premise
stringlengths 923
1.41k
| hypothesis
stringlengths 11
33
| label
stringclasses 4
values |
|---|---|---|
Marshall is chestnut.
Grayson is realistic.
Murray is not chestnut.
Rodney is ashamed.
Rodney is not chestnut.
Mark is chestnut.
Rodney is not plain.
Grayson is not misty.
Milton is not realistic.
Ron is chestnut.
Murray is plain.
Marshall is not grumpy.If there is at least one people who is plain, then Rodney is not chestnut.
Murray being realistic or Milton being not grumpy implies that Milton is ashamed.
Someone who is not plain is always both not misty and ashamed.
If someone is ashamed, then he is chestnut, and vice versa.
Someone being both plain and not chestnut is equivalent to being not grumpy.
If someone is plain, then he is grumpy.
If Mark is chestnut or Rodney is grumpy, then Marshall is not misty.
If someone is not chestnut, then he is realistic, and vice versa.
If someone is not grumpy or he is not chestnut, then he is misty.
Someone being both plain and chestnut is equivalent to being not misty.
If Milton is not realistic, then Rodney is not misty and Ron is not plain, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is either not ashamed or plain, then Rodney is not realistic. | Milton is not chestnut. | contradiction |
Marshall is chestnut.
Grayson is realistic.
Murray is not chestnut.
Rodney is ashamed.
Rodney is not chestnut.
Mark is chestnut.
Rodney is not plain.
Grayson is not misty.
Milton is not realistic.
Ron is chestnut.
Murray is plain.
Marshall is not grumpy.If there is at least one people who is plain, then Rodney is not chestnut.
Murray being realistic or Milton being not grumpy implies that Milton is ashamed.
Someone who is not plain is always both not misty and ashamed.
If someone is ashamed, then he is chestnut, and vice versa.
Someone being both plain and not chestnut is equivalent to being not grumpy.
If someone is plain, then he is grumpy.
If Mark is chestnut or Rodney is grumpy, then Marshall is not misty.
If someone is not chestnut, then he is realistic, and vice versa.
If someone is not grumpy or he is not chestnut, then he is misty.
Someone being both plain and chestnut is equivalent to being not misty.
If Milton is not realistic, then Rodney is not misty and Ron is not plain, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is either not ashamed or plain, then Rodney is not realistic. | Ron is not grumpy. | contradiction |
Marshall is chestnut.
Grayson is realistic.
Murray is not chestnut.
Rodney is ashamed.
Rodney is not chestnut.
Mark is chestnut.
Rodney is not plain.
Grayson is not misty.
Milton is not realistic.
Ron is chestnut.
Murray is plain.
Marshall is not grumpy.If there is at least one people who is plain, then Rodney is not chestnut.
Murray being realistic or Milton being not grumpy implies that Milton is ashamed.
Someone who is not plain is always both not misty and ashamed.
If someone is ashamed, then he is chestnut, and vice versa.
Someone being both plain and not chestnut is equivalent to being not grumpy.
If someone is plain, then he is grumpy.
If Mark is chestnut or Rodney is grumpy, then Marshall is not misty.
If someone is not chestnut, then he is realistic, and vice versa.
If someone is not grumpy or he is not chestnut, then he is misty.
Someone being both plain and chestnut is equivalent to being not misty.
If Milton is not realistic, then Rodney is not misty and Ron is not plain, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is either not ashamed or plain, then Rodney is not realistic. | Ron is misty. | contradiction |
Marshall is chestnut.
Grayson is realistic.
Murray is not chestnut.
Rodney is ashamed.
Rodney is not chestnut.
Mark is chestnut.
Rodney is not plain.
Grayson is not misty.
Milton is not realistic.
Ron is chestnut.
Murray is plain.
Marshall is not grumpy.If there is at least one people who is plain, then Rodney is not chestnut.
Murray being realistic or Milton being not grumpy implies that Milton is ashamed.
Someone who is not plain is always both not misty and ashamed.
If someone is ashamed, then he is chestnut, and vice versa.
Someone being both plain and not chestnut is equivalent to being not grumpy.
If someone is plain, then he is grumpy.
If Mark is chestnut or Rodney is grumpy, then Marshall is not misty.
If someone is not chestnut, then he is realistic, and vice versa.
If someone is not grumpy or he is not chestnut, then he is misty.
Someone being both plain and chestnut is equivalent to being not misty.
If Milton is not realistic, then Rodney is not misty and Ron is not plain, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is either not ashamed or plain, then Rodney is not realistic. | Rodney is not grumpy. | self_contradiction |
Marshall is chestnut.
Grayson is realistic.
Murray is not chestnut.
Rodney is ashamed.
Rodney is not chestnut.
Mark is chestnut.
Rodney is not plain.
Grayson is not misty.
Milton is not realistic.
Ron is chestnut.
Murray is plain.
Marshall is not grumpy.If there is at least one people who is plain, then Rodney is not chestnut.
Murray being realistic or Milton being not grumpy implies that Milton is ashamed.
Someone who is not plain is always both not misty and ashamed.
If someone is ashamed, then he is chestnut, and vice versa.
Someone being both plain and not chestnut is equivalent to being not grumpy.
If someone is plain, then he is grumpy.
If Mark is chestnut or Rodney is grumpy, then Marshall is not misty.
If someone is not chestnut, then he is realistic, and vice versa.
If someone is not grumpy or he is not chestnut, then he is misty.
Someone being both plain and chestnut is equivalent to being not misty.
If Milton is not realistic, then Rodney is not misty and Ron is not plain, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is either not ashamed or plain, then Rodney is not realistic. | Murray is not realistic. | contradiction |
Marshall is chestnut.
Grayson is realistic.
Murray is not chestnut.
Rodney is ashamed.
Rodney is not chestnut.
Mark is chestnut.
Rodney is not plain.
Grayson is not misty.
Milton is not realistic.
Ron is chestnut.
Murray is plain.
Marshall is not grumpy.If there is at least one people who is plain, then Rodney is not chestnut.
Murray being realistic or Milton being not grumpy implies that Milton is ashamed.
Someone who is not plain is always both not misty and ashamed.
If someone is ashamed, then he is chestnut, and vice versa.
Someone being both plain and not chestnut is equivalent to being not grumpy.
If someone is plain, then he is grumpy.
If Mark is chestnut or Rodney is grumpy, then Marshall is not misty.
If someone is not chestnut, then he is realistic, and vice versa.
If someone is not grumpy or he is not chestnut, then he is misty.
Someone being both plain and chestnut is equivalent to being not misty.
If Milton is not realistic, then Rodney is not misty and Ron is not plain, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is either not ashamed or plain, then Rodney is not realistic. | Murray is not misty. | contradiction |
Marshall is chestnut.
Grayson is realistic.
Murray is not chestnut.
Rodney is ashamed.
Rodney is not chestnut.
Mark is chestnut.
Rodney is not plain.
Grayson is not misty.
Milton is not realistic.
Ron is chestnut.
Murray is plain.
Marshall is not grumpy.If there is at least one people who is plain, then Rodney is not chestnut.
Murray being realistic or Milton being not grumpy implies that Milton is ashamed.
Someone who is not plain is always both not misty and ashamed.
If someone is ashamed, then he is chestnut, and vice versa.
Someone being both plain and not chestnut is equivalent to being not grumpy.
If someone is plain, then he is grumpy.
If Mark is chestnut or Rodney is grumpy, then Marshall is not misty.
If someone is not chestnut, then he is realistic, and vice versa.
If someone is not grumpy or he is not chestnut, then he is misty.
Someone being both plain and chestnut is equivalent to being not misty.
If Milton is not realistic, then Rodney is not misty and Ron is not plain, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is either not ashamed or plain, then Rodney is not realistic. | Ron is grumpy. | entailment |
Marshall is chestnut.
Grayson is realistic.
Murray is not chestnut.
Rodney is ashamed.
Rodney is not chestnut.
Mark is chestnut.
Rodney is not plain.
Grayson is not misty.
Milton is not realistic.
Ron is chestnut.
Murray is plain.
Marshall is not grumpy.If there is at least one people who is plain, then Rodney is not chestnut.
Murray being realistic or Milton being not grumpy implies that Milton is ashamed.
Someone who is not plain is always both not misty and ashamed.
If someone is ashamed, then he is chestnut, and vice versa.
Someone being both plain and not chestnut is equivalent to being not grumpy.
If someone is plain, then he is grumpy.
If Mark is chestnut or Rodney is grumpy, then Marshall is not misty.
If someone is not chestnut, then he is realistic, and vice versa.
If someone is not grumpy or he is not chestnut, then he is misty.
Someone being both plain and chestnut is equivalent to being not misty.
If Milton is not realistic, then Rodney is not misty and Ron is not plain, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is either not ashamed or plain, then Rodney is not realistic. | Ron is realistic. | neutral |
Marshall is chestnut.
Grayson is realistic.
Murray is not chestnut.
Rodney is ashamed.
Rodney is not chestnut.
Mark is chestnut.
Rodney is not plain.
Grayson is not misty.
Milton is not realistic.
Ron is chestnut.
Murray is plain.
Marshall is not grumpy.If there is at least one people who is plain, then Rodney is not chestnut.
Murray being realistic or Milton being not grumpy implies that Milton is ashamed.
Someone who is not plain is always both not misty and ashamed.
If someone is ashamed, then he is chestnut, and vice versa.
Someone being both plain and not chestnut is equivalent to being not grumpy.
If someone is plain, then he is grumpy.
If Mark is chestnut or Rodney is grumpy, then Marshall is not misty.
If someone is not chestnut, then he is realistic, and vice versa.
If someone is not grumpy or he is not chestnut, then he is misty.
Someone being both plain and chestnut is equivalent to being not misty.
If Milton is not realistic, then Rodney is not misty and Ron is not plain, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is either not ashamed or plain, then Rodney is not realistic. | Mark is realistic. | neutral |
Marshall is chestnut.
Grayson is realistic.
Murray is not chestnut.
Rodney is ashamed.
Rodney is not chestnut.
Mark is chestnut.
Rodney is not plain.
Grayson is not misty.
Milton is not realistic.
Ron is chestnut.
Murray is plain.
Marshall is not grumpy.If there is at least one people who is plain, then Rodney is not chestnut.
Murray being realistic or Milton being not grumpy implies that Milton is ashamed.
Someone who is not plain is always both not misty and ashamed.
If someone is ashamed, then he is chestnut, and vice versa.
Someone being both plain and not chestnut is equivalent to being not grumpy.
If someone is plain, then he is grumpy.
If Mark is chestnut or Rodney is grumpy, then Marshall is not misty.
If someone is not chestnut, then he is realistic, and vice versa.
If someone is not grumpy or he is not chestnut, then he is misty.
Someone being both plain and chestnut is equivalent to being not misty.
