, then Randolph is tense and Nathalie is not wet.
If Kerwin is swift and Kerwin is bloody, then Marvin is tense.
Nathalie being sleepy is equivalent to Randolph being tense.
Someone who is bloody is always wet.
As long as someone is sleepy, he is not swift and not bloody.
If Hall is sleepy or Helena is powerful, then Jesse is wet.
If someone is not sleepy and not bloody, then he is not wet, and vice versa.
If someone who is powerful is also not wet, then he is not tense.
If Hall is wet, then Helena is not powerful and Kerwin is not sleepy.
As long as someone is either powerful or tense, he is not sleepy and wet.
If there is at least one people who is not sleepy, then Nathalie is not powerful and Randolph is not swift. | Hall is not sleepy. | neutral |
Randolph is not tense.
Nathalie is not bloody.
Hall is not powerful.
Hall is swift.
Helena is swift.
Randolph is sleepy.
Marvin is powerful.
Hall is not tense.
Jesse is bloody.
Jesse is not wet.
Helena is not tense.
Jesse is sleepy.It can be concluded that Nathalie is not powerful once knowing that Marvin is not bloody or Nathalie is swift.
If there is someone who is bloody, then Randolph is tense and Nathalie is not wet.
If Kerwin is swift and Kerwin is bloody, then Marvin is tense.
Nathalie being sleepy is equivalent to Randolph being tense.
Someone who is bloody is always wet.
As long as someone is sleepy, he is not swift and not bloody.
If Hall is sleepy or Helena is powerful, then Jesse is wet.
If someone is not sleepy and not bloody, then he is not wet, and vice versa.
If someone who is powerful is also not wet, then he is not tense.
If Hall is wet, then Helena is not powerful and Kerwin is not sleepy.
As long as someone is either powerful or tense, he is not sleepy and wet.
If there is at least one people who is not sleepy, then Nathalie is not powerful and Randolph is not swift. | Helena is swift. | entailment |
Randolph is not tense.
Nathalie is not bloody.
Hall is not powerful.
Hall is swift.
Helena is swift.
Randolph is sleepy.
Marvin is powerful.
Hall is not tense.
Jesse is bloody.
Jesse is not wet.
Helena is not tense.
Jesse is sleepy.It can be concluded that Nathalie is not powerful once knowing that Marvin is not bloody or Nathalie is swift.
If there is someone who is bloody, then Randolph is tense and Nathalie is not wet.
If Kerwin is swift and Kerwin is bloody, then Marvin is tense.
Nathalie being sleepy is equivalent to Randolph being tense.
Someone who is bloody is always wet.
As long as someone is sleepy, he is not swift and not bloody.
If Hall is sleepy or Helena is powerful, then Jesse is wet.
If someone is not sleepy and not bloody, then he is not wet, and vice versa.
If someone who is powerful is also not wet, then he is not tense.
If Hall is wet, then Helena is not powerful and Kerwin is not sleepy.
As long as someone is either powerful or tense, he is not sleepy and wet.
If there is at least one people who is not sleepy, then Nathalie is not powerful and Randolph is not swift. | Marvin is not swift. | neutral |
Randolph is not tense.
Nathalie is not bloody.
Hall is not powerful.
Hall is swift.
Helena is swift.
Randolph is sleepy.
Marvin is powerful.
Hall is not tense.
Jesse is bloody.
Jesse is not wet.
Helena is not tense.
Jesse is sleepy.It can be concluded that Nathalie is not powerful once knowing that Marvin is not bloody or Nathalie is swift.
If there is someone who is bloody, then Randolph is tense and Nathalie is not wet.
If Kerwin is swift and Kerwin is bloody, then Marvin is tense.
Nathalie being sleepy is equivalent to Randolph being tense.
Someone who is bloody is always wet.
As long as someone is sleepy, he is not swift and not bloody.
If Hall is sleepy or Helena is powerful, then Jesse is wet.
If someone is not sleepy and not bloody, then he is not wet, and vice versa.
If someone who is powerful is also not wet, then he is not tense.
If Hall is wet, then Helena is not powerful and Kerwin is not sleepy.
As long as someone is either powerful or tense, he is not sleepy and wet.
If there is at least one people who is not sleepy, then Nathalie is not powerful and Randolph is not swift. | Jesse is swift. | contradiction |
Randolph is not tense.
Nathalie is not bloody.
Hall is not powerful.
Hall is swift.
Helena is swift.
Randolph is sleepy.
Marvin is powerful.
Hall is not tense.
Jesse is bloody.
Jesse is not wet.
Helena is not tense.
Jesse is sleepy.It can be concluded that Nathalie is not powerful once knowing that Marvin is not bloody or Nathalie is swift.
If there is someone who is bloody, then Randolph is tense and Nathalie is not wet.
If Kerwin is swift and Kerwin is bloody, then Marvin is tense.
Nathalie being sleepy is equivalent to Randolph being tense.
Someone who is bloody is always wet.
As long as someone is sleepy, he is not swift and not bloody.
If Hall is sleepy or Helena is powerful, then Jesse is wet.
If someone is not sleepy and not bloody, then he is not wet, and vice versa.
If someone who is powerful is also not wet, then he is not tense.
If Hall is wet, then Helena is not powerful and Kerwin is not sleepy.
As long as someone is either powerful or tense, he is not sleepy and wet.
If there is at least one people who is not sleepy, then Nathalie is not powerful and Randolph is not swift. | Hall is not powerful. | entailment |
Randolph is not tense.
Nathalie is not bloody.
Hall is not powerful.
Hall is swift.
Helena is swift.
Randolph is sleepy.
Marvin is powerful.
Hall is not tense.
Jesse is bloody.
Jesse is not wet.
Helena is not tense.
Jesse is sleepy.It can be concluded that Nathalie is not powerful once knowing that Marvin is not bloody or Nathalie is swift.
If there is someone who is bloody, then Randolph is tense and Nathalie is not wet.
If Kerwin is swift and Kerwin is bloody, then Marvin is tense.
Nathalie being sleepy is equivalent to Randolph being tense.
Someone who is bloody is always wet.
As long as someone is sleepy, he is not swift and not bloody.
If Hall is sleepy or Helena is powerful, then Jesse is wet.
If someone is not sleepy and not bloody, then he is not wet, and vice versa.
If someone who is powerful is also not wet, then he is not tense.
If Hall is wet, then Helena is not powerful and Kerwin is not sleepy.
As long as someone is either powerful or tense, he is not sleepy and wet.
If there is at least one people who is not sleepy, then Nathalie is not powerful and Randolph is not swift. | Helena is not swift. | contradiction |
Randolph is not tense.
Nathalie is not bloody.
Hall is not powerful.
Hall is swift.
Helena is swift.
Randolph is sleepy.
Marvin is powerful.
Hall is not tense.
Jesse is bloody.
Jesse is not wet.
Helena is not tense.
Jesse is sleepy.It can be concluded that Nathalie is not powerful once knowing that Marvin is not bloody or Nathalie is swift.
If there is someone who is bloody, then Randolph is tense and Nathalie is not wet.
If Kerwin is swift and Kerwin is bloody, then Marvin is tense.
Nathalie being sleepy is equivalent to Randolph being tense.
Someone who is bloody is always wet.
As long as someone is sleepy, he is not swift and not bloody.
If Hall is sleepy or Helena is powerful, then Jesse is wet.
If someone is not sleepy and not bloody, then he is not wet, and vice versa.
If someone who is powerful is also not wet, then he is not tense.
If Hall is wet, then Helena is not powerful and Kerwin is not sleepy.
As long as someone is either powerful or tense, he is not sleepy and wet.
If there is at least one people who is not sleepy, then Nathalie is not powerful and Randolph is not swift. | Randolph is wet. | self_contradiction |
Randolph is not tense.
Nathalie is not bloody.
Hall is not powerful.
Hall is swift.
Helena is swift.
Randolph is sleepy.
Marvin is powerful.
Hall is not tense.
Jesse is bloody.
Jesse is not wet.
Helena is not tense.
Jesse is sleepy.It can be concluded that Nathalie is not powerful once knowing that Marvin is not bloody or Nathalie is swift.
If there is someone who is bloody, then Randolph is tense and Nathalie is not wet.
If Kerwin is swift and Kerwin is bloody, then Marvin is tense.
Nathalie being sleepy is equivalent to Randolph being tense.
Someone who is bloody is always wet.
As long as someone is sleepy, he is not swift and not bloody.
If Hall is sleepy or Helena is powerful, then Jesse is wet.
If someone is not sleepy and not bloody, then he is not wet, and vice versa.
If someone who is powerful is also not wet, then he is not tense.
If Hall is wet, then Helena is not powerful and Kerwin is not sleepy.
As long as someone is either powerful or tense, he is not sleepy and wet.
If there is at least one people who is not sleepy, then Nathalie is not powerful and Randolph is not swift. | Nathalie is sleepy. | self_contradiction |
Randolph is not tense.
Nathalie is not bloody.
Hall is not powerful.
Hall is swift.
Helena is swift.
Randolph is sleepy.
Marvin is powerful.
Hall is not tense.
Jesse is bloody.
Jesse is not wet.
Helena is not tense.
Jesse is sleepy.It can be concluded that Nathalie is not powerful once knowing that Marvin is not bloody or Nathalie is swift.
If there is someone who is bloody, then Randolph is tense and Nathalie is not wet.
If Kerwin is swift and Kerwin is bloody, then Marvin is tense.
Nathalie being sleepy is equivalent to Randolph being tense.
Someone who is bloody is always wet.
As long as someone is sleepy, he is not swift and not bloody.
If Hall is sleepy or Helena is powerful, then Jesse is wet.
If someone is not sleepy and not bloody, then he is not wet, and vice versa.
If someone who is powerful is also not wet, then he is not tense.
If Hall is wet, then Helena is not powerful and Kerwin is not sleepy.
As long as someone is either powerful or tense, he is not sleepy and wet.
If there is at least one people who is not sleepy, then Nathalie is not powerful and Randolph is not swift. | Randolph is sleepy. | self_contradiction |
Randolph is not tense.
Nathalie is not bloody.
Hall is not powerful.
Hall is swift.
Helena is swift.
Randolph is sleepy.
Marvin is powerful.
Hall is not tense.
Jesse is bloody.
Jesse is not wet.
Helena is not tense.
Jesse is sleepy.It can be concluded that Nathalie is not powerful once knowing that Marvin is not bloody or Nathalie is swift.
If there is someone who is bloody, then Randolph is tense and Nathalie is not wet.
If Kerwin is swift and Kerwin is bloody, then Marvin is tense.
Nathalie being sleepy is equivalent to Randolph being tense.
Someone who is bloody is always wet.
As long as someone is sleepy, he is not swift and not bloody.
If Hall is sleepy or Helena is powerful, then Jesse is wet.
If someone is not sleepy and not bloody, then he is not wet, and vice versa.
If someone who is powerful is also not wet, then he is not tense.
If Hall is wet, then Helena is not powerful and Kerwin is not sleepy.
As long as someone is either powerful or tense, he is not sleepy and wet.
If there is at least one people who is not sleepy, then Nathalie is not powerful and Randolph is not swift. | Randolph is tense. | self_contradiction |
Randolph is not tense.
Nathalie is not bloody.
Hall is not powerful.
Hall is swift.
Helena is swift.
Randolph is sleepy.
Marvin is powerful.
Hall is not tense.
Jesse is bloody.
Jesse is not wet.
Helena is not tense.
Jesse is sleepy.It can be concluded that Nathalie is not powerful once knowing that Marvin is not bloody or Nathalie is swift.
If there is someone who is bloody, then Randolph is tense and Nathalie is not wet.
If Kerwin is swift and Kerwin is bloody, then Marvin is tense.
Nathalie being sleepy is equivalent to Randolph being tense.
Someone who is bloody is always wet.
As long as someone is sleepy, he is not swift and not bloody.
If Hall is sleepy or Helena is powerful, then Jesse is wet.
If someone is not sleepy and not bloody, then he is not wet, and vice versa.
If someone who is powerful is also not wet, then he is not tense.
If Hall is wet, then Helena is not powerful and Kerwin is not sleepy.
As long as someone is either powerful or tense, he is not sleepy and wet.
If there is at least one people who is not sleepy, then Nathalie is not powerful and Randolph is not swift. | Randolph is not sleepy. | self_contradiction |
Randolph is not tense.
Nathalie is not bloody.
Hall is not powerful.
Hall is swift.
Helena is swift.
Randolph is sleepy.
Marvin is powerful.
Hall is not tense.
Jesse is bloody.
Jesse is not wet.
Helena is not tense.
Jesse is sleepy.It can be concluded that Nathalie is not powerful once knowing that Marvin is not bloody or Nathalie is swift.
If there is someone who is bloody, then Randolph is tense and Nathalie is not wet.