If Milton is not realistic, then Rodney is not misty and Ron is not plain, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is either not ashamed or plain, then Rodney is not realistic. | Ron is chestnut. | entailment |
Marshall is chestnut.
Grayson is realistic.
Murray is not chestnut.
Rodney is ashamed.
Rodney is not chestnut.
Mark is chestnut.
Rodney is not plain.
Grayson is not misty.
Milton is not realistic.
Ron is chestnut.
Murray is plain.
Marshall is not grumpy.If there is at least one people who is plain, then Rodney is not chestnut.
Murray being realistic or Milton being not grumpy implies that Milton is ashamed.
Someone who is not plain is always both not misty and ashamed.
If someone is ashamed, then he is chestnut, and vice versa.
Someone being both plain and not chestnut is equivalent to being not grumpy.
If someone is plain, then he is grumpy.
If Mark is chestnut or Rodney is grumpy, then Marshall is not misty.
If someone is not chestnut, then he is realistic, and vice versa.
If someone is not grumpy or he is not chestnut, then he is misty.
Someone being both plain and chestnut is equivalent to being not misty.
If Milton is not realistic, then Rodney is not misty and Ron is not plain, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is either not ashamed or plain, then Rodney is not realistic. | Rodney is grumpy. | self_contradiction |
Marshall is chestnut.
Grayson is realistic.
Murray is not chestnut.
Rodney is ashamed.
Rodney is not chestnut.
Mark is chestnut.
Rodney is not plain.
Grayson is not misty.
Milton is not realistic.
Ron is chestnut.
Murray is plain.
Marshall is not grumpy.If there is at least one people who is plain, then Rodney is not chestnut.
Murray being realistic or Milton being not grumpy implies that Milton is ashamed.
Someone who is not plain is always both not misty and ashamed.
If someone is ashamed, then he is chestnut, and vice versa.
Someone being both plain and not chestnut is equivalent to being not grumpy.
If someone is plain, then he is grumpy.
If Mark is chestnut or Rodney is grumpy, then Marshall is not misty.
If someone is not chestnut, then he is realistic, and vice versa.
If someone is not grumpy or he is not chestnut, then he is misty.
Someone being both plain and chestnut is equivalent to being not misty.
If Milton is not realistic, then Rodney is not misty and Ron is not plain, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is either not ashamed or plain, then Rodney is not realistic. | Mark is not realistic. | neutral |
Marshall is chestnut.
Grayson is realistic.
Murray is not chestnut.
Rodney is ashamed.
Rodney is not chestnut.
Mark is chestnut.
Rodney is not plain.
Grayson is not misty.
Milton is not realistic.
Ron is chestnut.
Murray is plain.
Marshall is not grumpy.If there is at least one people who is plain, then Rodney is not chestnut.
Murray being realistic or Milton being not grumpy implies that Milton is ashamed.
Someone who is not plain is always both not misty and ashamed.
If someone is ashamed, then he is chestnut, and vice versa.
Someone being both plain and not chestnut is equivalent to being not grumpy.
If someone is plain, then he is grumpy.
If Mark is chestnut or Rodney is grumpy, then Marshall is not misty.
If someone is not chestnut, then he is realistic, and vice versa.
If someone is not grumpy or he is not chestnut, then he is misty.
Someone being both plain and chestnut is equivalent to being not misty.
If Milton is not realistic, then Rodney is not misty and Ron is not plain, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is either not ashamed or plain, then Rodney is not realistic. | Mark is not grumpy. | neutral |
Marshall is chestnut.
Grayson is realistic.
Murray is not chestnut.
Rodney is ashamed.
Rodney is not chestnut.
Mark is chestnut.
Rodney is not plain.
Grayson is not misty.
Milton is not realistic.
Ron is chestnut.
Murray is plain.
Marshall is not grumpy.If there is at least one people who is plain, then Rodney is not chestnut.
Murray being realistic or Milton being not grumpy implies that Milton is ashamed.
Someone who is not plain is always both not misty and ashamed.
If someone is ashamed, then he is chestnut, and vice versa.
Someone being both plain and not chestnut is equivalent to being not grumpy.
If someone is plain, then he is grumpy.
If Mark is chestnut or Rodney is grumpy, then Marshall is not misty.
If someone is not chestnut, then he is realistic, and vice versa.
If someone is not grumpy or he is not chestnut, then he is misty.
Someone being both plain and chestnut is equivalent to being not misty.
If Milton is not realistic, then Rodney is not misty and Ron is not plain, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is either not ashamed or plain, then Rodney is not realistic. | Ron is ashamed. | entailment |
Marshall is chestnut.
Grayson is realistic.
Murray is not chestnut.
Rodney is ashamed.
Rodney is not chestnut.
Mark is chestnut.
Rodney is not plain.
Grayson is not misty.
Milton is not realistic.
Ron is chestnut.
Murray is plain.
Marshall is not grumpy.If there is at least one people who is plain, then Rodney is not chestnut.
Murray being realistic or Milton being not grumpy implies that Milton is ashamed.
Someone who is not plain is always both not misty and ashamed.
If someone is ashamed, then he is chestnut, and vice versa.
Someone being both plain and not chestnut is equivalent to being not grumpy.
If someone is plain, then he is grumpy.
If Mark is chestnut or Rodney is grumpy, then Marshall is not misty.
If someone is not chestnut, then he is realistic, and vice versa.
If someone is not grumpy or he is not chestnut, then he is misty.
Someone being both plain and chestnut is equivalent to being not misty.
If Milton is not realistic, then Rodney is not misty and Ron is not plain, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is either not ashamed or plain, then Rodney is not realistic. | Murray is plain. | entailment |
Marshall is chestnut.
Grayson is realistic.
Murray is not chestnut.
Rodney is ashamed.
Rodney is not chestnut.
Mark is chestnut.
Rodney is not plain.
Grayson is not misty.
Milton is not realistic.
Ron is chestnut.
Murray is plain.
Marshall is not grumpy.If there is at least one people who is plain, then Rodney is not chestnut.
Murray being realistic or Milton being not grumpy implies that Milton is ashamed.
Someone who is not plain is always both not misty and ashamed.
If someone is ashamed, then he is chestnut, and vice versa.
Someone being both plain and not chestnut is equivalent to being not grumpy.
If someone is plain, then he is grumpy.
If Mark is chestnut or Rodney is grumpy, then Marshall is not misty.
If someone is not chestnut, then he is realistic, and vice versa.
If someone is not grumpy or he is not chestnut, then he is misty.
Someone being both plain and chestnut is equivalent to being not misty.
If Milton is not realistic, then Rodney is not misty and Ron is not plain, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is either not ashamed or plain, then Rodney is not realistic. | Murray is realistic. | entailment |
Marshall is chestnut.
Grayson is realistic.
Murray is not chestnut.
Rodney is ashamed.
Rodney is not chestnut.
Mark is chestnut.
Rodney is not plain.
Grayson is not misty.
Milton is not realistic.
Ron is chestnut.
Murray is plain.
Marshall is not grumpy.If there is at least one people who is plain, then Rodney is not chestnut.
Murray being realistic or Milton being not grumpy implies that Milton is ashamed.
Someone who is not plain is always both not misty and ashamed.
If someone is ashamed, then he is chestnut, and vice versa.
Someone being both plain and not chestnut is equivalent to being not grumpy.
If someone is plain, then he is grumpy.
If Mark is chestnut or Rodney is grumpy, then Marshall is not misty.
If someone is not chestnut, then he is realistic, and vice versa.
If someone is not grumpy or he is not chestnut, then he is misty.
Someone being both plain and chestnut is equivalent to being not misty.
If Milton is not realistic, then Rodney is not misty and Ron is not plain, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is either not ashamed or plain, then Rodney is not realistic. | Marshall is chestnut. | self_contradiction |
Marshall is chestnut.
Grayson is realistic.
Murray is not chestnut.
Rodney is ashamed.
Rodney is not chestnut.
Mark is chestnut.
Rodney is not plain.
Grayson is not misty.
Milton is not realistic.
Ron is chestnut.
Murray is plain.
Marshall is not grumpy.If there is at least one people who is plain, then Rodney is not chestnut.
Murray being realistic or Milton being not grumpy implies that Milton is ashamed.
Someone who is not plain is always both not misty and ashamed.
If someone is ashamed, then he is chestnut, and vice versa.
Someone being both plain and not chestnut is equivalent to being not grumpy.
If someone is plain, then he is grumpy.
If Mark is chestnut or Rodney is grumpy, then Marshall is not misty.
If someone is not chestnut, then he is realistic, and vice versa.
If someone is not grumpy or he is not chestnut, then he is misty.
Someone being both plain and chestnut is equivalent to being not misty.
If Milton is not realistic, then Rodney is not misty and Ron is not plain, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is either not ashamed or plain, then Rodney is not realistic. | Grayson is misty. | self_contradiction |
Marshall is chestnut.
Grayson is realistic.
Murray is not chestnut.
Rodney is ashamed.
Rodney is not chestnut.
Mark is chestnut.
Rodney is not plain.
Grayson is not misty.
Milton is not realistic.
Ron is chestnut.
Murray is plain.
Marshall is not grumpy.If there is at least one people who is plain, then Rodney is not chestnut.
Murray being realistic or Milton being not grumpy implies that Milton is ashamed.
Someone who is not plain is always both not misty and ashamed.
If someone is ashamed, then he is chestnut, and vice versa.
Someone being both plain and not chestnut is equivalent to being not grumpy.
If someone is plain, then he is grumpy.
If Mark is chestnut or Rodney is grumpy, then Marshall is not misty.
If someone is not chestnut, then he is realistic, and vice versa.
If someone is not grumpy or he is not chestnut, then he is misty.
Someone being both plain and chestnut is equivalent to being not misty.
If Milton is not realistic, then Rodney is not misty and Ron is not plain, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is either not ashamed or plain, then Rodney is not realistic. | Grayson is not chestnut. | self_contradiction |
Marshall is chestnut.
Grayson is realistic.
Murray is not chestnut.
Rodney is ashamed.
Rodney is not chestnut.
Mark is chestnut.
Rodney is not plain.
Grayson is not misty.
Milton is not realistic.
Ron is chestnut.
Murray is plain.
Marshall is not grumpy.If there is at least one people who is plain, then Rodney is not chestnut.
Murray being realistic or Milton being not grumpy implies that Milton is ashamed.
Someone who is not plain is always both not misty and ashamed.
If someone is ashamed, then he is chestnut, and vice versa.
Someone being both plain and not chestnut is equivalent to being not grumpy.
If someone is plain, then he is grumpy.
If Mark is chestnut or Rodney is grumpy, then Marshall is not misty.
If someone is not chestnut, then he is realistic, and vice versa.
If someone is not grumpy or he is not chestnut, then he is misty.