If Kerwin is swift and Kerwin is bloody, then Marvin is tense.
Nathalie being sleepy is equivalent to Randolph being tense.
Someone who is bloody is always wet.
As long as someone is sleepy, he is not swift and not bloody.
If Hall is sleepy or Helena is powerful, then Jesse is wet.
If someone is not sleepy and not bloody, then he is not wet, and vice versa.
If someone who is powerful is also not wet, then he is not tense.
If Hall is wet, then Helena is not powerful and Kerwin is not sleepy.
As long as someone is either powerful or tense, he is not sleepy and wet.
If there is at least one people who is not sleepy, then Nathalie is not powerful and Randolph is not swift. | Hall is tense. | contradiction |
Randolph is not tense.
Nathalie is not bloody.
Hall is not powerful.
Hall is swift.
Helena is swift.
Randolph is sleepy.
Marvin is powerful.
Hall is not tense.
Jesse is bloody.
Jesse is not wet.
Helena is not tense.
Jesse is sleepy.It can be concluded that Nathalie is not powerful once knowing that Marvin is not bloody or Nathalie is swift.
If there is someone who is bloody, then Randolph is tense and Nathalie is not wet.
If Kerwin is swift and Kerwin is bloody, then Marvin is tense.
Nathalie being sleepy is equivalent to Randolph being tense.
Someone who is bloody is always wet.
As long as someone is sleepy, he is not swift and not bloody.
If Hall is sleepy or Helena is powerful, then Jesse is wet.
If someone is not sleepy and not bloody, then he is not wet, and vice versa.
If someone who is powerful is also not wet, then he is not tense.
If Hall is wet, then Helena is not powerful and Kerwin is not sleepy.
As long as someone is either powerful or tense, he is not sleepy and wet.
If there is at least one people who is not sleepy, then Nathalie is not powerful and Randolph is not swift. | Kerwin is not wet. | neutral |
Charles is not puny.
Albert is crazy.
Arthur is warm-hearted.
Murray is not placid.
Arthur is puny.
Della is not puny.
Philbert is not warm-hearted.
Charles is not sticky.
Della is not placid.
Arthur is not sticky.
Philbert is not placid.
Della is not warm-hearted.If Albert is puny or Hanna is sticky, then Charles is crazy.
It can be concluded that Albert is discreet once knowing that Murray is not placid.
Someone being both not sticky and not warm-hearted is equivalent to being not puny.
It can be concluded that Arthur is not puny and Charles is not discreet once knowing that Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being puny implies that Arthur is discreet and Della is crazy.
Della being not discreet is equivalent to Murray being placid and Charles being not sticky.
Albert being not discreet is equivalent to Charles being sticky.
Someone being both not warm-hearted and not crazy is equivalent to being placid and puny.
If someone who is warm-hearted is also not puny, then he is not placid.
If there is someone who is either not warm-hearted or crazy, then Hanna is placid.
It can be concluded that Charles is discreet once knowing that Charles is placid or Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being not discreet or Albert being not sticky implies that Murray is not placid. | Philbert is crazy. | neutral |
Charles is not puny.
Albert is crazy.
Arthur is warm-hearted.
Murray is not placid.
Arthur is puny.
Della is not puny.
Philbert is not warm-hearted.
Charles is not sticky.
Della is not placid.
Arthur is not sticky.
Philbert is not placid.
Della is not warm-hearted.If Albert is puny or Hanna is sticky, then Charles is crazy.
It can be concluded that Albert is discreet once knowing that Murray is not placid.
Someone being both not sticky and not warm-hearted is equivalent to being not puny.
It can be concluded that Arthur is not puny and Charles is not discreet once knowing that Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being puny implies that Arthur is discreet and Della is crazy.
Della being not discreet is equivalent to Murray being placid and Charles being not sticky.
Albert being not discreet is equivalent to Charles being sticky.
Someone being both not warm-hearted and not crazy is equivalent to being placid and puny.
If someone who is warm-hearted is also not puny, then he is not placid.
If there is someone who is either not warm-hearted or crazy, then Hanna is placid.
It can be concluded that Charles is discreet once knowing that Charles is placid or Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being not discreet or Albert being not sticky implies that Murray is not placid. | Arthur is puny. | self_contradiction |
Charles is not puny.
Albert is crazy.
Arthur is warm-hearted.
Murray is not placid.
Arthur is puny.
Della is not puny.
Philbert is not warm-hearted.
Charles is not sticky.
Della is not placid.
Arthur is not sticky.
Philbert is not placid.
Della is not warm-hearted.If Albert is puny or Hanna is sticky, then Charles is crazy.
It can be concluded that Albert is discreet once knowing that Murray is not placid.
Someone being both not sticky and not warm-hearted is equivalent to being not puny.
It can be concluded that Arthur is not puny and Charles is not discreet once knowing that Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being puny implies that Arthur is discreet and Della is crazy.
Della being not discreet is equivalent to Murray being placid and Charles being not sticky.
Albert being not discreet is equivalent to Charles being sticky.
Someone being both not warm-hearted and not crazy is equivalent to being placid and puny.
If someone who is warm-hearted is also not puny, then he is not placid.
If there is someone who is either not warm-hearted or crazy, then Hanna is placid.
It can be concluded that Charles is discreet once knowing that Charles is placid or Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being not discreet or Albert being not sticky implies that Murray is not placid. | Hanna is placid. | entailment |
Charles is not puny.
Albert is crazy.
Arthur is warm-hearted.
Murray is not placid.
Arthur is puny.
Della is not puny.
Philbert is not warm-hearted.
Charles is not sticky.
Della is not placid.
Arthur is not sticky.
Philbert is not placid.
Della is not warm-hearted.If Albert is puny or Hanna is sticky, then Charles is crazy.
It can be concluded that Albert is discreet once knowing that Murray is not placid.
Someone being both not sticky and not warm-hearted is equivalent to being not puny.
It can be concluded that Arthur is not puny and Charles is not discreet once knowing that Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being puny implies that Arthur is discreet and Della is crazy.
Della being not discreet is equivalent to Murray being placid and Charles being not sticky.
Albert being not discreet is equivalent to Charles being sticky.
Someone being both not warm-hearted and not crazy is equivalent to being placid and puny.
If someone who is warm-hearted is also not puny, then he is not placid.
If there is someone who is either not warm-hearted or crazy, then Hanna is placid.
It can be concluded that Charles is discreet once knowing that Charles is placid or Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being not discreet or Albert being not sticky implies that Murray is not placid. | Arthur is warm-hearted. | self_contradiction |
Charles is not puny.
Albert is crazy.
Arthur is warm-hearted.
Murray is not placid.
Arthur is puny.
Della is not puny.
Philbert is not warm-hearted.
Charles is not sticky.
Della is not placid.
Arthur is not sticky.
Philbert is not placid.
Della is not warm-hearted.If Albert is puny or Hanna is sticky, then Charles is crazy.
It can be concluded that Albert is discreet once knowing that Murray is not placid.
Someone being both not sticky and not warm-hearted is equivalent to being not puny.
It can be concluded that Arthur is not puny and Charles is not discreet once knowing that Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being puny implies that Arthur is discreet and Della is crazy.
Della being not discreet is equivalent to Murray being placid and Charles being not sticky.
Albert being not discreet is equivalent to Charles being sticky.
Someone being both not warm-hearted and not crazy is equivalent to being placid and puny.
If someone who is warm-hearted is also not puny, then he is not placid.
If there is someone who is either not warm-hearted or crazy, then Hanna is placid.
It can be concluded that Charles is discreet once knowing that Charles is placid or Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being not discreet or Albert being not sticky implies that Murray is not placid. | Charles is discreet. | self_contradiction |
Charles is not puny.
Albert is crazy.
Arthur is warm-hearted.
Murray is not placid.
Arthur is puny.
Della is not puny.
Philbert is not warm-hearted.
Charles is not sticky.
Della is not placid.
Arthur is not sticky.
Philbert is not placid.
Della is not warm-hearted.If Albert is puny or Hanna is sticky, then Charles is crazy.
It can be concluded that Albert is discreet once knowing that Murray is not placid.
Someone being both not sticky and not warm-hearted is equivalent to being not puny.
It can be concluded that Arthur is not puny and Charles is not discreet once knowing that Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being puny implies that Arthur is discreet and Della is crazy.
Della being not discreet is equivalent to Murray being placid and Charles being not sticky.
Albert being not discreet is equivalent to Charles being sticky.
Someone being both not warm-hearted and not crazy is equivalent to being placid and puny.
If someone who is warm-hearted is also not puny, then he is not placid.
If there is someone who is either not warm-hearted or crazy, then Hanna is placid.
It can be concluded that Charles is discreet once knowing that Charles is placid or Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being not discreet or Albert being not sticky implies that Murray is not placid. | Della is not sticky. | entailment |
Charles is not puny.
Albert is crazy.
Arthur is warm-hearted.
Murray is not placid.
Arthur is puny.
Della is not puny.
Philbert is not warm-hearted.
Charles is not sticky.
Della is not placid.
Arthur is not sticky.
Philbert is not placid.
Della is not warm-hearted.If Albert is puny or Hanna is sticky, then Charles is crazy.
It can be concluded that Albert is discreet once knowing that Murray is not placid.
Someone being both not sticky and not warm-hearted is equivalent to being not puny.
It can be concluded that Arthur is not puny and Charles is not discreet once knowing that Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being puny implies that Arthur is discreet and Della is crazy.
Della being not discreet is equivalent to Murray being placid and Charles being not sticky.
Albert being not discreet is equivalent to Charles being sticky.
Someone being both not warm-hearted and not crazy is equivalent to being placid and puny.
If someone who is warm-hearted is also not puny, then he is not placid.
If there is someone who is either not warm-hearted or crazy, then Hanna is placid.
It can be concluded that Charles is discreet once knowing that Charles is placid or Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being not discreet or Albert being not sticky implies that Murray is not placid. | Charles is not discreet. | self_contradiction |
Charles is not puny.
Albert is crazy.
Arthur is warm-hearted.
Murray is not placid.
Arthur is puny.
Della is not puny.
Philbert is not warm-hearted.
Charles is not sticky.
Della is not placid.
Arthur is not sticky.
Philbert is not placid.
Della is not warm-hearted.If Albert is puny or Hanna is sticky, then Charles is crazy.
It can be concluded that Albert is discreet once knowing that Murray is not placid.
Someone being both not sticky and not warm-hearted is equivalent to being not puny.
It can be concluded that Arthur is not puny and Charles is not discreet once knowing that Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being puny implies that Arthur is discreet and Della is crazy.
Della being not discreet is equivalent to Murray being placid and Charles being not sticky.
Albert being not discreet is equivalent to Charles being sticky.
Someone being both not warm-hearted and not crazy is equivalent to being placid and puny.
If someone who is warm-hearted is also not puny, then he is not placid.
If there is someone who is either not warm-hearted or crazy, then Hanna is placid.
It can be concluded that Charles is discreet once knowing that Charles is placid or Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being not discreet or Albert being not sticky implies that Murray is not placid. | Della is not discreet. | neutral |
Charles is not puny.
Albert is crazy.
Arthur is warm-hearted.
Murray is not placid.
Arthur is puny.
Della is not puny.
Philbert is not warm-hearted.
Charles is not sticky.
Della is not placid.
Arthur is not sticky.
Philbert is not placid.
Della is not warm-hearted.If Albert is puny or Hanna is sticky, then Charles is crazy.
It can be concluded that Albert is discreet once knowing that Murray is not placid.
Someone being both not sticky and not warm-hearted is equivalent to being not puny.
It can be concluded that Arthur is not puny and Charles is not discreet once knowing that Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being puny implies that Arthur is discreet and Della is crazy.
Della being not discreet is equivalent to Murray being placid and Charles being not sticky.
Albert being not discreet is equivalent to Charles being sticky.
Someone being both not warm-hearted and not crazy is equivalent to being placid and puny.
If someone who is warm-hearted is also not puny, then he is not placid.
If there is someone who is either not warm-hearted or crazy, then Hanna is placid.
It can be concluded that Charles is discreet once knowing that Charles is placid or Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being not discreet or Albert being not sticky implies that Murray is not placid. | Arthur is discreet. | entailment |
Charles is not puny.
Albert is crazy.
Arthur is warm-hearted.
Murray is not placid.
Arthur is puny.
Della is not puny.
Philbert is not warm-hearted.
Charles is not sticky.
Della is not placid.
Arthur is not sticky.
Philbert is not placid.
Della is not warm-hearted.If Albert is puny or Hanna is sticky, then Charles is crazy.
It can be concluded that Albert is discreet once knowing that Murray is not placid.
Someone being both not sticky and not warm-hearted is equivalent to being not puny.
It can be concluded that Arthur is not puny and Charles is not discreet once knowing that Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being puny implies that Arthur is discreet and Della is crazy.
Della being not discreet is equivalent to Murray being placid and Charles being not sticky.
Albert being not discreet is equivalent to Charles being sticky.
Someone being both not warm-hearted and not crazy is equivalent to being placid and puny.
If someone who is warm-hearted is also not puny, then he is not placid.
If there is someone who is either not warm-hearted or crazy, then Hanna is placid.
It can be concluded that Charles is discreet once knowing that Charles is placid or Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being not discreet or Albert being not sticky implies that Murray is not placid. | Hanna is puny. | neutral |
Charles is not puny.
Albert is crazy.
Arthur is warm-hearted.
Murray is not placid.
Arthur is puny.
Della is not puny.
Philbert is not warm-hearted.
Charles is not sticky.
Della is not placid.
Arthur is not sticky.
Philbert is not placid.
Della is not warm-hearted.If Albert is puny or Hanna is sticky, then Charles is crazy.
It can be concluded that Albert is discreet once knowing that Murray is not placid.
Someone being both not sticky and not warm-hearted is equivalent to being not puny.
It can be concluded that Arthur is not puny and Charles is not discreet once knowing that Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being puny implies that Arthur is discreet and Della is crazy.
Della being not discreet is equivalent to Murray being placid and Charles being not sticky.
Albert being not discreet is equivalent to Charles being sticky.
Someone being both not warm-hearted and not crazy is equivalent to being placid and puny.
If someone who is warm-hearted is also not puny, then he is not placid.
If there is someone who is either not warm-hearted or crazy, then Hanna is placid.
It can be concluded that Charles is discreet once knowing that Charles is placid or Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being not discreet or Albert being not sticky implies that Murray is not placid. | Philbert is placid. | contradiction |
Charles is not puny.
Albert is crazy.
Arthur is warm-hearted.
Murray is not placid.
Arthur is puny.
Della is not puny.
Philbert is not warm-hearted.
Charles is not sticky.
Della is not placid.
Arthur is not sticky.
Philbert is not placid.
Della is not warm-hearted.If Albert is puny or Hanna is sticky, then Charles is crazy.
It can be concluded that Albert is discreet once knowing that Murray is not placid.
Someone being both not sticky and not warm-hearted is equivalent to being not puny.
It can be concluded that Arthur is not puny and Charles is not discreet once knowing that Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being puny implies that Arthur is discreet and Della is crazy.
Della being not discreet is equivalent to Murray being placid and Charles being not sticky.
Albert being not discreet is equivalent to Charles being sticky.
Someone being both not warm-hearted and not crazy is equivalent to being placid and puny.
If someone who is warm-hearted is also not puny, then he is not placid.
If there is someone who is either not warm-hearted or crazy, then Hanna is placid.
It can be concluded that Charles is discreet once knowing that Charles is placid or Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being not discreet or Albert being not sticky implies that Murray is not placid. | Della is placid. | contradiction |
Charles is not puny.
Albert is crazy.
Arthur is warm-hearted.
Murray is not placid.
Arthur is puny.
Della is not puny.
Philbert is not warm-hearted.
Charles is not sticky.
Della is not placid.
Arthur is not sticky.
Philbert is not placid.
Della is not warm-hearted.If Albert is puny or Hanna is sticky, then Charles is crazy.
It can be concluded that Albert is discreet once knowing that Murray is not placid.
Someone being both not sticky and not warm-hearted is equivalent to being not puny.
It can be concluded that Arthur is not puny and Charles is not discreet once knowing that Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being puny implies that Arthur is discreet and Della is crazy.
Della being not discreet is equivalent to Murray being placid and Charles being not sticky.
Albert being not discreet is equivalent to Charles being sticky.
Someone being both not warm-hearted and not crazy is equivalent to being placid and puny.
If someone who is warm-hearted is also not puny, then he is not placid.
If there is someone who is either not warm-hearted or crazy, then Hanna is placid.
It can be concluded that Charles is discreet once knowing that Charles is placid or Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being not discreet or Albert being not sticky implies that Murray is not placid. | Philbert is warm-hearted. | contradiction |
Charles is not puny.
Albert is crazy.
Arthur is warm-hearted.
Murray is not placid.
Arthur is puny.
Della is not puny.
Philbert is not warm-hearted.
Charles is not sticky.
Della is not placid.
Arthur is not sticky.
Philbert is not placid.
Della is not warm-hearted.If Albert is puny or Hanna is sticky, then Charles is crazy.
It can be concluded that Albert is discreet once knowing that Murray is not placid.
Someone being both not sticky and not warm-hearted is equivalent to being not puny.
It can be concluded that Arthur is not puny and Charles is not discreet once knowing that Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being puny implies that Arthur is discreet and Della is crazy.
Della being not discreet is equivalent to Murray being placid and Charles being not sticky.
Albert being not discreet is equivalent to Charles being sticky.
Someone being both not warm-hearted and not crazy is equivalent to being placid and puny.
If someone who is warm-hearted is also not puny, then he is not placid.
If there is someone who is either not warm-hearted or crazy, then Hanna is placid.
It can be concluded that Charles is discreet once knowing that Charles is placid or Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being not discreet or Albert being not sticky implies that Murray is not placid. | Della is puny. | contradiction |
Charles is not puny.
Albert is crazy.
Arthur is warm-hearted.
Murray is not placid.
Arthur is puny.
Della is not puny.
Philbert is not warm-hearted.
Charles is not sticky.
Della is not placid.
Arthur is not sticky.
Philbert is not placid.
Della is not warm-hearted.If Albert is puny or Hanna is sticky, then Charles is crazy.
It can be concluded that Albert is discreet once knowing that Murray is not placid.
Someone being both not sticky and not warm-hearted is equivalent to being not puny.
It can be concluded that Arthur is not puny and Charles is not discreet once knowing that Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being puny implies that Arthur is discreet and Della is crazy.
Della being not discreet is equivalent to Murray being placid and Charles being not sticky.
Albert being not discreet is equivalent to Charles being sticky.
Someone being both not warm-hearted and not crazy is equivalent to being placid and puny.
If someone who is warm-hearted is also not puny, then he is not placid.
If there is someone who is either not warm-hearted or crazy, then Hanna is placid.
It can be concluded that Charles is discreet once knowing that Charles is placid or Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being not discreet or Albert being not sticky implies that Murray is not placid. | Della is sticky. | contradiction |
Charles is not puny.
Albert is crazy.
Arthur is warm-hearted.
Murray is not placid.
Arthur is puny.
Della is not puny.
Philbert is not warm-hearted.
Charles is not sticky.
Della is not placid.
Arthur is not sticky.
Philbert is not placid.
Della is not warm-hearted.If Albert is puny or Hanna is sticky, then Charles is crazy.
It can be concluded that Albert is discreet once knowing that Murray is not placid.
Someone being both not sticky and not warm-hearted is equivalent to being not puny.
It can be concluded that Arthur is not puny and Charles is not discreet once knowing that Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being puny implies that Arthur is discreet and Della is crazy.
Della being not discreet is equivalent to Murray being placid and Charles being not sticky.
Albert being not discreet is equivalent to Charles being sticky.
Someone being both not warm-hearted and not crazy is equivalent to being placid and puny.
If someone who is warm-hearted is also not puny, then he is not placid.
If there is someone who is either not warm-hearted or crazy, then Hanna is placid.
It can be concluded that Charles is discreet once knowing that Charles is placid or Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being not discreet or Albert being not sticky implies that Murray is not placid. | Philbert is not sticky. | neutral |
Charles is not puny.
Albert is crazy.
Arthur is warm-hearted.
Murray is not placid.
Arthur is puny.
Della is not puny.
Philbert is not warm-hearted.
Charles is not sticky.
Della is not placid.
Arthur is not sticky.
Philbert is not placid.
Della is not warm-hearted.If Albert is puny or Hanna is sticky, then Charles is crazy.
It can be concluded that Albert is discreet once knowing that Murray is not placid.
Someone being both not sticky and not warm-hearted is equivalent to being not puny.
It can be concluded that Arthur is not puny and Charles is not discreet once knowing that Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being puny implies that Arthur is discreet and Della is crazy.
Della being not discreet is equivalent to Murray being placid and Charles being not sticky.
Albert being not discreet is equivalent to Charles being sticky.
Someone being both not warm-hearted and not crazy is equivalent to being placid and puny.
If someone who is warm-hearted is also not puny, then he is not placid.
If there is someone who is either not warm-hearted or crazy, then Hanna is placid.
It can be concluded that Charles is discreet once knowing that Charles is placid or Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being not discreet or Albert being not sticky implies that Murray is not placid. | Arthur is not sticky. | entailment |
Charles is not puny.
Albert is crazy.
Arthur is warm-hearted.
Murray is not placid.
Arthur is puny.
Della is not puny.
Philbert is not warm-hearted.
Charles is not sticky.
Della is not placid.
Arthur is not sticky.
Philbert is not placid.
Della is not warm-hearted.If Albert is puny or Hanna is sticky, then Charles is crazy.
It can be concluded that Albert is discreet once knowing that Murray is not placid.
Someone being both not sticky and not warm-hearted is equivalent to being not puny.
It can be concluded that Arthur is not puny and Charles is not discreet once knowing that Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being puny implies that Arthur is discreet and Della is crazy.
Della being not discreet is equivalent to Murray being placid and Charles being not sticky.
Albert being not discreet is equivalent to Charles being sticky.
Someone being both not warm-hearted and not crazy is equivalent to being placid and puny.
If someone who is warm-hearted is also not puny, then he is not placid.
If there is someone who is either not warm-hearted or crazy, then Hanna is placid.
It can be concluded that Charles is discreet once knowing that Charles is placid or Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being not discreet or Albert being not sticky implies that Murray is not placid. | Della is not puny. | entailment |
Charles is not puny.
Albert is crazy.
Arthur is warm-hearted.
Murray is not placid.
Arthur is puny.
Della is not puny.
Philbert is not warm-hearted.
Charles is not sticky.
Della is not placid.
Arthur is not sticky.
Philbert is not placid.
Della is not warm-hearted.If Albert is puny or Hanna is sticky, then Charles is crazy.
It can be concluded that Albert is discreet once knowing that Murray is not placid.
Someone being both not sticky and not warm-hearted is equivalent to being not puny.
It can be concluded that Arthur is not puny and Charles is not discreet once knowing that Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being puny implies that Arthur is discreet and Della is crazy.
Della being not discreet is equivalent to Murray being placid and Charles being not sticky.
Albert being not discreet is equivalent to Charles being sticky.
Someone being both not warm-hearted and not crazy is equivalent to being placid and puny.
If someone who is warm-hearted is also not puny, then he is not placid.
If there is someone who is either not warm-hearted or crazy, then Hanna is placid.
It can be concluded that Charles is discreet once knowing that Charles is placid or Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being not discreet or Albert being not sticky implies that Murray is not placid. | Philbert is puny. | neutral |
Charles is not puny.
Albert is crazy.
Arthur is warm-hearted.
Murray is not placid.
Arthur is puny.
Della is not puny.
Philbert is not warm-hearted.
Charles is not sticky.
Della is not placid.
Arthur is not sticky.
Philbert is not placid.
Della is not warm-hearted.If Albert is puny or Hanna is sticky, then Charles is crazy.
It can be concluded that Albert is discreet once knowing that Murray is not placid.
Someone being both not sticky and not warm-hearted is equivalent to being not puny.
It can be concluded that Arthur is not puny and Charles is not discreet once knowing that Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being puny implies that Arthur is discreet and Della is crazy.
Della being not discreet is equivalent to Murray being placid and Charles being not sticky.
Albert being not discreet is equivalent to Charles being sticky.
Someone being both not warm-hearted and not crazy is equivalent to being placid and puny.
If someone who is warm-hearted is also not puny, then he is not placid.
If there is someone who is either not warm-hearted or crazy, then Hanna is placid.
It can be concluded that Charles is discreet once knowing that Charles is placid or Arthur is warm-hearted.
Arthur being not discreet or Albert being not sticky implies that Murray is not placid. | Arthur is not warm-hearted. | self_contradiction |
Joshua is not bumpy.
Chester is not itchy.
Ross is not itchy.
Kelvin is intellectual.
Ross is not successful.
Chalmers is not sufficient.
Chalmers is not bumpy.
Ron is not tired.
Chester is not sufficient.
Aidan is not tired.
Kelvin is bumpy.
Chalmers is not successful.If someone is sufficient and not successful, then he is both itchy and intellectual, and vice versa.
If Ron is tired, then Kelvin is not sufficient, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is intellectual or not itchy, then Kelvin is successful.
Chester being not intellectual implies that Ron is bumpy and Ross is not tired.
It can be concluded that Ross is not itchy once knowing that Joshua is not intellectual.
If someone who is successful is also bumpy, then he is not tired.
Chalmers being sufficient is equivalent to Joshua being bumpy.
Ross being successful is equivalent to Joshua being sufficient and Ross being itchy.