Someone being both plain and chestnut is equivalent to being not misty.
If Milton is not realistic, then Rodney is not misty and Ron is not plain, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is either not ashamed or plain, then Rodney is not realistic. | Milton is not misty. | neutral |
Harris is combative.
Ron is not combative.
Ron is intelligent.
Brock is not combative.
Brock is not strange.
Travis is not intelligent.
Ron is good.
Kianna is not strange.
Brock is not guilty.
Richard is not combative.
Kianna is good.
Harris is not strange.Someone being both easy and not intelligent is equivalent to being combative and not strange.
If Kianna is good, then Kianna is combative and Travis is not strange.
Someone being not strange is equivalent to being not easy.
It can be concluded that Brock is combative once knowing that Ron is not strange.
If someone who is not combative is also intelligent, then he is not guilty.
If there is someone who is either not good or not guilty, then Brock is intelligent.
If Kianna is strange, then Richard is not good.
If there is at least one people who is good, then Travis is strange and Ron is not intelligent.
It can be concluded that Ron is not good once knowing that Richard is not guilty.
If there is at least one people who is guilty, then Brock is good.
If someone is not guilty or he is intelligent, then he is strange.
If someone is not intelligent, then he is not combative, and vice versa. | Brock is combative. | contradiction |
Harris is combative.
Ron is not combative.
Ron is intelligent.
Brock is not combative.
Brock is not strange.
Travis is not intelligent.
Ron is good.
Kianna is not strange.
Brock is not guilty.
Richard is not combative.
Kianna is good.
Harris is not strange.Someone being both easy and not intelligent is equivalent to being combative and not strange.
If Kianna is good, then Kianna is combative and Travis is not strange.
Someone being not strange is equivalent to being not easy.
It can be concluded that Brock is combative once knowing that Ron is not strange.
If someone who is not combative is also intelligent, then he is not guilty.
If there is someone who is either not good or not guilty, then Brock is intelligent.
If Kianna is strange, then Richard is not good.
If there is at least one people who is good, then Travis is strange and Ron is not intelligent.
It can be concluded that Ron is not good once knowing that Richard is not guilty.
If there is at least one people who is guilty, then Brock is good.
If someone is not guilty or he is intelligent, then he is strange.
If someone is not intelligent, then he is not combative, and vice versa. | Harris is intelligent. | contradiction |
Harris is combative.
Ron is not combative.
Ron is intelligent.
Brock is not combative.
Brock is not strange.
Travis is not intelligent.
Ron is good.
Kianna is not strange.
Brock is not guilty.
Richard is not combative.
Kianna is good.
Harris is not strange.Someone being both easy and not intelligent is equivalent to being combative and not strange.
If Kianna is good, then Kianna is combative and Travis is not strange.
Someone being not strange is equivalent to being not easy.
It can be concluded that Brock is combative once knowing that Ron is not strange.
If someone who is not combative is also intelligent, then he is not guilty.
If there is someone who is either not good or not guilty, then Brock is intelligent.
If Kianna is strange, then Richard is not good.
If there is at least one people who is good, then Travis is strange and Ron is not intelligent.
It can be concluded that Ron is not good once knowing that Richard is not guilty.
If there is at least one people who is guilty, then Brock is good.
If someone is not guilty or he is intelligent, then he is strange.
If someone is not intelligent, then he is not combative, and vice versa. | Ron is not guilty. | entailment |
Harris is combative.
Ron is not combative.
Ron is intelligent.
Brock is not combative.
Brock is not strange.
Travis is not intelligent.
Ron is good.
Kianna is not strange.
Brock is not guilty.
Richard is not combative.
Kianna is good.
Harris is not strange.Someone being both easy and not intelligent is equivalent to being combative and not strange.
If Kianna is good, then Kianna is combative and Travis is not strange.
Someone being not strange is equivalent to being not easy.
It can be concluded that Brock is combative once knowing that Ron is not strange.
If someone who is not combative is also intelligent, then he is not guilty.
If there is someone who is either not good or not guilty, then Brock is intelligent.
If Kianna is strange, then Richard is not good.
If there is at least one people who is good, then Travis is strange and Ron is not intelligent.
It can be concluded that Ron is not good once knowing that Richard is not guilty.
If there is at least one people who is guilty, then Brock is good.
If someone is not guilty or he is intelligent, then he is strange.
If someone is not intelligent, then he is not combative, and vice versa. | Richard is not guilty. | neutral |
Harris is combative.
Ron is not combative.
Ron is intelligent.
Brock is not combative.
Brock is not strange.
Travis is not intelligent.
Ron is good.
Kianna is not strange.
Brock is not guilty.
Richard is not combative.
Kianna is good.
Harris is not strange.Someone being both easy and not intelligent is equivalent to being combative and not strange.
If Kianna is good, then Kianna is combative and Travis is not strange.
Someone being not strange is equivalent to being not easy.
It can be concluded that Brock is combative once knowing that Ron is not strange.
If someone who is not combative is also intelligent, then he is not guilty.
If there is someone who is either not good or not guilty, then Brock is intelligent.
If Kianna is strange, then Richard is not good.
If there is at least one people who is good, then Travis is strange and Ron is not intelligent.
It can be concluded that Ron is not good once knowing that Richard is not guilty.
If there is at least one people who is guilty, then Brock is good.
If someone is not guilty or he is intelligent, then he is strange.
If someone is not intelligent, then he is not combative, and vice versa. | Harris is combative. | self_contradiction |
Harris is combative.
Ron is not combative.
Ron is intelligent.
Brock is not combative.
Brock is not strange.
Travis is not intelligent.
Ron is good.
Kianna is not strange.
Brock is not guilty.
Richard is not combative.
Kianna is good.
Harris is not strange.Someone being both easy and not intelligent is equivalent to being combative and not strange.
If Kianna is good, then Kianna is combative and Travis is not strange.
Someone being not strange is equivalent to being not easy.
It can be concluded that Brock is combative once knowing that Ron is not strange.
If someone who is not combative is also intelligent, then he is not guilty.
If there is someone who is either not good or not guilty, then Brock is intelligent.
If Kianna is strange, then Richard is not good.
If there is at least one people who is good, then Travis is strange and Ron is not intelligent.
It can be concluded that Ron is not good once knowing that Richard is not guilty.
If there is at least one people who is guilty, then Brock is good.
If someone is not guilty or he is intelligent, then he is strange.
If someone is not intelligent, then he is not combative, and vice versa. | Brock is not easy. | entailment |
Harris is combative.
Ron is not combative.
Ron is intelligent.
Brock is not combative.
Brock is not strange.
Travis is not intelligent.
Ron is good.
Kianna is not strange.
Brock is not guilty.
Richard is not combative.
Kianna is good.
Harris is not strange.Someone being both easy and not intelligent is equivalent to being combative and not strange.
If Kianna is good, then Kianna is combative and Travis is not strange.
Someone being not strange is equivalent to being not easy.
It can be concluded that Brock is combative once knowing that Ron is not strange.
If someone who is not combative is also intelligent, then he is not guilty.
If there is someone who is either not good or not guilty, then Brock is intelligent.
If Kianna is strange, then Richard is not good.
If there is at least one people who is good, then Travis is strange and Ron is not intelligent.
It can be concluded that Ron is not good once knowing that Richard is not guilty.
If there is at least one people who is guilty, then Brock is good.
If someone is not guilty or he is intelligent, then he is strange.
If someone is not intelligent, then he is not combative, and vice versa. | Travis is not strange. | self_contradiction |
Harris is combative.
Ron is not combative.
Ron is intelligent.
Brock is not combative.
Brock is not strange.
Travis is not intelligent.
Ron is good.
Kianna is not strange.
Brock is not guilty.
Richard is not combative.
Kianna is good.
Harris is not strange.Someone being both easy and not intelligent is equivalent to being combative and not strange.
If Kianna is good, then Kianna is combative and Travis is not strange.
Someone being not strange is equivalent to being not easy.
It can be concluded that Brock is combative once knowing that Ron is not strange.
If someone who is not combative is also intelligent, then he is not guilty.
If there is someone who is either not good or not guilty, then Brock is intelligent.
If Kianna is strange, then Richard is not good.
If there is at least one people who is good, then Travis is strange and Ron is not intelligent.
It can be concluded that Ron is not good once knowing that Richard is not guilty.
If there is at least one people who is guilty, then Brock is good.
If someone is not guilty or he is intelligent, then he is strange.
If someone is not intelligent, then he is not combative, and vice versa. | Ron is good. | entailment |
Harris is combative.
Ron is not combative.
Ron is intelligent.
Brock is not combative.
Brock is not strange.
Travis is not intelligent.
Ron is good.
Kianna is not strange.
Brock is not guilty.
Richard is not combative.
Kianna is good.
Harris is not strange.Someone being both easy and not intelligent is equivalent to being combative and not strange.
If Kianna is good, then Kianna is combative and Travis is not strange.
Someone being not strange is equivalent to being not easy.
It can be concluded that Brock is combative once knowing that Ron is not strange.
If someone who is not combative is also intelligent, then he is not guilty.
If there is someone who is either not good or not guilty, then Brock is intelligent.
If Kianna is strange, then Richard is not good.
If there is at least one people who is good, then Travis is strange and Ron is not intelligent.
It can be concluded that Ron is not good once knowing that Richard is not guilty.
If there is at least one people who is guilty, then Brock is good.
If someone is not guilty or he is intelligent, then he is strange.
If someone is not intelligent, then he is not combative, and vice versa. | Calvert is combative. | neutral |
Harris is combative.
Ron is not combative.
Ron is intelligent.
Brock is not combative.
Brock is not strange.
Travis is not intelligent.
Ron is good.
Kianna is not strange.
Brock is not guilty.
Richard is not combative.
Kianna is good.
Harris is not strange.Someone being both easy and not intelligent is equivalent to being combative and not strange.
If Kianna is good, then Kianna is combative and Travis is not strange.
Someone being not strange is equivalent to being not easy.
It can be concluded that Brock is combative once knowing that Ron is not strange.
If someone who is not combative is also intelligent, then he is not guilty.
If there is someone who is either not good or not guilty, then Brock is intelligent.
If Kianna is strange, then Richard is not good.
If there is at least one people who is good, then Travis is strange and Ron is not intelligent.
It can be concluded that Ron is not good once knowing that Richard is not guilty.
If there is at least one people who is guilty, then Brock is good.
If someone is not guilty or he is intelligent, then he is strange.
If someone is not intelligent, then he is not combative, and vice versa. | Ron is strange. | entailment |
Harris is combative.
Ron is not combative.
Ron is intelligent.
Brock is not combative.
Brock is not strange.
Travis is not intelligent.
Ron is good.
Kianna is not strange.
Brock is not guilty.
Richard is not combative.
Kianna is good.
Harris is not strange.Someone being both easy and not intelligent is equivalent to being combative and not strange.
If Kianna is good, then Kianna is combative and Travis is not strange.
Someone being not strange is equivalent to being not easy.
It can be concluded that Brock is combative once knowing that Ron is not strange.
If someone who is not combative is also intelligent, then he is not guilty.
If there is someone who is either not good or not guilty, then Brock is intelligent.
If Kianna is strange, then Richard is not good.
If there is at least one people who is good, then Travis is strange and Ron is not intelligent.
It can be concluded that Ron is not good once knowing that Richard is not guilty.
If there is at least one people who is guilty, then Brock is good.
If someone is not guilty or he is intelligent, then he is strange.
If someone is not intelligent, then he is not combative, and vice versa. | Richard is not combative. | entailment |
Harris is combative.
Ron is not combative.
Ron is intelligent.
Brock is not combative.
Brock is not strange.
Travis is not intelligent.
Ron is good.
Kianna is not strange.
Brock is not guilty.
Richard is not combative.
Kianna is good.
Harris is not strange.Someone being both easy and not intelligent is equivalent to being combative and not strange.
If Kianna is good, then Kianna is combative and Travis is not strange.
Someone being not strange is equivalent to being not easy.
It can be concluded that Brock is combative once knowing that Ron is not strange.
If someone who is not combative is also intelligent, then he is not guilty.
If there is someone who is either not good or not guilty, then Brock is intelligent.
If Kianna is strange, then Richard is not good.
If there is at least one people who is good, then Travis is strange and Ron is not intelligent.
It can be concluded that Ron is not good once knowing that Richard is not guilty.
If there is at least one people who is guilty, then Brock is good.
If someone is not guilty or he is intelligent, then he is strange.
If someone is not intelligent, then he is not combative, and vice versa. | Calvert is not strange. | neutral |
Harris is combative.
Ron is not combative.
Ron is intelligent.
Brock is not combative.
Brock is not strange.
Travis is not intelligent.
Ron is good.
Kianna is not strange.
Brock is not guilty.
Richard is not combative.
Kianna is good.
Harris is not strange.Someone being both easy and not intelligent is equivalent to being combative and not strange.
If Kianna is good, then Kianna is combative and Travis is not strange.
Someone being not strange is equivalent to being not easy.
It can be concluded that Brock is combative once knowing that Ron is not strange.
If someone who is not combative is also intelligent, then he is not guilty.
If there is someone who is either not good or not guilty, then Brock is intelligent.
If Kianna is strange, then Richard is not good.
If there is at least one people who is good, then Travis is strange and Ron is not intelligent.
It can be concluded that Ron is not good once knowing that Richard is not guilty.
If there is at least one people who is guilty, then Brock is good.
If someone is not guilty or he is intelligent, then he is strange.
If someone is not intelligent, then he is not combative, and vice versa. | Richard is intelligent. | contradiction |
Harris is combative.
Ron is not combative.
Ron is intelligent.
Brock is not combative.
Brock is not strange.
Travis is not intelligent.
Ron is good.
Kianna is not strange.
Brock is not guilty.
Richard is not combative.
Kianna is good.
Harris is not strange.Someone being both easy and not intelligent is equivalent to being combative and not strange.
If Kianna is good, then Kianna is combative and Travis is not strange.
Someone being not strange is equivalent to being not easy.
It can be concluded that Brock is combative once knowing that Ron is not strange.
If someone who is not combative is also intelligent, then he is not guilty.
If there is someone who is either not good or not guilty, then Brock is intelligent.
If Kianna is strange, then Richard is not good.
If there is at least one people who is good, then Travis is strange and Ron is not intelligent.
It can be concluded that Ron is not good once knowing that Richard is not guilty.
If there is at least one people who is guilty, then Brock is good.
If someone is not guilty or he is intelligent, then he is strange.
If someone is not intelligent, then he is not combative, and vice versa. | Harris is not easy. | self_contradiction |
Harris is combative.
Ron is not combative.
Ron is intelligent.
Brock is not combative.
Brock is not strange.
Travis is not intelligent.
Ron is good.
Kianna is not strange.
Brock is not guilty.
Richard is not combative.
Kianna is good.
Harris is not strange.Someone being both easy and not intelligent is equivalent to being combative and not strange.
If Kianna is good, then Kianna is combative and Travis is not strange.
Someone being not strange is equivalent to being not easy.
It can be concluded that Brock is combative once knowing that Ron is not strange.
If someone who is not combative is also intelligent, then he is not guilty.
If there is someone who is either not good or not guilty, then Brock is intelligent.
If Kianna is strange, then Richard is not good.
If there is at least one people who is good, then Travis is strange and Ron is not intelligent.
It can be concluded that Ron is not good once knowing that Richard is not guilty.
If there is at least one people who is guilty, then Brock is good.
If someone is not guilty or he is intelligent, then he is strange.
If someone is not intelligent, then he is not combative, and vice versa. | Travis is strange. | self_contradiction |
Harris is combative.
Ron is not combative.
Ron is intelligent.
Brock is not combative.
Brock is not strange.
Travis is not intelligent.
Ron is good.
Kianna is not strange.
Brock is not guilty.
Richard is not combative.
Kianna is good.
Harris is not strange.Someone being both easy and not intelligent is equivalent to being combative and not strange.
If Kianna is good, then Kianna is combative and Travis is not strange.
Someone being not strange is equivalent to being not easy.
It can be concluded that Brock is combative once knowing that Ron is not strange.
If someone who is not combative is also intelligent, then he is not guilty.
If there is someone who is either not good or not guilty, then Brock is intelligent.
If Kianna is strange, then Richard is not good.
If there is at least one people who is good, then Travis is strange and Ron is not intelligent.
It can be concluded that Ron is not good once knowing that Richard is not guilty.
If there is at least one people who is guilty, then Brock is good.
If someone is not guilty or he is intelligent, then he is strange.
If someone is not intelligent, then he is not combative, and vice versa. | Richard is easy. | neutral |
Harris is combative.
Ron is not combative.
Ron is intelligent.
Brock is not combative.
Brock is not strange.
Travis is not intelligent.
Ron is good.
Kianna is not strange.
Brock is not guilty.
Richard is not combative.
Kianna is good.
Harris is not strange.Someone being both easy and not intelligent is equivalent to being combative and not strange.
If Kianna is good, then Kianna is combative and Travis is not strange.
Someone being not strange is equivalent to being not easy.
It can be concluded that Brock is combative once knowing that Ron is not strange.
If someone who is not combative is also intelligent, then he is not guilty.
If there is someone who is either not good or not guilty, then Brock is intelligent.
If Kianna is strange, then Richard is not good.
If there is at least one people who is good, then Travis is strange and Ron is not intelligent.
It can be concluded that Ron is not good once knowing that Richard is not guilty.
If there is at least one people who is guilty, then Brock is good.
If someone is not guilty or he is intelligent, then he is strange.
If someone is not intelligent, then he is not combative, and vice versa. | Travis is not good. | neutral |
Harris is combative.
Ron is not combative.
Ron is intelligent.
Brock is not combative.
Brock is not strange.
Travis is not intelligent.
Ron is good.
Kianna is not strange.
Brock is not guilty.
Richard is not combative.
Kianna is good.
Harris is not strange.Someone being both easy and not intelligent is equivalent to being combative and not strange.
If Kianna is good, then Kianna is combative and Travis is not strange.
Someone being not strange is equivalent to being not easy.
It can be concluded that Brock is combative once knowing that Ron is not strange.
If someone who is not combative is also intelligent, then he is not guilty.
If there is someone who is either not good or not guilty, then Brock is intelligent.
If Kianna is strange, then Richard is not good.
If there is at least one people who is good, then Travis is strange and Ron is not intelligent.
It can be concluded that Ron is not good once knowing that Richard is not guilty.
If there is at least one people who is guilty, then Brock is good.
If someone is not guilty or he is intelligent, then he is strange.
If someone is not intelligent, then he is not combative, and vice versa. | Brock is not strange. | self_contradiction |
Harris is combative.
Ron is not combative.
Ron is intelligent.
Brock is not combative.
Brock is not strange.
Travis is not intelligent.
Ron is good.
Kianna is not strange.
Brock is not guilty.
Richard is not combative.
Kianna is good.
Harris is not strange.Someone being both easy and not intelligent is equivalent to being combative and not strange.
If Kianna is good, then Kianna is combative and Travis is not strange.
Someone being not strange is equivalent to being not easy.
It can be concluded that Brock is combative once knowing that Ron is not strange.
If someone who is not combative is also intelligent, then he is not guilty.
If there is someone who is either not good or not guilty, then Brock is intelligent.
If Kianna is strange, then Richard is not good.
If there is at least one people who is good, then Travis is strange and Ron is not intelligent.
It can be concluded that Ron is not good once knowing that Richard is not guilty.
If there is at least one people who is guilty, then Brock is good.
If someone is not guilty or he is intelligent, then he is strange.
If someone is not intelligent, then he is not combative, and vice versa. | Harris is strange. | contradiction |
Harris is combative.
Ron is not combative.
Ron is intelligent.
Brock is not combative.
Brock is not strange.
Travis is not intelligent.
Ron is good.
Kianna is not strange.
Brock is not guilty.
Richard is not combative.
Kianna is good.
Harris is not strange.Someone being both easy and not intelligent is equivalent to being combative and not strange.
If Kianna is good, then Kianna is combative and Travis is not strange.
Someone being not strange is equivalent to being not easy.
It can be concluded that Brock is combative once knowing that Ron is not strange.
If someone who is not combative is also intelligent, then he is not guilty.
If there is someone who is either not good or not guilty, then Brock is intelligent.
If Kianna is strange, then Richard is not good.
If there is at least one people who is good, then Travis is strange and Ron is not intelligent.
It can be concluded that Ron is not good once knowing that Richard is not guilty.
If there is at least one people who is guilty, then Brock is good.
If someone is not guilty or he is intelligent, then he is strange.
If someone is not intelligent, then he is not combative, and vice versa. | Brock is easy. | contradiction |
Marlon is better.
Kirby is better.
Katrina is not light.
Katrina is not weak.
Glen is light.
Coleman is troubled.
Kirby is massive.
Bud is massive.
Marlon is encouraging.
Kirby is not weak.
Glen is not troubled.
Coleman is not better.If everyone is better, then Kirby is not massive and Bud is light.
Someone is not massive if and only if he is weak.
Katrina being light is equivalent to Coleman being not troubled and Bud being massive.
If there is someone who is not better, then Graham is massive.
Someone being both not massive and weak is equivalent to being light.
It can be concluded that Glen is massive once knowing that Coleman is troubled and Bud is weak.
If someone is not troubled and not encouraging, then he is both massive and not better, and vice versa.
If someone is not encouraging, then he is massive.