If there is someone who is both bumpy and itchy, then Ross is successful.
If someone is intellectual, then he is tired.
Someone who is successful is always both not itchy and not bumpy.
Someone is bumpy and sufficient if and only if he is not intellectual. | Kelvin is successful. | entailment |
Joshua is not bumpy.
Chester is not itchy.
Ross is not itchy.
Kelvin is intellectual.
Ross is not successful.
Chalmers is not sufficient.
Chalmers is not bumpy.
Ron is not tired.
Chester is not sufficient.
Aidan is not tired.
Kelvin is bumpy.
Chalmers is not successful.If someone is sufficient and not successful, then he is both itchy and intellectual, and vice versa.
If Ron is tired, then Kelvin is not sufficient, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is intellectual or not itchy, then Kelvin is successful.
Chester being not intellectual implies that Ron is bumpy and Ross is not tired.
It can be concluded that Ross is not itchy once knowing that Joshua is not intellectual.
If someone who is successful is also bumpy, then he is not tired.
Chalmers being sufficient is equivalent to Joshua being bumpy.
Ross being successful is equivalent to Joshua being sufficient and Ross being itchy.
If there is someone who is both bumpy and itchy, then Ross is successful.
If someone is intellectual, then he is tired.
Someone who is successful is always both not itchy and not bumpy.
Someone is bumpy and sufficient if and only if he is not intellectual. | Kelvin is not bumpy. | self_contradiction |
Joshua is not bumpy.
Chester is not itchy.
Ross is not itchy.
Kelvin is intellectual.
Ross is not successful.
Chalmers is not sufficient.
Chalmers is not bumpy.
Ron is not tired.
Chester is not sufficient.
Aidan is not tired.
Kelvin is bumpy.
Chalmers is not successful.If someone is sufficient and not successful, then he is both itchy and intellectual, and vice versa.
If Ron is tired, then Kelvin is not sufficient, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is intellectual or not itchy, then Kelvin is successful.
Chester being not intellectual implies that Ron is bumpy and Ross is not tired.
It can be concluded that Ross is not itchy once knowing that Joshua is not intellectual.
If someone who is successful is also bumpy, then he is not tired.
Chalmers being sufficient is equivalent to Joshua being bumpy.
Ross being successful is equivalent to Joshua being sufficient and Ross being itchy.
If there is someone who is both bumpy and itchy, then Ross is successful.
If someone is intellectual, then he is tired.
Someone who is successful is always both not itchy and not bumpy.
Someone is bumpy and sufficient if and only if he is not intellectual. | Kelvin is not intellectual. | contradiction |
Joshua is not bumpy.
Chester is not itchy.
Ross is not itchy.
Kelvin is intellectual.
Ross is not successful.
Chalmers is not sufficient.
Chalmers is not bumpy.
Ron is not tired.
Chester is not sufficient.
Aidan is not tired.
Kelvin is bumpy.
Chalmers is not successful.If someone is sufficient and not successful, then he is both itchy and intellectual, and vice versa.
If Ron is tired, then Kelvin is not sufficient, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is intellectual or not itchy, then Kelvin is successful.
Chester being not intellectual implies that Ron is bumpy and Ross is not tired.
It can be concluded that Ross is not itchy once knowing that Joshua is not intellectual.
If someone who is successful is also bumpy, then he is not tired.
Chalmers being sufficient is equivalent to Joshua being bumpy.
Ross being successful is equivalent to Joshua being sufficient and Ross being itchy.
If there is someone who is both bumpy and itchy, then Ross is successful.
If someone is intellectual, then he is tired.
Someone who is successful is always both not itchy and not bumpy.
Someone is bumpy and sufficient if and only if he is not intellectual. | Joshua is not sufficient. | contradiction |
Joshua is not bumpy.
Chester is not itchy.
Ross is not itchy.
Kelvin is intellectual.
Ross is not successful.
Chalmers is not sufficient.
Chalmers is not bumpy.
Ron is not tired.
Chester is not sufficient.
Aidan is not tired.
Kelvin is bumpy.
Chalmers is not successful.If someone is sufficient and not successful, then he is both itchy and intellectual, and vice versa.
If Ron is tired, then Kelvin is not sufficient, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is intellectual or not itchy, then Kelvin is successful.
Chester being not intellectual implies that Ron is bumpy and Ross is not tired.
It can be concluded that Ross is not itchy once knowing that Joshua is not intellectual.
If someone who is successful is also bumpy, then he is not tired.
Chalmers being sufficient is equivalent to Joshua being bumpy.
Ross being successful is equivalent to Joshua being sufficient and Ross being itchy.
If there is someone who is both bumpy and itchy, then Ross is successful.
If someone is intellectual, then he is tired.
Someone who is successful is always both not itchy and not bumpy.
Someone is bumpy and sufficient if and only if he is not intellectual. | Ross is successful. | self_contradiction |
Joshua is not bumpy.
Chester is not itchy.
Ross is not itchy.
Kelvin is intellectual.
Ross is not successful.
Chalmers is not sufficient.
Chalmers is not bumpy.
Ron is not tired.
Chester is not sufficient.
Aidan is not tired.
Kelvin is bumpy.
Chalmers is not successful.If someone is sufficient and not successful, then he is both itchy and intellectual, and vice versa.
If Ron is tired, then Kelvin is not sufficient, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is intellectual or not itchy, then Kelvin is successful.
Chester being not intellectual implies that Ron is bumpy and Ross is not tired.
It can be concluded that Ross is not itchy once knowing that Joshua is not intellectual.
If someone who is successful is also bumpy, then he is not tired.
Chalmers being sufficient is equivalent to Joshua being bumpy.
Ross being successful is equivalent to Joshua being sufficient and Ross being itchy.
If there is someone who is both bumpy and itchy, then Ross is successful.
If someone is intellectual, then he is tired.
Someone who is successful is always both not itchy and not bumpy.
Someone is bumpy and sufficient if and only if he is not intellectual. | Aidan is sufficient. | neutral |
Joshua is not bumpy.
Chester is not itchy.
Ross is not itchy.
Kelvin is intellectual.
Ross is not successful.
Chalmers is not sufficient.
Chalmers is not bumpy.
Ron is not tired.
Chester is not sufficient.
Aidan is not tired.
Kelvin is bumpy.
Chalmers is not successful.If someone is sufficient and not successful, then he is both itchy and intellectual, and vice versa.
If Ron is tired, then Kelvin is not sufficient, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is intellectual or not itchy, then Kelvin is successful.
Chester being not intellectual implies that Ron is bumpy and Ross is not tired.
It can be concluded that Ross is not itchy once knowing that Joshua is not intellectual.
If someone who is successful is also bumpy, then he is not tired.
Chalmers being sufficient is equivalent to Joshua being bumpy.
Ross being successful is equivalent to Joshua being sufficient and Ross being itchy.
If there is someone who is both bumpy and itchy, then Ross is successful.
If someone is intellectual, then he is tired.
Someone who is successful is always both not itchy and not bumpy.
Someone is bumpy and sufficient if and only if he is not intellectual. | Ron is bumpy. | neutral |
Joshua is not bumpy.
Chester is not itchy.
Ross is not itchy.
Kelvin is intellectual.
Ross is not successful.
Chalmers is not sufficient.
Chalmers is not bumpy.
Ron is not tired.
Chester is not sufficient.
Aidan is not tired.
Kelvin is bumpy.
Chalmers is not successful.If someone is sufficient and not successful, then he is both itchy and intellectual, and vice versa.
If Ron is tired, then Kelvin is not sufficient, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is intellectual or not itchy, then Kelvin is successful.
Chester being not intellectual implies that Ron is bumpy and Ross is not tired.
It can be concluded that Ross is not itchy once knowing that Joshua is not intellectual.
If someone who is successful is also bumpy, then he is not tired.
Chalmers being sufficient is equivalent to Joshua being bumpy.
Ross being successful is equivalent to Joshua being sufficient and Ross being itchy.
If there is someone who is both bumpy and itchy, then Ross is successful.
If someone is intellectual, then he is tired.
Someone who is successful is always both not itchy and not bumpy.
Someone is bumpy and sufficient if and only if he is not intellectual. | Joshua is not bumpy. | entailment |
Joshua is not bumpy.
Chester is not itchy.
Ross is not itchy.
Kelvin is intellectual.
Ross is not successful.
Chalmers is not sufficient.
Chalmers is not bumpy.
Ron is not tired.
Chester is not sufficient.
Aidan is not tired.
Kelvin is bumpy.
Chalmers is not successful.If someone is sufficient and not successful, then he is both itchy and intellectual, and vice versa.
If Ron is tired, then Kelvin is not sufficient, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is intellectual or not itchy, then Kelvin is successful.
Chester being not intellectual implies that Ron is bumpy and Ross is not tired.
It can be concluded that Ross is not itchy once knowing that Joshua is not intellectual.
If someone who is successful is also bumpy, then he is not tired.
Chalmers being sufficient is equivalent to Joshua being bumpy.
Ross being successful is equivalent to Joshua being sufficient and Ross being itchy.
If there is someone who is both bumpy and itchy, then Ross is successful.
If someone is intellectual, then he is tired.
Someone who is successful is always both not itchy and not bumpy.
Someone is bumpy and sufficient if and only if he is not intellectual. | Chester is not sufficient. | entailment |
Joshua is not bumpy.
Chester is not itchy.
Ross is not itchy.
Kelvin is intellectual.
Ross is not successful.
Chalmers is not sufficient.
Chalmers is not bumpy.
Ron is not tired.
Chester is not sufficient.
Aidan is not tired.
Kelvin is bumpy.
Chalmers is not successful.If someone is sufficient and not successful, then he is both itchy and intellectual, and vice versa.
If Ron is tired, then Kelvin is not sufficient, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is intellectual or not itchy, then Kelvin is successful.
Chester being not intellectual implies that Ron is bumpy and Ross is not tired.
It can be concluded that Ross is not itchy once knowing that Joshua is not intellectual.
If someone who is successful is also bumpy, then he is not tired.
Chalmers being sufficient is equivalent to Joshua being bumpy.
Ross being successful is equivalent to Joshua being sufficient and Ross being itchy.
If there is someone who is both bumpy and itchy, then Ross is successful.
If someone is intellectual, then he is tired.
Someone who is successful is always both not itchy and not bumpy.
Someone is bumpy and sufficient if and only if he is not intellectual. | Joshua is not tired. | neutral |
Joshua is not bumpy.
Chester is not itchy.
Ross is not itchy.
Kelvin is intellectual.
Ross is not successful.
Chalmers is not sufficient.
Chalmers is not bumpy.
Ron is not tired.
Chester is not sufficient.
Aidan is not tired.
Kelvin is bumpy.
Chalmers is not successful.If someone is sufficient and not successful, then he is both itchy and intellectual, and vice versa.
If Ron is tired, then Kelvin is not sufficient, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is intellectual or not itchy, then Kelvin is successful.
Chester being not intellectual implies that Ron is bumpy and Ross is not tired.
It can be concluded that Ross is not itchy once knowing that Joshua is not intellectual.
If someone who is successful is also bumpy, then he is not tired.
Chalmers being sufficient is equivalent to Joshua being bumpy.
Ross being successful is equivalent to Joshua being sufficient and Ross being itchy.
If there is someone who is both bumpy and itchy, then Ross is successful.
If someone is intellectual, then he is tired.
Someone who is successful is always both not itchy and not bumpy.
Someone is bumpy and sufficient if and only if he is not intellectual. | Kelvin is intellectual. | entailment |
Joshua is not bumpy.
Chester is not itchy.
Ross is not itchy.
Kelvin is intellectual.
Ross is not successful.
Chalmers is not sufficient.
Chalmers is not bumpy.
Ron is not tired.
Chester is not sufficient.
Aidan is not tired.
Kelvin is bumpy.
Chalmers is not successful.If someone is sufficient and not successful, then he is both itchy and intellectual, and vice versa.
If Ron is tired, then Kelvin is not sufficient, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is intellectual or not itchy, then Kelvin is successful.
Chester being not intellectual implies that Ron is bumpy and Ross is not tired.
It can be concluded that Ross is not itchy once knowing that Joshua is not intellectual.
If someone who is successful is also bumpy, then he is not tired.
Chalmers being sufficient is equivalent to Joshua being bumpy.
Ross being successful is equivalent to Joshua being sufficient and Ross being itchy.
If there is someone who is both bumpy and itchy, then Ross is successful.
If someone is intellectual, then he is tired.
Someone who is successful is always both not itchy and not bumpy.
Someone is bumpy and sufficient if and only if he is not intellectual. | Ron is tired. | contradiction |
Joshua is not bumpy.
Chester is not itchy.
Ross is not itchy.
Kelvin is intellectual.
Ross is not successful.
Chalmers is not sufficient.
Chalmers is not bumpy.
Ron is not tired.
Chester is not sufficient.
Aidan is not tired.
Kelvin is bumpy.
Chalmers is not successful.If someone is sufficient and not successful, then he is both itchy and intellectual, and vice versa.
If Ron is tired, then Kelvin is not sufficient, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is intellectual or not itchy, then Kelvin is successful.
Chester being not intellectual implies that Ron is bumpy and Ross is not tired.
It can be concluded that Ross is not itchy once knowing that Joshua is not intellectual.
If someone who is successful is also bumpy, then he is not tired.
Chalmers being sufficient is equivalent to Joshua being bumpy.
Ross being successful is equivalent to Joshua being sufficient and Ross being itchy.
If there is someone who is both bumpy and itchy, then Ross is successful.
If someone is intellectual, then he is tired.
Someone who is successful is always both not itchy and not bumpy.
Someone is bumpy and sufficient if and only if he is not intellectual. | Aidan is tired. | contradiction |
Joshua is not bumpy.
Chester is not itchy.
Ross is not itchy.
Kelvin is intellectual.
Ross is not successful.
Chalmers is not sufficient.
Chalmers is not bumpy.
Ron is not tired.
Chester is not sufficient.
Aidan is not tired.
Kelvin is bumpy.
Chalmers is not successful.If someone is sufficient and not successful, then he is both itchy and intellectual, and vice versa.
If Ron is tired, then Kelvin is not sufficient, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is intellectual or not itchy, then Kelvin is successful.
Chester being not intellectual implies that Ron is bumpy and Ross is not tired.
It can be concluded that Ross is not itchy once knowing that Joshua is not intellectual.
If someone who is successful is also bumpy, then he is not tired.
Chalmers being sufficient is equivalent to Joshua being bumpy.
Ross being successful is equivalent to Joshua being sufficient and Ross being itchy.
If there is someone who is both bumpy and itchy, then Ross is successful.
If someone is intellectual, then he is tired.
Someone who is successful is always both not itchy and not bumpy.
Someone is bumpy and sufficient if and only if he is not intellectual. | Kelvin is not tired. | self_contradiction |
Joshua is not bumpy.
Chester is not itchy.
Ross is not itchy.
Kelvin is intellectual.
Ross is not successful.
Chalmers is not sufficient.
Chalmers is not bumpy.
Ron is not tired.
Chester is not sufficient.
Aidan is not tired.
Kelvin is bumpy.
Chalmers is not successful.If someone is sufficient and not successful, then he is both itchy and intellectual, and vice versa.
If Ron is tired, then Kelvin is not sufficient, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is intellectual or not itchy, then Kelvin is successful.
Chester being not intellectual implies that Ron is bumpy and Ross is not tired.
It can be concluded that Ross is not itchy once knowing that Joshua is not intellectual.
If someone who is successful is also bumpy, then he is not tired.
Chalmers being sufficient is equivalent to Joshua being bumpy.
Ross being successful is equivalent to Joshua being sufficient and Ross being itchy.
If there is someone who is both bumpy and itchy, then Ross is successful.
If someone is intellectual, then he is tired.
Someone who is successful is always both not itchy and not bumpy.
Someone is bumpy and sufficient if and only if he is not intellectual. | Kelvin is tired. | self_contradiction |
Joshua is not bumpy.
Chester is not itchy.
Ross is not itchy.
Kelvin is intellectual.
Ross is not successful.
Chalmers is not sufficient.
Chalmers is not bumpy.
Ron is not tired.
Chester is not sufficient.
Aidan is not tired.
Kelvin is bumpy.
Chalmers is not successful.If someone is sufficient and not successful, then he is both itchy and intellectual, and vice versa.
If Ron is tired, then Kelvin is not sufficient, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is intellectual or not itchy, then Kelvin is successful.
Chester being not intellectual implies that Ron is bumpy and Ross is not tired.
It can be concluded that Ross is not itchy once knowing that Joshua is not intellectual.
If someone who is successful is also bumpy, then he is not tired.
Chalmers being sufficient is equivalent to Joshua being bumpy.
Ross being successful is equivalent to Joshua being sufficient and Ross being itchy.
If there is someone who is both bumpy and itchy, then Ross is successful.
If someone is intellectual, then he is tired.
Someone who is successful is always both not itchy and not bumpy.
Someone is bumpy and sufficient if and only if he is not intellectual. | Chalmers is not bumpy. | entailment |
Joshua is not bumpy.
Chester is not itchy.
Ross is not itchy.
Kelvin is intellectual.
Ross is not successful.
Chalmers is not sufficient.
Chalmers is not bumpy.
Ron is not tired.
Chester is not sufficient.
Aidan is not tired.
Kelvin is bumpy.
Chalmers is not successful.If someone is sufficient and not successful, then he is both itchy and intellectual, and vice versa.
If Ron is tired, then Kelvin is not sufficient, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is intellectual or not itchy, then Kelvin is successful.
Chester being not intellectual implies that Ron is bumpy and Ross is not tired.
It can be concluded that Ross is not itchy once knowing that Joshua is not intellectual.
If someone who is successful is also bumpy, then he is not tired.
Chalmers being sufficient is equivalent to Joshua being bumpy.
Ross being successful is equivalent to Joshua being sufficient and Ross being itchy.
If there is someone who is both bumpy and itchy, then Ross is successful.
If someone is intellectual, then he is tired.
Someone who is successful is always both not itchy and not bumpy.
Someone is bumpy and sufficient if and only if he is not intellectual. | Ross is not successful. | self_contradiction |
Joshua is not bumpy.
Chester is not itchy.
Ross is not itchy.
Kelvin is intellectual.
Ross is not successful.
Chalmers is not sufficient.
Chalmers is not bumpy.
Ron is not tired.
Chester is not sufficient.
Aidan is not tired.
Kelvin is bumpy.
Chalmers is not successful.If someone is sufficient and not successful, then he is both itchy and intellectual, and vice versa.
If Ron is tired, then Kelvin is not sufficient, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is intellectual or not itchy, then Kelvin is successful.
Chester being not intellectual implies that Ron is bumpy and Ross is not tired.
It can be concluded that Ross is not itchy once knowing that Joshua is not intellectual.
If someone who is successful is also bumpy, then he is not tired.
Chalmers being sufficient is equivalent to Joshua being bumpy.
Ross being successful is equivalent to Joshua being sufficient and Ross being itchy.
If there is someone who is both bumpy and itchy, then Ross is successful.
If someone is intellectual, then he is tired.
Someone who is successful is always both not itchy and not bumpy.
Someone is bumpy and sufficient if and only if he is not intellectual. | Chalmers is not tired. | neutral |
Joshua is not bumpy.
Chester is not itchy.
Ross is not itchy.
Kelvin is intellectual.
Ross is not successful.
Chalmers is not sufficient.
Chalmers is not bumpy.
Ron is not tired.
Chester is not sufficient.
Aidan is not tired.
Kelvin is bumpy.
Chalmers is not successful.If someone is sufficient and not successful, then he is both itchy and intellectual, and vice versa.
If Ron is tired, then Kelvin is not sufficient, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is intellectual or not itchy, then Kelvin is successful.
Chester being not intellectual implies that Ron is bumpy and Ross is not tired.
It can be concluded that Ross is not itchy once knowing that Joshua is not intellectual.
If someone who is successful is also bumpy, then he is not tired.
Chalmers being sufficient is equivalent to Joshua being bumpy.
Ross being successful is equivalent to Joshua being sufficient and Ross being itchy.
If there is someone who is both bumpy and itchy, then Ross is successful.
If someone is intellectual, then he is tired.
Someone who is successful is always both not itchy and not bumpy.
Someone is bumpy and sufficient if and only if he is not intellectual. | Chester is not bumpy. | neutral |
Joshua is not bumpy.
Chester is not itchy.
Ross is not itchy.
Kelvin is intellectual.
Ross is not successful.
Chalmers is not sufficient.
Chalmers is not bumpy.
Ron is not tired.
Chester is not sufficient.
Aidan is not tired.
Kelvin is bumpy.
Chalmers is not successful.If someone is sufficient and not successful, then he is both itchy and intellectual, and vice versa.
If Ron is tired, then Kelvin is not sufficient, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is intellectual or not itchy, then Kelvin is successful.
Chester being not intellectual implies that Ron is bumpy and Ross is not tired.
It can be concluded that Ross is not itchy once knowing that Joshua is not intellectual.
If someone who is successful is also bumpy, then he is not tired.
Chalmers being sufficient is equivalent to Joshua being bumpy.
Ross being successful is equivalent to Joshua being sufficient and Ross being itchy.
If there is someone who is both bumpy and itchy, then Ross is successful.
If someone is intellectual, then he is tired.
Someone who is successful is always both not itchy and not bumpy.
Someone is bumpy and sufficient if and only if he is not intellectual. | Joshua is bumpy. | contradiction |
Robyn is not friendly.
Lars is not breakable.
Royce is not breakable.
Amanda is not breakable.
Lars is not warm-hearted.
Morris is not breakable.
Amanda is not friendly.
Morris is not warm-hearted.
Abner is not lucky.
Lars is wrong.
Lars is not lucky.
Morris is lucky.If someone is not lucky and not breakable, then he is friendly, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Royce is friendly once knowing that Robyn is not combative.
If Amanda is not lucky, then Royce is not warm-hearted, and vice versa.
Someone who is friendly is always both wrong and breakable.
If someone is both friendly and combative, then he is warm-hearted.
If there is at least one people who is not combative, then Lars is not wrong and Abner is warm-hearted.
If Gabriel is warm-hearted, then Amanda is wrong, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either not lucky or not breakable, he is friendly and not wrong.
If someone is not combative and friendly, then he is not breakable, and vice versa.
Someone who is lucky is always not combative.
Lars being lucky is equivalent to Amanda being not breakable.
If Amanda is not combative, then Morris is not warm-hearted and Gabriel is breakable. | Lars is not friendly. | contradiction |
Robyn is not friendly.
Lars is not breakable.
Royce is not breakable.
Amanda is not breakable.
Lars is not warm-hearted.
Morris is not breakable.
Amanda is not friendly.
Morris is not warm-hearted.
Abner is not lucky.
Lars is wrong.
Lars is not lucky.
Morris is lucky.If someone is not lucky and not breakable, then he is friendly, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Royce is friendly once knowing that Robyn is not combative.
If Amanda is not lucky, then Royce is not warm-hearted, and vice versa.
Someone who is friendly is always both wrong and breakable.
If someone is both friendly and combative, then he is warm-hearted.
If there is at least one people who is not combative, then Lars is not wrong and Abner is warm-hearted.
If Gabriel is warm-hearted, then Amanda is wrong, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either not lucky or not breakable, he is friendly and not wrong.
If someone is not combative and friendly, then he is not breakable, and vice versa.
Someone who is lucky is always not combative.
Lars being lucky is equivalent to Amanda being not breakable.
If Amanda is not combative, then Morris is not warm-hearted and Gabriel is breakable. | Lars is warm-hearted. | contradiction |
Robyn is not friendly.
Lars is not breakable.
Royce is not breakable.
Amanda is not breakable.
Lars is not warm-hearted.
Morris is not breakable.
Amanda is not friendly.
Morris is not warm-hearted.
Abner is not lucky.
Lars is wrong.
Lars is not lucky.
Morris is lucky.If someone is not lucky and not breakable, then he is friendly, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Royce is friendly once knowing that Robyn is not combative.
If Amanda is not lucky, then Royce is not warm-hearted, and vice versa.
Someone who is friendly is always both wrong and breakable.
If someone is both friendly and combative, then he is warm-hearted.
If there is at least one people who is not combative, then Lars is not wrong and Abner is warm-hearted.
If Gabriel is warm-hearted, then Amanda is wrong, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either not lucky or not breakable, he is friendly and not wrong.
If someone is not combative and friendly, then he is not breakable, and vice versa.
Someone who is lucky is always not combative.
Lars being lucky is equivalent to Amanda being not breakable.
If Amanda is not combative, then Morris is not warm-hearted and Gabriel is breakable. | Gabriel is friendly. | neutral |
Robyn is not friendly.
Lars is not breakable.
Royce is not breakable.
Amanda is not breakable.
Lars is not warm-hearted.
Morris is not breakable.
Amanda is not friendly.
Morris is not warm-hearted.
Abner is not lucky.
Lars is wrong.
Lars is not lucky.
Morris is lucky.If someone is not lucky and not breakable, then he is friendly, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Royce is friendly once knowing that Robyn is not combative.
If Amanda is not lucky, then Royce is not warm-hearted, and vice versa.
Someone who is friendly is always both wrong and breakable.
If someone is both friendly and combative, then he is warm-hearted.
If there is at least one people who is not combative, then Lars is not wrong and Abner is warm-hearted.
If Gabriel is warm-hearted, then Amanda is wrong, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either not lucky or not breakable, he is friendly and not wrong.