If Katrina is massive, then Katrina is troubled, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is not weak, then Graham is not light and Bud is better.
If someone is not massive and weak, then he is troubled, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Graham is weak once knowing that Kirby is massive. | Marlon is not encouraging. | contradiction |
Marlon is better.
Kirby is better.
Katrina is not light.
Katrina is not weak.
Glen is light.
Coleman is troubled.
Kirby is massive.
Bud is massive.
Marlon is encouraging.
Kirby is not weak.
Glen is not troubled.
Coleman is not better.If everyone is better, then Kirby is not massive and Bud is light.
Someone is not massive if and only if he is weak.
Katrina being light is equivalent to Coleman being not troubled and Bud being massive.
If there is someone who is not better, then Graham is massive.
Someone being both not massive and weak is equivalent to being light.
It can be concluded that Glen is massive once knowing that Coleman is troubled and Bud is weak.
If someone is not troubled and not encouraging, then he is both massive and not better, and vice versa.
If someone is not encouraging, then he is massive.
If Katrina is massive, then Katrina is troubled, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is not weak, then Graham is not light and Bud is better.
If someone is not massive and weak, then he is troubled, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Graham is weak once knowing that Kirby is massive. | Bud is not better. | contradiction |
Marlon is better.
Kirby is better.
Katrina is not light.
Katrina is not weak.
Glen is light.
Coleman is troubled.
Kirby is massive.
Bud is massive.
Marlon is encouraging.
Kirby is not weak.
Glen is not troubled.
Coleman is not better.If everyone is better, then Kirby is not massive and Bud is light.
Someone is not massive if and only if he is weak.
Katrina being light is equivalent to Coleman being not troubled and Bud being massive.
If there is someone who is not better, then Graham is massive.
Someone being both not massive and weak is equivalent to being light.
It can be concluded that Glen is massive once knowing that Coleman is troubled and Bud is weak.
If someone is not troubled and not encouraging, then he is both massive and not better, and vice versa.
If someone is not encouraging, then he is massive.
If Katrina is massive, then Katrina is troubled, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is not weak, then Graham is not light and Bud is better.
If someone is not massive and weak, then he is troubled, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Graham is weak once knowing that Kirby is massive. | Glen is not troubled. | self_contradiction |
Marlon is better.
Kirby is better.
Katrina is not light.
Katrina is not weak.
Glen is light.
Coleman is troubled.
Kirby is massive.
Bud is massive.
Marlon is encouraging.
Kirby is not weak.
Glen is not troubled.
Coleman is not better.If everyone is better, then Kirby is not massive and Bud is light.
Someone is not massive if and only if he is weak.
Katrina being light is equivalent to Coleman being not troubled and Bud being massive.
If there is someone who is not better, then Graham is massive.
Someone being both not massive and weak is equivalent to being light.
It can be concluded that Glen is massive once knowing that Coleman is troubled and Bud is weak.
If someone is not troubled and not encouraging, then he is both massive and not better, and vice versa.
If someone is not encouraging, then he is massive.
If Katrina is massive, then Katrina is troubled, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is not weak, then Graham is not light and Bud is better.
If someone is not massive and weak, then he is troubled, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Graham is weak once knowing that Kirby is massive. | Glen is not massive. | entailment |
Marlon is better.
Kirby is better.
Katrina is not light.
Katrina is not weak.
Glen is light.
Coleman is troubled.
Kirby is massive.
Bud is massive.
Marlon is encouraging.
Kirby is not weak.
Glen is not troubled.
Coleman is not better.If everyone is better, then Kirby is not massive and Bud is light.
Someone is not massive if and only if he is weak.
Katrina being light is equivalent to Coleman being not troubled and Bud being massive.
If there is someone who is not better, then Graham is massive.
Someone being both not massive and weak is equivalent to being light.
It can be concluded that Glen is massive once knowing that Coleman is troubled and Bud is weak.
If someone is not troubled and not encouraging, then he is both massive and not better, and vice versa.
If someone is not encouraging, then he is massive.
If Katrina is massive, then Katrina is troubled, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is not weak, then Graham is not light and Bud is better.
If someone is not massive and weak, then he is troubled, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Graham is weak once knowing that Kirby is massive. | Katrina is not weak. | entailment |
Marlon is better.
Kirby is better.
Katrina is not light.
Katrina is not weak.
Glen is light.
Coleman is troubled.
Kirby is massive.
Bud is massive.
Marlon is encouraging.
Kirby is not weak.
Glen is not troubled.
Coleman is not better.If everyone is better, then Kirby is not massive and Bud is light.
Someone is not massive if and only if he is weak.
Katrina being light is equivalent to Coleman being not troubled and Bud being massive.
If there is someone who is not better, then Graham is massive.
Someone being both not massive and weak is equivalent to being light.
It can be concluded that Glen is massive once knowing that Coleman is troubled and Bud is weak.
If someone is not troubled and not encouraging, then he is both massive and not better, and vice versa.
If someone is not encouraging, then he is massive.
If Katrina is massive, then Katrina is troubled, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is not weak, then Graham is not light and Bud is better.
If someone is not massive and weak, then he is troubled, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Graham is weak once knowing that Kirby is massive. | Bud is not troubled. | neutral |
Marlon is better.
Kirby is better.
Katrina is not light.
Katrina is not weak.
Glen is light.
Coleman is troubled.
Kirby is massive.
Bud is massive.
Marlon is encouraging.
Kirby is not weak.
Glen is not troubled.
Coleman is not better.If everyone is better, then Kirby is not massive and Bud is light.
Someone is not massive if and only if he is weak.
Katrina being light is equivalent to Coleman being not troubled and Bud being massive.
If there is someone who is not better, then Graham is massive.
Someone being both not massive and weak is equivalent to being light.
It can be concluded that Glen is massive once knowing that Coleman is troubled and Bud is weak.
If someone is not troubled and not encouraging, then he is both massive and not better, and vice versa.
If someone is not encouraging, then he is massive.
If Katrina is massive, then Katrina is troubled, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is not weak, then Graham is not light and Bud is better.
If someone is not massive and weak, then he is troubled, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Graham is weak once knowing that Kirby is massive. | Coleman is not better. | entailment |
Marlon is better.
Kirby is better.
Katrina is not light.
Katrina is not weak.
Glen is light.
Coleman is troubled.
Kirby is massive.
Bud is massive.
Marlon is encouraging.
Kirby is not weak.
Glen is not troubled.
Coleman is not better.If everyone is better, then Kirby is not massive and Bud is light.
Someone is not massive if and only if he is weak.
Katrina being light is equivalent to Coleman being not troubled and Bud being massive.
If there is someone who is not better, then Graham is massive.
Someone being both not massive and weak is equivalent to being light.
It can be concluded that Glen is massive once knowing that Coleman is troubled and Bud is weak.
If someone is not troubled and not encouraging, then he is both massive and not better, and vice versa.
If someone is not encouraging, then he is massive.
If Katrina is massive, then Katrina is troubled, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is not weak, then Graham is not light and Bud is better.
If someone is not massive and weak, then he is troubled, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Graham is weak once knowing that Kirby is massive. | Bud is not massive. | contradiction |
Marlon is better.
Kirby is better.
Katrina is not light.
Katrina is not weak.
Glen is light.
Coleman is troubled.
Kirby is massive.
Bud is massive.
Marlon is encouraging.
Kirby is not weak.
Glen is not troubled.
Coleman is not better.If everyone is better, then Kirby is not massive and Bud is light.
Someone is not massive if and only if he is weak.
Katrina being light is equivalent to Coleman being not troubled and Bud being massive.
If there is someone who is not better, then Graham is massive.
Someone being both not massive and weak is equivalent to being light.
It can be concluded that Glen is massive once knowing that Coleman is troubled and Bud is weak.
If someone is not troubled and not encouraging, then he is both massive and not better, and vice versa.
If someone is not encouraging, then he is massive.
If Katrina is massive, then Katrina is troubled, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is not weak, then Graham is not light and Bud is better.
If someone is not massive and weak, then he is troubled, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Graham is weak once knowing that Kirby is massive. | Glen is not light. | contradiction |
Marlon is better.
Kirby is better.
Katrina is not light.
Katrina is not weak.
Glen is light.
Coleman is troubled.
Kirby is massive.
Bud is massive.
Marlon is encouraging.
Kirby is not weak.
Glen is not troubled.
Coleman is not better.If everyone is better, then Kirby is not massive and Bud is light.
Someone is not massive if and only if he is weak.
Katrina being light is equivalent to Coleman being not troubled and Bud being massive.
If there is someone who is not better, then Graham is massive.
Someone being both not massive and weak is equivalent to being light.
It can be concluded that Glen is massive once knowing that Coleman is troubled and Bud is weak.
If someone is not troubled and not encouraging, then he is both massive and not better, and vice versa.
If someone is not encouraging, then he is massive.
If Katrina is massive, then Katrina is troubled, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is not weak, then Graham is not light and Bud is better.
If someone is not massive and weak, then he is troubled, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Graham is weak once knowing that Kirby is massive. | Glen is encouraging. | neutral |
Marlon is better.
Kirby is better.
Katrina is not light.
Katrina is not weak.
Glen is light.
Coleman is troubled.
Kirby is massive.
Bud is massive.
Marlon is encouraging.
Kirby is not weak.
Glen is not troubled.
Coleman is not better.If everyone is better, then Kirby is not massive and Bud is light.
Someone is not massive if and only if he is weak.
Katrina being light is equivalent to Coleman being not troubled and Bud being massive.
If there is someone who is not better, then Graham is massive.
Someone being both not massive and weak is equivalent to being light.
It can be concluded that Glen is massive once knowing that Coleman is troubled and Bud is weak.
If someone is not troubled and not encouraging, then he is both massive and not better, and vice versa.
If someone is not encouraging, then he is massive.
If Katrina is massive, then Katrina is troubled, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is not weak, then Graham is not light and Bud is better.
If someone is not massive and weak, then he is troubled, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Graham is weak once knowing that Kirby is massive. | Coleman is not weak. | contradiction |
Marlon is better.
Kirby is better.
Katrina is not light.
Katrina is not weak.
Glen is light.
Coleman is troubled.
Kirby is massive.
Bud is massive.
Marlon is encouraging.
Kirby is not weak.
Glen is not troubled.
Coleman is not better.If everyone is better, then Kirby is not massive and Bud is light.
Someone is not massive if and only if he is weak.
Katrina being light is equivalent to Coleman being not troubled and Bud being massive.
If there is someone who is not better, then Graham is massive.
Someone being both not massive and weak is equivalent to being light.
It can be concluded that Glen is massive once knowing that Coleman is troubled and Bud is weak.
If someone is not troubled and not encouraging, then he is both massive and not better, and vice versa.
If someone is not encouraging, then he is massive.
If Katrina is massive, then Katrina is troubled, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is not weak, then Graham is not light and Bud is better.
If someone is not massive and weak, then he is troubled, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Graham is weak once knowing that Kirby is massive. | Kirby is not troubled. | neutral |
Marlon is better.
Kirby is better.
Katrina is not light.
Katrina is not weak.
Glen is light.
Coleman is troubled.
Kirby is massive.
Bud is massive.
Marlon is encouraging.
Kirby is not weak.
Glen is not troubled.
Coleman is not better.If everyone is better, then Kirby is not massive and Bud is light.
Someone is not massive if and only if he is weak.
Katrina being light is equivalent to Coleman being not troubled and Bud being massive.
If there is someone who is not better, then Graham is massive.
Someone being both not massive and weak is equivalent to being light.
It can be concluded that Glen is massive once knowing that Coleman is troubled and Bud is weak.
If someone is not troubled and not encouraging, then he is both massive and not better, and vice versa.
If someone is not encouraging, then he is massive.
If Katrina is massive, then Katrina is troubled, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is not weak, then Graham is not light and Bud is better.
If someone is not massive and weak, then he is troubled, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Graham is weak once knowing that Kirby is massive. | Marlon is not troubled. | neutral |
Marlon is better.
Kirby is better.
Katrina is not light.
Katrina is not weak.
Glen is light.
Coleman is troubled.
Kirby is massive.
Bud is massive.
Marlon is encouraging.
Kirby is not weak.
Glen is not troubled.
Coleman is not better.If everyone is better, then Kirby is not massive and Bud is light.
Someone is not massive if and only if he is weak.
Katrina being light is equivalent to Coleman being not troubled and Bud being massive.
If there is someone who is not better, then Graham is massive.
Someone being both not massive and weak is equivalent to being light.
It can be concluded that Glen is massive once knowing that Coleman is troubled and Bud is weak.
If someone is not troubled and not encouraging, then he is both massive and not better, and vice versa.
If someone is not encouraging, then he is massive.
If Katrina is massive, then Katrina is troubled, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is not weak, then Graham is not light and Bud is better.
If someone is not massive and weak, then he is troubled, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Graham is weak once knowing that Kirby is massive. | Graham is massive. | self_contradiction |
Marlon is better.
Kirby is better.
Katrina is not light.
Katrina is not weak.
Glen is light.
Coleman is troubled.
Kirby is massive.
Bud is massive.
Marlon is encouraging.
Kirby is not weak.
Glen is not troubled.
Coleman is not better.If everyone is better, then Kirby is not massive and Bud is light.
Someone is not massive if and only if he is weak.
Katrina being light is equivalent to Coleman being not troubled and Bud being massive.
If there is someone who is not better, then Graham is massive.
Someone being both not massive and weak is equivalent to being light.
It can be concluded that Glen is massive once knowing that Coleman is troubled and Bud is weak.
If someone is not troubled and not encouraging, then he is both massive and not better, and vice versa.
If someone is not encouraging, then he is massive.
If Katrina is massive, then Katrina is troubled, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is not weak, then Graham is not light and Bud is better.
If someone is not massive and weak, then he is troubled, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Graham is weak once knowing that Kirby is massive. | Graham is troubled. | entailment |
Marlon is better.
Kirby is better.
Katrina is not light.
Katrina is not weak.
Glen is light.
Coleman is troubled.
Kirby is massive.
Bud is massive.
Marlon is encouraging.
Kirby is not weak.
Glen is not troubled.
Coleman is not better.If everyone is better, then Kirby is not massive and Bud is light.
Someone is not massive if and only if he is weak.
Katrina being light is equivalent to Coleman being not troubled and Bud being massive.
If there is someone who is not better, then Graham is massive.
Someone being both not massive and weak is equivalent to being light.
It can be concluded that Glen is massive once knowing that Coleman is troubled and Bud is weak.
If someone is not troubled and not encouraging, then he is both massive and not better, and vice versa.
If someone is not encouraging, then he is massive.
If Katrina is massive, then Katrina is troubled, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is not weak, then Graham is not light and Bud is better.
If someone is not massive and weak, then he is troubled, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Graham is weak once knowing that Kirby is massive. | Graham is not light. | self_contradiction |
Marlon is better.
Kirby is better.
Katrina is not light.
Katrina is not weak.
Glen is light.
Coleman is troubled.
Kirby is massive.
Bud is massive.
Marlon is encouraging.
Kirby is not weak.
Glen is not troubled.
Coleman is not better.If everyone is better, then Kirby is not massive and Bud is light.
Someone is not massive if and only if he is weak.
Katrina being light is equivalent to Coleman being not troubled and Bud being massive.
If there is someone who is not better, then Graham is massive.
Someone being both not massive and weak is equivalent to being light.
It can be concluded that Glen is massive once knowing that Coleman is troubled and Bud is weak.
If someone is not troubled and not encouraging, then he is both massive and not better, and vice versa.
If someone is not encouraging, then he is massive.
If Katrina is massive, then Katrina is troubled, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is not weak, then Graham is not light and Bud is better.
If someone is not massive and weak, then he is troubled, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Graham is weak once knowing that Kirby is massive. | Glen is troubled. | self_contradiction |
Marlon is better.
Kirby is better.
Katrina is not light.
Katrina is not weak.
Glen is light.
Coleman is troubled.
Kirby is massive.
Bud is massive.
Marlon is encouraging.
Kirby is not weak.
Glen is not troubled.
Coleman is not better.If everyone is better, then Kirby is not massive and Bud is light.
Someone is not massive if and only if he is weak.
Katrina being light is equivalent to Coleman being not troubled and Bud being massive.
If there is someone who is not better, then Graham is massive.
Someone being both not massive and weak is equivalent to being light.
It can be concluded that Glen is massive once knowing that Coleman is troubled and Bud is weak.
If someone is not troubled and not encouraging, then he is both massive and not better, and vice versa.
If someone is not encouraging, then he is massive.
If Katrina is massive, then Katrina is troubled, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is not weak, then Graham is not light and Bud is better.
If someone is not massive and weak, then he is troubled, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Graham is weak once knowing that Kirby is massive. | Katrina is not troubled. | neutral |
Marlon is better.
Kirby is better.
Katrina is not light.
Katrina is not weak.
Glen is light.
Coleman is troubled.
Kirby is massive.
Bud is massive.
Marlon is encouraging.
Kirby is not weak.
Glen is not troubled.
Coleman is not better.If everyone is better, then Kirby is not massive and Bud is light.
Someone is not massive if and only if he is weak.
Katrina being light is equivalent to Coleman being not troubled and Bud being massive.
If there is someone who is not better, then Graham is massive.
Someone being both not massive and weak is equivalent to being light.
It can be concluded that Glen is massive once knowing that Coleman is troubled and Bud is weak.
If someone is not troubled and not encouraging, then he is both massive and not better, and vice versa.
If someone is not encouraging, then he is massive.
If Katrina is massive, then Katrina is troubled, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is not weak, then Graham is not light and Bud is better.
If someone is not massive and weak, then he is troubled, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Graham is weak once knowing that Kirby is massive. | Graham is not massive. | self_contradiction |
Marlon is better.
Kirby is better.
Katrina is not light.
Katrina is not weak.
Glen is light.
Coleman is troubled.
Kirby is massive.
Bud is massive.
Marlon is encouraging.
Kirby is not weak.
Glen is not troubled.
Coleman is not better.If everyone is better, then Kirby is not massive and Bud is light.
Someone is not massive if and only if he is weak.
Katrina being light is equivalent to Coleman being not troubled and Bud being massive.
If there is someone who is not better, then Graham is massive.
Someone being both not massive and weak is equivalent to being light.
It can be concluded that Glen is massive once knowing that Coleman is troubled and Bud is weak.
If someone is not troubled and not encouraging, then he is both massive and not better, and vice versa.
If someone is not encouraging, then he is massive.
If Katrina is massive, then Katrina is troubled, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is not weak, then Graham is not light and Bud is better.
If someone is not massive and weak, then he is troubled, and vice versa.
It can be concluded that Graham is weak once knowing that Kirby is massive. | Kirby is not weak. | entailment |
Amery is horrible.
Brian is not guilty.
Thomas is not orange.
Abner is not guilty.
Amery is orange.
Laurence is guilty.
Thomas is wooden.
Laurence is unpleasant.
Brice is guilty.
Abner is orange.
Amery is wooden.
Thomas is not unpleasant.It can be concluded that Joe is not guilty and Laurence is orange once knowing that Brice is not wooden.
Someone is unpleasant and not horrible if and only if he is not wooden.
If someone is orange, then he is not horrible.
Someone being both orange and wooden is equivalent to being not bad and not unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is not horrible and Joe is guilty.
If Amery is not guilty and Laurence is not wooden, then Thomas is bad and Amery is not horrible.
If someone is orange and wooden, then he is horrible and unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is unpleasant.
Brian is unpleasant if and only if Brice is not horrible.
It can be concluded that Joe is unpleasant once knowing that Abner is guilty or Brice is not horrible.
Someone is not bad and not wooden if and only if he is not guilty.
If Brian is orange, then Laurence is not unpleasant, and vice versa. | Brian is bad. | contradiction |
Amery is horrible.
Brian is not guilty.
Thomas is not orange.
Abner is not guilty.
Amery is orange.
Laurence is guilty.
Thomas is wooden.
Laurence is unpleasant.
Brice is guilty.
Abner is orange.
Amery is wooden.
Thomas is not unpleasant.It can be concluded that Joe is not guilty and Laurence is orange once knowing that Brice is not wooden.
Someone is unpleasant and not horrible if and only if he is not wooden.
If someone is orange, then he is not horrible.
Someone being both orange and wooden is equivalent to being not bad and not unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is not horrible and Joe is guilty.
If Amery is not guilty and Laurence is not wooden, then Thomas is bad and Amery is not horrible.
If someone is orange and wooden, then he is horrible and unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is unpleasant.
Brian is unpleasant if and only if Brice is not horrible.
It can be concluded that Joe is unpleasant once knowing that Abner is guilty or Brice is not horrible.
Someone is not bad and not wooden if and only if he is not guilty.
If Brian is orange, then Laurence is not unpleasant, and vice versa. | Joe is orange. | neutral |
Amery is horrible.
Brian is not guilty.
Thomas is not orange.
Abner is not guilty.
Amery is orange.
Laurence is guilty.
Thomas is wooden.
Laurence is unpleasant.
Brice is guilty.
Abner is orange.
Amery is wooden.
Thomas is not unpleasant.It can be concluded that Joe is not guilty and Laurence is orange once knowing that Brice is not wooden.
Someone is unpleasant and not horrible if and only if he is not wooden.
If someone is orange, then he is not horrible.
Someone being both orange and wooden is equivalent to being not bad and not unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is not horrible and Joe is guilty.