If someone is not combative and friendly, then he is not breakable, and vice versa.
Someone who is lucky is always not combative.
Lars being lucky is equivalent to Amanda being not breakable.
If Amanda is not combative, then Morris is not warm-hearted and Gabriel is breakable. | Lars is lucky. | self_contradiction |
Robyn is not friendly.
Lars is not breakable.
Royce is not breakable.
Amanda is not breakable.
Lars is not warm-hearted.
Morris is not breakable.
Amanda is not friendly.
Morris is not warm-hearted.
Abner is not lucky.
Lars is wrong.
Lars is not lucky.
Morris is lucky.If someone is not lucky and not breakable, then he is friendly, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Royce is friendly once knowing that Robyn is not combative.
If Amanda is not lucky, then Royce is not warm-hearted, and vice versa.
Someone who is friendly is always both wrong and breakable.
If someone is both friendly and combative, then he is warm-hearted.
If there is at least one people who is not combative, then Lars is not wrong and Abner is warm-hearted.
If Gabriel is warm-hearted, then Amanda is wrong, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either not lucky or not breakable, he is friendly and not wrong.
If someone is not combative and friendly, then he is not breakable, and vice versa.
Someone who is lucky is always not combative.
Lars being lucky is equivalent to Amanda being not breakable.
If Amanda is not combative, then Morris is not warm-hearted and Gabriel is breakable. | Robyn is wrong. | neutral |
Robyn is not friendly.
Lars is not breakable.
Royce is not breakable.
Amanda is not breakable.
Lars is not warm-hearted.
Morris is not breakable.
Amanda is not friendly.
Morris is not warm-hearted.
Abner is not lucky.
Lars is wrong.
Lars is not lucky.
Morris is lucky.If someone is not lucky and not breakable, then he is friendly, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Royce is friendly once knowing that Robyn is not combative.
If Amanda is not lucky, then Royce is not warm-hearted, and vice versa.
Someone who is friendly is always both wrong and breakable.
If someone is both friendly and combative, then he is warm-hearted.
If there is at least one people who is not combative, then Lars is not wrong and Abner is warm-hearted.
If Gabriel is warm-hearted, then Amanda is wrong, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either not lucky or not breakable, he is friendly and not wrong.
If someone is not combative and friendly, then he is not breakable, and vice versa.
Someone who is lucky is always not combative.
Lars being lucky is equivalent to Amanda being not breakable.
If Amanda is not combative, then Morris is not warm-hearted and Gabriel is breakable. | Royce is not friendly. | contradiction |
Robyn is not friendly.
Lars is not breakable.
Royce is not breakable.
Amanda is not breakable.
Lars is not warm-hearted.
Morris is not breakable.
Amanda is not friendly.
Morris is not warm-hearted.
Abner is not lucky.
Lars is wrong.
Lars is not lucky.
Morris is lucky.If someone is not lucky and not breakable, then he is friendly, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Royce is friendly once knowing that Robyn is not combative.
If Amanda is not lucky, then Royce is not warm-hearted, and vice versa.
Someone who is friendly is always both wrong and breakable.
If someone is both friendly and combative, then he is warm-hearted.
If there is at least one people who is not combative, then Lars is not wrong and Abner is warm-hearted.
If Gabriel is warm-hearted, then Amanda is wrong, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either not lucky or not breakable, he is friendly and not wrong.
If someone is not combative and friendly, then he is not breakable, and vice versa.
Someone who is lucky is always not combative.
Lars being lucky is equivalent to Amanda being not breakable.
If Amanda is not combative, then Morris is not warm-hearted and Gabriel is breakable. | Abner is breakable. | self_contradiction |
Robyn is not friendly.
Lars is not breakable.
Royce is not breakable.
Amanda is not breakable.
Lars is not warm-hearted.
Morris is not breakable.
Amanda is not friendly.
Morris is not warm-hearted.
Abner is not lucky.
Lars is wrong.
Lars is not lucky.
Morris is lucky.If someone is not lucky and not breakable, then he is friendly, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Royce is friendly once knowing that Robyn is not combative.
If Amanda is not lucky, then Royce is not warm-hearted, and vice versa.
Someone who is friendly is always both wrong and breakable.
If someone is both friendly and combative, then he is warm-hearted.
If there is at least one people who is not combative, then Lars is not wrong and Abner is warm-hearted.
If Gabriel is warm-hearted, then Amanda is wrong, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either not lucky or not breakable, he is friendly and not wrong.
If someone is not combative and friendly, then he is not breakable, and vice versa.
Someone who is lucky is always not combative.
Lars being lucky is equivalent to Amanda being not breakable.
If Amanda is not combative, then Morris is not warm-hearted and Gabriel is breakable. | Abner is friendly. | entailment |
Robyn is not friendly.
Lars is not breakable.
Royce is not breakable.
Amanda is not breakable.
Lars is not warm-hearted.
Morris is not breakable.
Amanda is not friendly.
Morris is not warm-hearted.
Abner is not lucky.
Lars is wrong.
Lars is not lucky.
Morris is lucky.If someone is not lucky and not breakable, then he is friendly, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Royce is friendly once knowing that Robyn is not combative.
If Amanda is not lucky, then Royce is not warm-hearted, and vice versa.
Someone who is friendly is always both wrong and breakable.
If someone is both friendly and combative, then he is warm-hearted.
If there is at least one people who is not combative, then Lars is not wrong and Abner is warm-hearted.
If Gabriel is warm-hearted, then Amanda is wrong, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either not lucky or not breakable, he is friendly and not wrong.
If someone is not combative and friendly, then he is not breakable, and vice versa.
Someone who is lucky is always not combative.
Lars being lucky is equivalent to Amanda being not breakable.
If Amanda is not combative, then Morris is not warm-hearted and Gabriel is breakable. | Abner is warm-hearted. | entailment |
Robyn is not friendly.
Lars is not breakable.
Royce is not breakable.
Amanda is not breakable.
Lars is not warm-hearted.
Morris is not breakable.
Amanda is not friendly.
Morris is not warm-hearted.
Abner is not lucky.
Lars is wrong.
Lars is not lucky.
Morris is lucky.If someone is not lucky and not breakable, then he is friendly, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Royce is friendly once knowing that Robyn is not combative.
If Amanda is not lucky, then Royce is not warm-hearted, and vice versa.
Someone who is friendly is always both wrong and breakable.
If someone is both friendly and combative, then he is warm-hearted.
If there is at least one people who is not combative, then Lars is not wrong and Abner is warm-hearted.
If Gabriel is warm-hearted, then Amanda is wrong, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either not lucky or not breakable, he is friendly and not wrong.
If someone is not combative and friendly, then he is not breakable, and vice versa.
Someone who is lucky is always not combative.
Lars being lucky is equivalent to Amanda being not breakable.
If Amanda is not combative, then Morris is not warm-hearted and Gabriel is breakable. | Amanda is combative. | contradiction |
Robyn is not friendly.
Lars is not breakable.
Royce is not breakable.
Amanda is not breakable.
Lars is not warm-hearted.
Morris is not breakable.
Amanda is not friendly.
Morris is not warm-hearted.
Abner is not lucky.
Lars is wrong.
Lars is not lucky.
Morris is lucky.If someone is not lucky and not breakable, then he is friendly, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Royce is friendly once knowing that Robyn is not combative.
If Amanda is not lucky, then Royce is not warm-hearted, and vice versa.
Someone who is friendly is always both wrong and breakable.
If someone is both friendly and combative, then he is warm-hearted.
If there is at least one people who is not combative, then Lars is not wrong and Abner is warm-hearted.
If Gabriel is warm-hearted, then Amanda is wrong, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either not lucky or not breakable, he is friendly and not wrong.
If someone is not combative and friendly, then he is not breakable, and vice versa.
Someone who is lucky is always not combative.
Lars being lucky is equivalent to Amanda being not breakable.
If Amanda is not combative, then Morris is not warm-hearted and Gabriel is breakable. | Gabriel is not breakable. | contradiction |
Robyn is not friendly.
Lars is not breakable.
Royce is not breakable.
Amanda is not breakable.
Lars is not warm-hearted.
Morris is not breakable.
Amanda is not friendly.
Morris is not warm-hearted.
Abner is not lucky.
Lars is wrong.
Lars is not lucky.
Morris is lucky.If someone is not lucky and not breakable, then he is friendly, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Royce is friendly once knowing that Robyn is not combative.
If Amanda is not lucky, then Royce is not warm-hearted, and vice versa.
Someone who is friendly is always both wrong and breakable.
If someone is both friendly and combative, then he is warm-hearted.
If there is at least one people who is not combative, then Lars is not wrong and Abner is warm-hearted.
If Gabriel is warm-hearted, then Amanda is wrong, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either not lucky or not breakable, he is friendly and not wrong.
If someone is not combative and friendly, then he is not breakable, and vice versa.
Someone who is lucky is always not combative.
Lars being lucky is equivalent to Amanda being not breakable.
If Amanda is not combative, then Morris is not warm-hearted and Gabriel is breakable. | Robyn is lucky. | neutral |
Robyn is not friendly.
Lars is not breakable.
Royce is not breakable.
Amanda is not breakable.
Lars is not warm-hearted.
Morris is not breakable.
Amanda is not friendly.
Morris is not warm-hearted.
Abner is not lucky.
Lars is wrong.
Lars is not lucky.
Morris is lucky.If someone is not lucky and not breakable, then he is friendly, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Royce is friendly once knowing that Robyn is not combative.
If Amanda is not lucky, then Royce is not warm-hearted, and vice versa.
Someone who is friendly is always both wrong and breakable.
If someone is both friendly and combative, then he is warm-hearted.
If there is at least one people who is not combative, then Lars is not wrong and Abner is warm-hearted.
If Gabriel is warm-hearted, then Amanda is wrong, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either not lucky or not breakable, he is friendly and not wrong.
If someone is not combative and friendly, then he is not breakable, and vice versa.
Someone who is lucky is always not combative.
Lars being lucky is equivalent to Amanda being not breakable.
If Amanda is not combative, then Morris is not warm-hearted and Gabriel is breakable. | Amanda is wrong. | self_contradiction |
Robyn is not friendly.
Lars is not breakable.
Royce is not breakable.
Amanda is not breakable.
Lars is not warm-hearted.
Morris is not breakable.
Amanda is not friendly.
Morris is not warm-hearted.
Abner is not lucky.
Lars is wrong.
Lars is not lucky.
Morris is lucky.If someone is not lucky and not breakable, then he is friendly, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Royce is friendly once knowing that Robyn is not combative.
If Amanda is not lucky, then Royce is not warm-hearted, and vice versa.
Someone who is friendly is always both wrong and breakable.
If someone is both friendly and combative, then he is warm-hearted.
If there is at least one people who is not combative, then Lars is not wrong and Abner is warm-hearted.
If Gabriel is warm-hearted, then Amanda is wrong, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either not lucky or not breakable, he is friendly and not wrong.
If someone is not combative and friendly, then he is not breakable, and vice versa.
Someone who is lucky is always not combative.
Lars being lucky is equivalent to Amanda being not breakable.
If Amanda is not combative, then Morris is not warm-hearted and Gabriel is breakable. | Amanda is warm-hearted. | neutral |
Robyn is not friendly.
Lars is not breakable.
Royce is not breakable.
Amanda is not breakable.
Lars is not warm-hearted.
Morris is not breakable.
Amanda is not friendly.
Morris is not warm-hearted.
Abner is not lucky.
Lars is wrong.
Lars is not lucky.
Morris is lucky.If someone is not lucky and not breakable, then he is friendly, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Royce is friendly once knowing that Robyn is not combative.
If Amanda is not lucky, then Royce is not warm-hearted, and vice versa.
Someone who is friendly is always both wrong and breakable.
If someone is both friendly and combative, then he is warm-hearted.
If there is at least one people who is not combative, then Lars is not wrong and Abner is warm-hearted.
If Gabriel is warm-hearted, then Amanda is wrong, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either not lucky or not breakable, he is friendly and not wrong.
If someone is not combative and friendly, then he is not breakable, and vice versa.
Someone who is lucky is always not combative.
Lars being lucky is equivalent to Amanda being not breakable.
If Amanda is not combative, then Morris is not warm-hearted and Gabriel is breakable. | Robyn is not breakable. | neutral |
Robyn is not friendly.
Lars is not breakable.
Royce is not breakable.
Amanda is not breakable.
Lars is not warm-hearted.
Morris is not breakable.
Amanda is not friendly.
Morris is not warm-hearted.
Abner is not lucky.
Lars is wrong.
Lars is not lucky.
Morris is lucky.If someone is not lucky and not breakable, then he is friendly, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Royce is friendly once knowing that Robyn is not combative.
If Amanda is not lucky, then Royce is not warm-hearted, and vice versa.
Someone who is friendly is always both wrong and breakable.
If someone is both friendly and combative, then he is warm-hearted.
If there is at least one people who is not combative, then Lars is not wrong and Abner is warm-hearted.
If Gabriel is warm-hearted, then Amanda is wrong, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either not lucky or not breakable, he is friendly and not wrong.
If someone is not combative and friendly, then he is not breakable, and vice versa.
Someone who is lucky is always not combative.
Lars being lucky is equivalent to Amanda being not breakable.
If Amanda is not combative, then Morris is not warm-hearted and Gabriel is breakable. | Morris is lucky. | self_contradiction |
Robyn is not friendly.
Lars is not breakable.
Royce is not breakable.
Amanda is not breakable.
Lars is not warm-hearted.
Morris is not breakable.
Amanda is not friendly.
Morris is not warm-hearted.
Abner is not lucky.
Lars is wrong.
Lars is not lucky.
Morris is lucky.If someone is not lucky and not breakable, then he is friendly, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Royce is friendly once knowing that Robyn is not combative.
If Amanda is not lucky, then Royce is not warm-hearted, and vice versa.
Someone who is friendly is always both wrong and breakable.
If someone is both friendly and combative, then he is warm-hearted.
If there is at least one people who is not combative, then Lars is not wrong and Abner is warm-hearted.
If Gabriel is warm-hearted, then Amanda is wrong, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either not lucky or not breakable, he is friendly and not wrong.
If someone is not combative and friendly, then he is not breakable, and vice versa.
Someone who is lucky is always not combative.
Lars being lucky is equivalent to Amanda being not breakable.
If Amanda is not combative, then Morris is not warm-hearted and Gabriel is breakable. | Royce is not lucky. | entailment |
Robyn is not friendly.
Lars is not breakable.
Royce is not breakable.
Amanda is not breakable.
Lars is not warm-hearted.
Morris is not breakable.
Amanda is not friendly.
Morris is not warm-hearted.
Abner is not lucky.
Lars is wrong.
Lars is not lucky.
Morris is lucky.If someone is not lucky and not breakable, then he is friendly, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Royce is friendly once knowing that Robyn is not combative.
If Amanda is not lucky, then Royce is not warm-hearted, and vice versa.
Someone who is friendly is always both wrong and breakable.
If someone is both friendly and combative, then he is warm-hearted.
If there is at least one people who is not combative, then Lars is not wrong and Abner is warm-hearted.
If Gabriel is warm-hearted, then Amanda is wrong, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either not lucky or not breakable, he is friendly and not wrong.
If someone is not combative and friendly, then he is not breakable, and vice versa.
Someone who is lucky is always not combative.
Lars being lucky is equivalent to Amanda being not breakable.
If Amanda is not combative, then Morris is not warm-hearted and Gabriel is breakable. | Royce is not warm-hearted. | entailment |
Robyn is not friendly.
Lars is not breakable.
Royce is not breakable.
Amanda is not breakable.
Lars is not warm-hearted.
Morris is not breakable.
Amanda is not friendly.
Morris is not warm-hearted.
Abner is not lucky.
Lars is wrong.
Lars is not lucky.
Morris is lucky.If someone is not lucky and not breakable, then he is friendly, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Royce is friendly once knowing that Robyn is not combative.
If Amanda is not lucky, then Royce is not warm-hearted, and vice versa.
Someone who is friendly is always both wrong and breakable.
If someone is both friendly and combative, then he is warm-hearted.
If there is at least one people who is not combative, then Lars is not wrong and Abner is warm-hearted.
If Gabriel is warm-hearted, then Amanda is wrong, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either not lucky or not breakable, he is friendly and not wrong.
If someone is not combative and friendly, then he is not breakable, and vice versa.
Someone who is lucky is always not combative.
Lars being lucky is equivalent to Amanda being not breakable.
If Amanda is not combative, then Morris is not warm-hearted and Gabriel is breakable. | Gabriel is breakable. | entailment |
Robyn is not friendly.
Lars is not breakable.
Royce is not breakable.
Amanda is not breakable.
Lars is not warm-hearted.
Morris is not breakable.
Amanda is not friendly.
Morris is not warm-hearted.
Abner is not lucky.
Lars is wrong.
Lars is not lucky.
Morris is lucky.If someone is not lucky and not breakable, then he is friendly, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Royce is friendly once knowing that Robyn is not combative.
If Amanda is not lucky, then Royce is not warm-hearted, and vice versa.
Someone who is friendly is always both wrong and breakable.
If someone is both friendly and combative, then he is warm-hearted.
If there is at least one people who is not combative, then Lars is not wrong and Abner is warm-hearted.
If Gabriel is warm-hearted, then Amanda is wrong, and vice versa.
As long as someone is either not lucky or not breakable, he is friendly and not wrong.
If someone is not combative and friendly, then he is not breakable, and vice versa.
Someone who is lucky is always not combative.
Lars being lucky is equivalent to Amanda being not breakable.
If Amanda is not combative, then Morris is not warm-hearted and Gabriel is breakable. | Amanda is not wrong. | self_contradiction |
Kayla is useful.
Stanley is cute.
Melville is sincere.
Aidan is chestnut.
Amanda is oak.
Amanda is cute.
Melville is intellectual.
Isabel is not sincere.
Aidan is not cute.
Amanda is not chestnut.
Kayla is cute.
Kayla is intellectual.If there is someone who is oak, then Amanda is intellectual and Peter is chestnut.
If someone who is not sincere is also intellectual, then he is oak.
It can be concluded that Aidan is not intellectual once knowing that Peter is not chestnut.
Isabel being not sincere and Amanda being not cute imply that Peter is useful.
If someone is not intellectual or chestnut, then he is sincere.
If someone is not sincere, then he is oak.
If there is someone who is either cute or useful, then Kayla is not oak and Peter is not chestnut.
Someone is cute and useful if and only if he is not oak.
Melville being not sincere implies that Kayla is cute.
Amanda being useful implies that Peter is not chestnut.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Aidan is not sincere and Kayla is not chestnut.
All not chestnut people are not sincere. | Aidan is not sincere. | self_contradiction |
Kayla is useful.
Stanley is cute.
Melville is sincere.
Aidan is chestnut.
Amanda is oak.
Amanda is cute.
Melville is intellectual.
Isabel is not sincere.
Aidan is not cute.
Amanda is not chestnut.
Kayla is cute.
Kayla is intellectual.If there is someone who is oak, then Amanda is intellectual and Peter is chestnut.
If someone who is not sincere is also intellectual, then he is oak.
It can be concluded that Aidan is not intellectual once knowing that Peter is not chestnut.
Isabel being not sincere and Amanda being not cute imply that Peter is useful.
If someone is not intellectual or chestnut, then he is sincere.
If someone is not sincere, then he is oak.
If there is someone who is either cute or useful, then Kayla is not oak and Peter is not chestnut.
Someone is cute and useful if and only if he is not oak.
Melville being not sincere implies that Kayla is cute.
Amanda being useful implies that Peter is not chestnut.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Aidan is not sincere and Kayla is not chestnut.
All not chestnut people are not sincere. | Aidan is sincere. | self_contradiction |
Kayla is useful.
Stanley is cute.
Melville is sincere.
Aidan is chestnut.
Amanda is oak.
Amanda is cute.
Melville is intellectual.
Isabel is not sincere.
Aidan is not cute.
Amanda is not chestnut.
Kayla is cute.
Kayla is intellectual.If there is someone who is oak, then Amanda is intellectual and Peter is chestnut.
If someone who is not sincere is also intellectual, then he is oak.
It can be concluded that Aidan is not intellectual once knowing that Peter is not chestnut.
Isabel being not sincere and Amanda being not cute imply that Peter is useful.
If someone is not intellectual or chestnut, then he is sincere.
If someone is not sincere, then he is oak.
If there is someone who is either cute or useful, then Kayla is not oak and Peter is not chestnut.
Someone is cute and useful if and only if he is not oak.
Melville being not sincere implies that Kayla is cute.
Amanda being useful implies that Peter is not chestnut.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Aidan is not sincere and Kayla is not chestnut.
All not chestnut people are not sincere. | Aidan is oak. | entailment |
Kayla is useful.
Stanley is cute.
Melville is sincere.
Aidan is chestnut.
Amanda is oak.
Amanda is cute.
Melville is intellectual.
Isabel is not sincere.
Aidan is not cute.
Amanda is not chestnut.
Kayla is cute.
Kayla is intellectual.If there is someone who is oak, then Amanda is intellectual and Peter is chestnut.
If someone who is not sincere is also intellectual, then he is oak.
It can be concluded that Aidan is not intellectual once knowing that Peter is not chestnut.
Isabel being not sincere and Amanda being not cute imply that Peter is useful.
If someone is not intellectual or chestnut, then he is sincere.
If someone is not sincere, then he is oak.
If there is someone who is either cute or useful, then Kayla is not oak and Peter is not chestnut.
Someone is cute and useful if and only if he is not oak.
Melville being not sincere implies that Kayla is cute.
Amanda being useful implies that Peter is not chestnut.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Aidan is not sincere and Kayla is not chestnut.
All not chestnut people are not sincere. | Isabel is oak. | entailment |
Kayla is useful.
Stanley is cute.
Melville is sincere.
Aidan is chestnut.
Amanda is oak.
Amanda is cute.
Melville is intellectual.
Isabel is not sincere.
Aidan is not cute.
Amanda is not chestnut.
Kayla is cute.
Kayla is intellectual.If there is someone who is oak, then Amanda is intellectual and Peter is chestnut.
If someone who is not sincere is also intellectual, then he is oak.
It can be concluded that Aidan is not intellectual once knowing that Peter is not chestnut.
Isabel being not sincere and Amanda being not cute imply that Peter is useful.
If someone is not intellectual or chestnut, then he is sincere.
If someone is not sincere, then he is oak.
If there is someone who is either cute or useful, then Kayla is not oak and Peter is not chestnut.
Someone is cute and useful if and only if he is not oak.
Melville being not sincere implies that Kayla is cute.
Amanda being useful implies that Peter is not chestnut.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Aidan is not sincere and Kayla is not chestnut.
All not chestnut people are not sincere. | Kayla is cute. | entailment |
Kayla is useful.
Stanley is cute.
Melville is sincere.
Aidan is chestnut.
Amanda is oak.
Amanda is cute.
Melville is intellectual.
Isabel is not sincere.
Aidan is not cute.
Amanda is not chestnut.
Kayla is cute.
Kayla is intellectual.If there is someone who is oak, then Amanda is intellectual and Peter is chestnut.
If someone who is not sincere is also intellectual, then he is oak.
It can be concluded that Aidan is not intellectual once knowing that Peter is not chestnut.
Isabel being not sincere and Amanda being not cute imply that Peter is useful.
If someone is not intellectual or chestnut, then he is sincere.
If someone is not sincere, then he is oak.
If there is someone who is either cute or useful, then Kayla is not oak and Peter is not chestnut.
Someone is cute and useful if and only if he is not oak.
Melville being not sincere implies that Kayla is cute.
Amanda being useful implies that Peter is not chestnut.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Aidan is not sincere and Kayla is not chestnut.
All not chestnut people are not sincere. | Kayla is not oak. | self_contradiction |
Kayla is useful.
Stanley is cute.
Melville is sincere.
Aidan is chestnut.
Amanda is oak.
Amanda is cute.
Melville is intellectual.
Isabel is not sincere.
Aidan is not cute.
Amanda is not chestnut.
Kayla is cute.
Kayla is intellectual.If there is someone who is oak, then Amanda is intellectual and Peter is chestnut.
If someone who is not sincere is also intellectual, then he is oak.
It can be concluded that Aidan is not intellectual once knowing that Peter is not chestnut.
Isabel being not sincere and Amanda being not cute imply that Peter is useful.
If someone is not intellectual or chestnut, then he is sincere.
If someone is not sincere, then he is oak.
If there is someone who is either cute or useful, then Kayla is not oak and Peter is not chestnut.
Someone is cute and useful if and only if he is not oak.
Melville being not sincere implies that Kayla is cute.
Amanda being useful implies that Peter is not chestnut.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Aidan is not sincere and Kayla is not chestnut.
All not chestnut people are not sincere. | Peter is not chestnut. | self_contradiction |
Kayla is useful.
Stanley is cute.
Melville is sincere.
Aidan is chestnut.
Amanda is oak.
Amanda is cute.
Melville is intellectual.
Isabel is not sincere.
Aidan is not cute.
Amanda is not chestnut.
Kayla is cute.
Kayla is intellectual.If there is someone who is oak, then Amanda is intellectual and Peter is chestnut.
If someone who is not sincere is also intellectual, then he is oak.
It can be concluded that Aidan is not intellectual once knowing that Peter is not chestnut.
Isabel being not sincere and Amanda being not cute imply that Peter is useful.
If someone is not intellectual or chestnut, then he is sincere.