If Amery is not guilty and Laurence is not wooden, then Thomas is bad and Amery is not horrible.
If someone is orange and wooden, then he is horrible and unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is unpleasant.
Brian is unpleasant if and only if Brice is not horrible.
It can be concluded that Joe is unpleasant once knowing that Abner is guilty or Brice is not horrible.
Someone is not bad and not wooden if and only if he is not guilty.
If Brian is orange, then Laurence is not unpleasant, and vice versa. | Amery is horrible. | self_contradiction |
Amery is horrible.
Brian is not guilty.
Thomas is not orange.
Abner is not guilty.
Amery is orange.
Laurence is guilty.
Thomas is wooden.
Laurence is unpleasant.
Brice is guilty.
Abner is orange.
Amery is wooden.
Thomas is not unpleasant.It can be concluded that Joe is not guilty and Laurence is orange once knowing that Brice is not wooden.
Someone is unpleasant and not horrible if and only if he is not wooden.
If someone is orange, then he is not horrible.
Someone being both orange and wooden is equivalent to being not bad and not unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is not horrible and Joe is guilty.
If Amery is not guilty and Laurence is not wooden, then Thomas is bad and Amery is not horrible.
If someone is orange and wooden, then he is horrible and unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is unpleasant.
Brian is unpleasant if and only if Brice is not horrible.
It can be concluded that Joe is unpleasant once knowing that Abner is guilty or Brice is not horrible.
Someone is not bad and not wooden if and only if he is not guilty.
If Brian is orange, then Laurence is not unpleasant, and vice versa. | Amery is not wooden. | self_contradiction |
Amery is horrible.
Brian is not guilty.
Thomas is not orange.
Abner is not guilty.
Amery is orange.
Laurence is guilty.
Thomas is wooden.
Laurence is unpleasant.
Brice is guilty.
Abner is orange.
Amery is wooden.
Thomas is not unpleasant.It can be concluded that Joe is not guilty and Laurence is orange once knowing that Brice is not wooden.
Someone is unpleasant and not horrible if and only if he is not wooden.
If someone is orange, then he is not horrible.
Someone being both orange and wooden is equivalent to being not bad and not unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is not horrible and Joe is guilty.
If Amery is not guilty and Laurence is not wooden, then Thomas is bad and Amery is not horrible.
If someone is orange and wooden, then he is horrible and unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is unpleasant.
Brian is unpleasant if and only if Brice is not horrible.
It can be concluded that Joe is unpleasant once knowing that Abner is guilty or Brice is not horrible.
Someone is not bad and not wooden if and only if he is not guilty.
If Brian is orange, then Laurence is not unpleasant, and vice versa. | Abner is bad. | contradiction |
Amery is horrible.
Brian is not guilty.
Thomas is not orange.
Abner is not guilty.
Amery is orange.
Laurence is guilty.
Thomas is wooden.
Laurence is unpleasant.
Brice is guilty.
Abner is orange.
Amery is wooden.
Thomas is not unpleasant.It can be concluded that Joe is not guilty and Laurence is orange once knowing that Brice is not wooden.
Someone is unpleasant and not horrible if and only if he is not wooden.
If someone is orange, then he is not horrible.
Someone being both orange and wooden is equivalent to being not bad and not unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is not horrible and Joe is guilty.
If Amery is not guilty and Laurence is not wooden, then Thomas is bad and Amery is not horrible.
If someone is orange and wooden, then he is horrible and unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is unpleasant.
Brian is unpleasant if and only if Brice is not horrible.
It can be concluded that Joe is unpleasant once knowing that Abner is guilty or Brice is not horrible.
Someone is not bad and not wooden if and only if he is not guilty.
If Brian is orange, then Laurence is not unpleasant, and vice versa. | Joe is not horrible. | neutral |
Amery is horrible.
Brian is not guilty.
Thomas is not orange.
Abner is not guilty.
Amery is orange.
Laurence is guilty.
Thomas is wooden.
Laurence is unpleasant.
Brice is guilty.
Abner is orange.
Amery is wooden.
Thomas is not unpleasant.It can be concluded that Joe is not guilty and Laurence is orange once knowing that Brice is not wooden.
Someone is unpleasant and not horrible if and only if he is not wooden.
If someone is orange, then he is not horrible.
Someone being both orange and wooden is equivalent to being not bad and not unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is not horrible and Joe is guilty.
If Amery is not guilty and Laurence is not wooden, then Thomas is bad and Amery is not horrible.
If someone is orange and wooden, then he is horrible and unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is unpleasant.
Brian is unpleasant if and only if Brice is not horrible.
It can be concluded that Joe is unpleasant once knowing that Abner is guilty or Brice is not horrible.
Someone is not bad and not wooden if and only if he is not guilty.
If Brian is orange, then Laurence is not unpleasant, and vice versa. | Brian is not wooden. | entailment |
Amery is horrible.
Brian is not guilty.
Thomas is not orange.
Abner is not guilty.
Amery is orange.
Laurence is guilty.
Thomas is wooden.
Laurence is unpleasant.
Brice is guilty.
Abner is orange.
Amery is wooden.
Thomas is not unpleasant.It can be concluded that Joe is not guilty and Laurence is orange once knowing that Brice is not wooden.
Someone is unpleasant and not horrible if and only if he is not wooden.
If someone is orange, then he is not horrible.
Someone being both orange and wooden is equivalent to being not bad and not unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is not horrible and Joe is guilty.
If Amery is not guilty and Laurence is not wooden, then Thomas is bad and Amery is not horrible.
If someone is orange and wooden, then he is horrible and unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is unpleasant.
Brian is unpleasant if and only if Brice is not horrible.
It can be concluded that Joe is unpleasant once knowing that Abner is guilty or Brice is not horrible.
Someone is not bad and not wooden if and only if he is not guilty.
If Brian is orange, then Laurence is not unpleasant, and vice versa. | Laurence is not unpleasant. | contradiction |
Amery is horrible.
Brian is not guilty.
Thomas is not orange.
Abner is not guilty.
Amery is orange.
Laurence is guilty.
Thomas is wooden.
Laurence is unpleasant.
Brice is guilty.
Abner is orange.
Amery is wooden.
Thomas is not unpleasant.It can be concluded that Joe is not guilty and Laurence is orange once knowing that Brice is not wooden.
Someone is unpleasant and not horrible if and only if he is not wooden.
If someone is orange, then he is not horrible.
Someone being both orange and wooden is equivalent to being not bad and not unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is not horrible and Joe is guilty.
If Amery is not guilty and Laurence is not wooden, then Thomas is bad and Amery is not horrible.
If someone is orange and wooden, then he is horrible and unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is unpleasant.
Brian is unpleasant if and only if Brice is not horrible.
It can be concluded that Joe is unpleasant once knowing that Abner is guilty or Brice is not horrible.
Someone is not bad and not wooden if and only if he is not guilty.
If Brian is orange, then Laurence is not unpleasant, and vice versa. | Amery is unpleasant. | self_contradiction |
Amery is horrible.
Brian is not guilty.
Thomas is not orange.
Abner is not guilty.
Amery is orange.
Laurence is guilty.
Thomas is wooden.
Laurence is unpleasant.
Brice is guilty.
Abner is orange.
Amery is wooden.
Thomas is not unpleasant.It can be concluded that Joe is not guilty and Laurence is orange once knowing that Brice is not wooden.
Someone is unpleasant and not horrible if and only if he is not wooden.
If someone is orange, then he is not horrible.
Someone being both orange and wooden is equivalent to being not bad and not unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is not horrible and Joe is guilty.
If Amery is not guilty and Laurence is not wooden, then Thomas is bad and Amery is not horrible.
If someone is orange and wooden, then he is horrible and unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is unpleasant.
Brian is unpleasant if and only if Brice is not horrible.
It can be concluded that Joe is unpleasant once knowing that Abner is guilty or Brice is not horrible.
Someone is not bad and not wooden if and only if he is not guilty.
If Brian is orange, then Laurence is not unpleasant, and vice versa. | Abner is not guilty. | entailment |
Amery is horrible.
Brian is not guilty.
Thomas is not orange.
Abner is not guilty.
Amery is orange.
Laurence is guilty.
Thomas is wooden.
Laurence is unpleasant.
Brice is guilty.
Abner is orange.
Amery is wooden.
Thomas is not unpleasant.It can be concluded that Joe is not guilty and Laurence is orange once knowing that Brice is not wooden.
Someone is unpleasant and not horrible if and only if he is not wooden.
If someone is orange, then he is not horrible.
Someone being both orange and wooden is equivalent to being not bad and not unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is not horrible and Joe is guilty.
If Amery is not guilty and Laurence is not wooden, then Thomas is bad and Amery is not horrible.
If someone is orange and wooden, then he is horrible and unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is unpleasant.
Brian is unpleasant if and only if Brice is not horrible.
It can be concluded that Joe is unpleasant once knowing that Abner is guilty or Brice is not horrible.
Someone is not bad and not wooden if and only if he is not guilty.
If Brian is orange, then Laurence is not unpleasant, and vice versa. | Amery is not unpleasant. | self_contradiction |
Amery is horrible.
Brian is not guilty.
Thomas is not orange.
Abner is not guilty.
Amery is orange.
Laurence is guilty.
Thomas is wooden.
Laurence is unpleasant.
Brice is guilty.
Abner is orange.
Amery is wooden.
Thomas is not unpleasant.It can be concluded that Joe is not guilty and Laurence is orange once knowing that Brice is not wooden.
Someone is unpleasant and not horrible if and only if he is not wooden.
If someone is orange, then he is not horrible.
Someone being both orange and wooden is equivalent to being not bad and not unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is not horrible and Joe is guilty.
If Amery is not guilty and Laurence is not wooden, then Thomas is bad and Amery is not horrible.
If someone is orange and wooden, then he is horrible and unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is unpleasant.
Brian is unpleasant if and only if Brice is not horrible.
It can be concluded that Joe is unpleasant once knowing that Abner is guilty or Brice is not horrible.
Someone is not bad and not wooden if and only if he is not guilty.
If Brian is orange, then Laurence is not unpleasant, and vice versa. | Thomas is guilty. | neutral |
Amery is horrible.
Brian is not guilty.
Thomas is not orange.
Abner is not guilty.
Amery is orange.
Laurence is guilty.
Thomas is wooden.
Laurence is unpleasant.
Brice is guilty.
Abner is orange.
Amery is wooden.
Thomas is not unpleasant.It can be concluded that Joe is not guilty and Laurence is orange once knowing that Brice is not wooden.
Someone is unpleasant and not horrible if and only if he is not wooden.
If someone is orange, then he is not horrible.
Someone being both orange and wooden is equivalent to being not bad and not unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is not horrible and Joe is guilty.
If Amery is not guilty and Laurence is not wooden, then Thomas is bad and Amery is not horrible.