If someone is not sincere, then he is oak.
If there is someone who is either cute or useful, then Kayla is not oak and Peter is not chestnut.
Someone is cute and useful if and only if he is not oak.
Melville being not sincere implies that Kayla is cute.
Amanda being useful implies that Peter is not chestnut.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Aidan is not sincere and Kayla is not chestnut.
All not chestnut people are not sincere. | Amanda is intellectual. | entailment |
Kayla is useful.
Stanley is cute.
Melville is sincere.
Aidan is chestnut.
Amanda is oak.
Amanda is cute.
Melville is intellectual.
Isabel is not sincere.
Aidan is not cute.
Amanda is not chestnut.
Kayla is cute.
Kayla is intellectual.If there is someone who is oak, then Amanda is intellectual and Peter is chestnut.
If someone who is not sincere is also intellectual, then he is oak.
It can be concluded that Aidan is not intellectual once knowing that Peter is not chestnut.
Isabel being not sincere and Amanda being not cute imply that Peter is useful.
If someone is not intellectual or chestnut, then he is sincere.
If someone is not sincere, then he is oak.
If there is someone who is either cute or useful, then Kayla is not oak and Peter is not chestnut.
Someone is cute and useful if and only if he is not oak.
Melville being not sincere implies that Kayla is cute.
Amanda being useful implies that Peter is not chestnut.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Aidan is not sincere and Kayla is not chestnut.
All not chestnut people are not sincere. | Kayla is oak. | self_contradiction |
Kayla is useful.
Stanley is cute.
Melville is sincere.
Aidan is chestnut.
Amanda is oak.
Amanda is cute.
Melville is intellectual.
Isabel is not sincere.
Aidan is not cute.
Amanda is not chestnut.
Kayla is cute.
Kayla is intellectual.If there is someone who is oak, then Amanda is intellectual and Peter is chestnut.
If someone who is not sincere is also intellectual, then he is oak.
It can be concluded that Aidan is not intellectual once knowing that Peter is not chestnut.
Isabel being not sincere and Amanda being not cute imply that Peter is useful.
If someone is not intellectual or chestnut, then he is sincere.
If someone is not sincere, then he is oak.
If there is someone who is either cute or useful, then Kayla is not oak and Peter is not chestnut.
Someone is cute and useful if and only if he is not oak.
Melville being not sincere implies that Kayla is cute.
Amanda being useful implies that Peter is not chestnut.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Aidan is not sincere and Kayla is not chestnut.
All not chestnut people are not sincere. | Melville is sincere. | entailment |
Kayla is useful.
Stanley is cute.
Melville is sincere.
Aidan is chestnut.
Amanda is oak.
Amanda is cute.
Melville is intellectual.
Isabel is not sincere.
Aidan is not cute.
Amanda is not chestnut.
Kayla is cute.
Kayla is intellectual.If there is someone who is oak, then Amanda is intellectual and Peter is chestnut.
If someone who is not sincere is also intellectual, then he is oak.
It can be concluded that Aidan is not intellectual once knowing that Peter is not chestnut.
Isabel being not sincere and Amanda being not cute imply that Peter is useful.
If someone is not intellectual or chestnut, then he is sincere.
If someone is not sincere, then he is oak.
If there is someone who is either cute or useful, then Kayla is not oak and Peter is not chestnut.
Someone is cute and useful if and only if he is not oak.
Melville being not sincere implies that Kayla is cute.
Amanda being useful implies that Peter is not chestnut.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Aidan is not sincere and Kayla is not chestnut.
All not chestnut people are not sincere. | Stanley is not oak. | neutral |
Kayla is useful.
Stanley is cute.
Melville is sincere.
Aidan is chestnut.
Amanda is oak.
Amanda is cute.
Melville is intellectual.
Isabel is not sincere.
Aidan is not cute.
Amanda is not chestnut.
Kayla is cute.
Kayla is intellectual.If there is someone who is oak, then Amanda is intellectual and Peter is chestnut.
If someone who is not sincere is also intellectual, then he is oak.
It can be concluded that Aidan is not intellectual once knowing that Peter is not chestnut.
Isabel being not sincere and Amanda being not cute imply that Peter is useful.
If someone is not intellectual or chestnut, then he is sincere.
If someone is not sincere, then he is oak.
If there is someone who is either cute or useful, then Kayla is not oak and Peter is not chestnut.
Someone is cute and useful if and only if he is not oak.
Melville being not sincere implies that Kayla is cute.
Amanda being useful implies that Peter is not chestnut.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Aidan is not sincere and Kayla is not chestnut.
All not chestnut people are not sincere. | Amanda is not cute. | contradiction |
Kayla is useful.
Stanley is cute.
Melville is sincere.
Aidan is chestnut.
Amanda is oak.
Amanda is cute.
Melville is intellectual.
Isabel is not sincere.
Aidan is not cute.
Amanda is not chestnut.
Kayla is cute.
Kayla is intellectual.If there is someone who is oak, then Amanda is intellectual and Peter is chestnut.
If someone who is not sincere is also intellectual, then he is oak.
It can be concluded that Aidan is not intellectual once knowing that Peter is not chestnut.
Isabel being not sincere and Amanda being not cute imply that Peter is useful.
If someone is not intellectual or chestnut, then he is sincere.
If someone is not sincere, then he is oak.
If there is someone who is either cute or useful, then Kayla is not oak and Peter is not chestnut.
Someone is cute and useful if and only if he is not oak.
Melville being not sincere implies that Kayla is cute.
Amanda being useful implies that Peter is not chestnut.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Aidan is not sincere and Kayla is not chestnut.
All not chestnut people are not sincere. | Isabel is sincere. | contradiction |
Kayla is useful.
Stanley is cute.
Melville is sincere.
Aidan is chestnut.
Amanda is oak.
Amanda is cute.
Melville is intellectual.
Isabel is not sincere.
Aidan is not cute.
Amanda is not chestnut.
Kayla is cute.
Kayla is intellectual.If there is someone who is oak, then Amanda is intellectual and Peter is chestnut.
If someone who is not sincere is also intellectual, then he is oak.
It can be concluded that Aidan is not intellectual once knowing that Peter is not chestnut.
Isabel being not sincere and Amanda being not cute imply that Peter is useful.
If someone is not intellectual or chestnut, then he is sincere.
If someone is not sincere, then he is oak.
If there is someone who is either cute or useful, then Kayla is not oak and Peter is not chestnut.
Someone is cute and useful if and only if he is not oak.
Melville being not sincere implies that Kayla is cute.
Amanda being useful implies that Peter is not chestnut.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Aidan is not sincere and Kayla is not chestnut.
All not chestnut people are not sincere. | Aidan is not oak. | contradiction |
Kayla is useful.
Stanley is cute.
Melville is sincere.
Aidan is chestnut.
Amanda is oak.
Amanda is cute.
Melville is intellectual.
Isabel is not sincere.
Aidan is not cute.
Amanda is not chestnut.
Kayla is cute.
Kayla is intellectual.If there is someone who is oak, then Amanda is intellectual and Peter is chestnut.
If someone who is not sincere is also intellectual, then he is oak.
It can be concluded that Aidan is not intellectual once knowing that Peter is not chestnut.
Isabel being not sincere and Amanda being not cute imply that Peter is useful.
If someone is not intellectual or chestnut, then he is sincere.
If someone is not sincere, then he is oak.
If there is someone who is either cute or useful, then Kayla is not oak and Peter is not chestnut.
Someone is cute and useful if and only if he is not oak.
Melville being not sincere implies that Kayla is cute.
Amanda being useful implies that Peter is not chestnut.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Aidan is not sincere and Kayla is not chestnut.
All not chestnut people are not sincere. | Aidan is not chestnut. | contradiction |
Kayla is useful.
Stanley is cute.
Melville is sincere.
Aidan is chestnut.
Amanda is oak.
Amanda is cute.
Melville is intellectual.
Isabel is not sincere.
Aidan is not cute.
Amanda is not chestnut.
Kayla is cute.
Kayla is intellectual.If there is someone who is oak, then Amanda is intellectual and Peter is chestnut.
If someone who is not sincere is also intellectual, then he is oak.
It can be concluded that Aidan is not intellectual once knowing that Peter is not chestnut.
Isabel being not sincere and Amanda being not cute imply that Peter is useful.
If someone is not intellectual or chestnut, then he is sincere.
If someone is not sincere, then he is oak.
If there is someone who is either cute or useful, then Kayla is not oak and Peter is not chestnut.
Someone is cute and useful if and only if he is not oak.
Melville being not sincere implies that Kayla is cute.
Amanda being useful implies that Peter is not chestnut.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Aidan is not sincere and Kayla is not chestnut.
All not chestnut people are not sincere. | Stanley is oak. | neutral |
Kayla is useful.
Stanley is cute.
Melville is sincere.
Aidan is chestnut.
Amanda is oak.
Amanda is cute.
Melville is intellectual.
Isabel is not sincere.
Aidan is not cute.
Amanda is not chestnut.
Kayla is cute.
Kayla is intellectual.If there is someone who is oak, then Amanda is intellectual and Peter is chestnut.
If someone who is not sincere is also intellectual, then he is oak.
It can be concluded that Aidan is not intellectual once knowing that Peter is not chestnut.
Isabel being not sincere and Amanda being not cute imply that Peter is useful.
If someone is not intellectual or chestnut, then he is sincere.
If someone is not sincere, then he is oak.
If there is someone who is either cute or useful, then Kayla is not oak and Peter is not chestnut.
Someone is cute and useful if and only if he is not oak.
Melville being not sincere implies that Kayla is cute.
Amanda being useful implies that Peter is not chestnut.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Aidan is not sincere and Kayla is not chestnut.
All not chestnut people are not sincere. | Peter is not oak. | contradiction |
Kayla is useful.
Stanley is cute.
Melville is sincere.
Aidan is chestnut.
Amanda is oak.
Amanda is cute.
Melville is intellectual.
Isabel is not sincere.
Aidan is not cute.
Amanda is not chestnut.
Kayla is cute.
Kayla is intellectual.If there is someone who is oak, then Amanda is intellectual and Peter is chestnut.
If someone who is not sincere is also intellectual, then he is oak.
It can be concluded that Aidan is not intellectual once knowing that Peter is not chestnut.
Isabel being not sincere and Amanda being not cute imply that Peter is useful.
If someone is not intellectual or chestnut, then he is sincere.
If someone is not sincere, then he is oak.
If there is someone who is either cute or useful, then Kayla is not oak and Peter is not chestnut.
Someone is cute and useful if and only if he is not oak.
Melville being not sincere implies that Kayla is cute.
Amanda being useful implies that Peter is not chestnut.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Aidan is not sincere and Kayla is not chestnut.
All not chestnut people are not sincere. | Melville is chestnut. | neutral |
Kayla is useful.
Stanley is cute.
Melville is sincere.
Aidan is chestnut.
Amanda is oak.
Amanda is cute.
Melville is intellectual.
Isabel is not sincere.
Aidan is not cute.
Amanda is not chestnut.
Kayla is cute.
Kayla is intellectual.If there is someone who is oak, then Amanda is intellectual and Peter is chestnut.
If someone who is not sincere is also intellectual, then he is oak.
It can be concluded that Aidan is not intellectual once knowing that Peter is not chestnut.
Isabel being not sincere and Amanda being not cute imply that Peter is useful.
If someone is not intellectual or chestnut, then he is sincere.
If someone is not sincere, then he is oak.
If there is someone who is either cute or useful, then Kayla is not oak and Peter is not chestnut.
Someone is cute and useful if and only if he is not oak.
Melville being not sincere implies that Kayla is cute.
Amanda being useful implies that Peter is not chestnut.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Aidan is not sincere and Kayla is not chestnut.
All not chestnut people are not sincere. | Stanley is not intellectual. | neutral |
Kayla is useful.
Stanley is cute.
Melville is sincere.
Aidan is chestnut.
Amanda is oak.
Amanda is cute.
Melville is intellectual.
Isabel is not sincere.
Aidan is not cute.
Amanda is not chestnut.
Kayla is cute.
Kayla is intellectual.If there is someone who is oak, then Amanda is intellectual and Peter is chestnut.
If someone who is not sincere is also intellectual, then he is oak.
It can be concluded that Aidan is not intellectual once knowing that Peter is not chestnut.
Isabel being not sincere and Amanda being not cute imply that Peter is useful.
If someone is not intellectual or chestnut, then he is sincere.
If someone is not sincere, then he is oak.
If there is someone who is either cute or useful, then Kayla is not oak and Peter is not chestnut.
Someone is cute and useful if and only if he is not oak.
Melville being not sincere implies that Kayla is cute.
Amanda being useful implies that Peter is not chestnut.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Aidan is not sincere and Kayla is not chestnut.
All not chestnut people are not sincere. | Melville is cute. | neutral |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.