If someone is orange and wooden, then he is horrible and unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is unpleasant.
Brian is unpleasant if and only if Brice is not horrible.
It can be concluded that Joe is unpleasant once knowing that Abner is guilty or Brice is not horrible.
Someone is not bad and not wooden if and only if he is not guilty.
If Brian is orange, then Laurence is not unpleasant, and vice versa. | Brian is not bad. | entailment |
Amery is horrible.
Brian is not guilty.
Thomas is not orange.
Abner is not guilty.
Amery is orange.
Laurence is guilty.
Thomas is wooden.
Laurence is unpleasant.
Brice is guilty.
Abner is orange.
Amery is wooden.
Thomas is not unpleasant.It can be concluded that Joe is not guilty and Laurence is orange once knowing that Brice is not wooden.
Someone is unpleasant and not horrible if and only if he is not wooden.
If someone is orange, then he is not horrible.
Someone being both orange and wooden is equivalent to being not bad and not unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is not horrible and Joe is guilty.
If Amery is not guilty and Laurence is not wooden, then Thomas is bad and Amery is not horrible.
If someone is orange and wooden, then he is horrible and unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is unpleasant.
Brian is unpleasant if and only if Brice is not horrible.
It can be concluded that Joe is unpleasant once knowing that Abner is guilty or Brice is not horrible.
Someone is not bad and not wooden if and only if he is not guilty.
If Brian is orange, then Laurence is not unpleasant, and vice versa. | Thomas is wooden. | entailment |
Amery is horrible.
Brian is not guilty.
Thomas is not orange.
Abner is not guilty.
Amery is orange.
Laurence is guilty.
Thomas is wooden.
Laurence is unpleasant.
Brice is guilty.
Abner is orange.
Amery is wooden.
Thomas is not unpleasant.It can be concluded that Joe is not guilty and Laurence is orange once knowing that Brice is not wooden.
Someone is unpleasant and not horrible if and only if he is not wooden.
If someone is orange, then he is not horrible.
Someone being both orange and wooden is equivalent to being not bad and not unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is not horrible and Joe is guilty.
If Amery is not guilty and Laurence is not wooden, then Thomas is bad and Amery is not horrible.
If someone is orange and wooden, then he is horrible and unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is unpleasant.
Brian is unpleasant if and only if Brice is not horrible.
It can be concluded that Joe is unpleasant once knowing that Abner is guilty or Brice is not horrible.
Someone is not bad and not wooden if and only if he is not guilty.
If Brian is orange, then Laurence is not unpleasant, and vice versa. | Amery is not horrible. | self_contradiction |
Amery is horrible.
Brian is not guilty.
Thomas is not orange.
Abner is not guilty.
Amery is orange.
Laurence is guilty.
Thomas is wooden.
Laurence is unpleasant.
Brice is guilty.
Abner is orange.
Amery is wooden.
Thomas is not unpleasant.It can be concluded that Joe is not guilty and Laurence is orange once knowing that Brice is not wooden.
Someone is unpleasant and not horrible if and only if he is not wooden.
If someone is orange, then he is not horrible.
Someone being both orange and wooden is equivalent to being not bad and not unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is not horrible and Joe is guilty.
If Amery is not guilty and Laurence is not wooden, then Thomas is bad and Amery is not horrible.
If someone is orange and wooden, then he is horrible and unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is unpleasant.
Brian is unpleasant if and only if Brice is not horrible.
It can be concluded that Joe is unpleasant once knowing that Abner is guilty or Brice is not horrible.
Someone is not bad and not wooden if and only if he is not guilty.
If Brian is orange, then Laurence is not unpleasant, and vice versa. | Laurence is horrible. | neutral |
Amery is horrible.
Brian is not guilty.
Thomas is not orange.
Abner is not guilty.
Amery is orange.
Laurence is guilty.
Thomas is wooden.
Laurence is unpleasant.
Brice is guilty.
Abner is orange.
Amery is wooden.
Thomas is not unpleasant.It can be concluded that Joe is not guilty and Laurence is orange once knowing that Brice is not wooden.
Someone is unpleasant and not horrible if and only if he is not wooden.
If someone is orange, then he is not horrible.
Someone being both orange and wooden is equivalent to being not bad and not unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is not horrible and Joe is guilty.
If Amery is not guilty and Laurence is not wooden, then Thomas is bad and Amery is not horrible.
If someone is orange and wooden, then he is horrible and unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is unpleasant.
Brian is unpleasant if and only if Brice is not horrible.
It can be concluded that Joe is unpleasant once knowing that Abner is guilty or Brice is not horrible.
Someone is not bad and not wooden if and only if he is not guilty.
If Brian is orange, then Laurence is not unpleasant, and vice versa. | Abner is guilty. | contradiction |
Amery is horrible.
Brian is not guilty.
Thomas is not orange.
Abner is not guilty.
Amery is orange.
Laurence is guilty.
Thomas is wooden.
Laurence is unpleasant.
Brice is guilty.
Abner is orange.
Amery is wooden.
Thomas is not unpleasant.It can be concluded that Joe is not guilty and Laurence is orange once knowing that Brice is not wooden.
Someone is unpleasant and not horrible if and only if he is not wooden.
If someone is orange, then he is not horrible.
Someone being both orange and wooden is equivalent to being not bad and not unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is not horrible and Joe is guilty.
If Amery is not guilty and Laurence is not wooden, then Thomas is bad and Amery is not horrible.
If someone is orange and wooden, then he is horrible and unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is unpleasant.
Brian is unpleasant if and only if Brice is not horrible.
It can be concluded that Joe is unpleasant once knowing that Abner is guilty or Brice is not horrible.
Someone is not bad and not wooden if and only if he is not guilty.
If Brian is orange, then Laurence is not unpleasant, and vice versa. | Abner is horrible. | contradiction |
Amery is horrible.
Brian is not guilty.
Thomas is not orange.
Abner is not guilty.
Amery is orange.
Laurence is guilty.
Thomas is wooden.
Laurence is unpleasant.
Brice is guilty.
Abner is orange.
Amery is wooden.
Thomas is not unpleasant.It can be concluded that Joe is not guilty and Laurence is orange once knowing that Brice is not wooden.
Someone is unpleasant and not horrible if and only if he is not wooden.
If someone is orange, then he is not horrible.
Someone being both orange and wooden is equivalent to being not bad and not unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is not horrible and Joe is guilty.
If Amery is not guilty and Laurence is not wooden, then Thomas is bad and Amery is not horrible.
If someone is orange and wooden, then he is horrible and unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is unpleasant.
Brian is unpleasant if and only if Brice is not horrible.
It can be concluded that Joe is unpleasant once knowing that Abner is guilty or Brice is not horrible.
Someone is not bad and not wooden if and only if he is not guilty.
If Brian is orange, then Laurence is not unpleasant, and vice versa. | Brice is not horrible. | entailment |
Amery is horrible.
Brian is not guilty.
Thomas is not orange.
Abner is not guilty.
Amery is orange.
Laurence is guilty.
Thomas is wooden.
Laurence is unpleasant.
Brice is guilty.
Abner is orange.
Amery is wooden.
Thomas is not unpleasant.It can be concluded that Joe is not guilty and Laurence is orange once knowing that Brice is not wooden.
Someone is unpleasant and not horrible if and only if he is not wooden.
If someone is orange, then he is not horrible.
Someone being both orange and wooden is equivalent to being not bad and not unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is not horrible and Joe is guilty.
If Amery is not guilty and Laurence is not wooden, then Thomas is bad and Amery is not horrible.
If someone is orange and wooden, then he is horrible and unpleasant.
If there is someone who is orange, then Abner is unpleasant.
Brian is unpleasant if and only if Brice is not horrible.
It can be concluded that Joe is unpleasant once knowing that Abner is guilty or Brice is not horrible.
Someone is not bad and not wooden if and only if he is not guilty.
If Brian is orange, then Laurence is not unpleasant, and vice versa. | Laurence is wooden. | neutral |
Katrina is aware.
Anthony is not aware.
Arthur is not angry.
Gilbert is not sharp.
Lucy is not discreet.
Grant is discreet.
Grant is wild.
Anthony is not outrageous.
Anthony is sharp.
Arthur is not wild.
Grant is not sharp.
Rory is sharp.If someone is sharp, then he is both wild and discreet.
Someone who is eithor not angry or wild is always aware.
If there is at least one people who is angry, then Rory is outrageous.
If there is at least one people who is not discreet, then Rory is not sharp and Arthur is wild.
Arthur being outrageous implies that Grant is not sharp.
Someone is outrageous and not sharp if and only if he is wild.
If someone is not sharp and not angry, then he is wild, and vice versa.
Someone is outrageous and aware if and only if he is angry and not sharp.
Arthur being not sharp implies that Rory is discreet and Anthony is not angry.
Rory being not discreet and Arthur being not angry imply that Rory is not outrageous.
If there is someone who is wild, then Katrina is angry.
Someone who is angry is always wild. | Gilbert is angry. | neutral |
Katrina is aware.
Anthony is not aware.
Arthur is not angry.
Gilbert is not sharp.
Lucy is not discreet.
Grant is discreet.
Grant is wild.
Anthony is not outrageous.
Anthony is sharp.
Arthur is not wild.
Grant is not sharp.
Rory is sharp.If someone is sharp, then he is both wild and discreet.
Someone who is eithor not angry or wild is always aware.
If there is at least one people who is angry, then Rory is outrageous.
If there is at least one people who is not discreet, then Rory is not sharp and Arthur is wild.
Arthur being outrageous implies that Grant is not sharp.
Someone is outrageous and not sharp if and only if he is wild.
If someone is not sharp and not angry, then he is wild, and vice versa.
Someone is outrageous and aware if and only if he is angry and not sharp.
Arthur being not sharp implies that Rory is discreet and Anthony is not angry.
Rory being not discreet and Arthur being not angry imply that Rory is not outrageous.
If there is someone who is wild, then Katrina is angry.
Someone who is angry is always wild. | Grant is aware. | entailment |
Katrina is aware.
Anthony is not aware.
Arthur is not angry.
Gilbert is not sharp.
Lucy is not discreet.
Grant is discreet.
Grant is wild.
Anthony is not outrageous.
Anthony is sharp.
Arthur is not wild.
Grant is not sharp.
Rory is sharp.If someone is sharp, then he is both wild and discreet.
Someone who is eithor not angry or wild is always aware.
If there is at least one people who is angry, then Rory is outrageous.
If there is at least one people who is not discreet, then Rory is not sharp and Arthur is wild.
Arthur being outrageous implies that Grant is not sharp.
Someone is outrageous and not sharp if and only if he is wild.
If someone is not sharp and not angry, then he is wild, and vice versa.
Someone is outrageous and aware if and only if he is angry and not sharp.
Arthur being not sharp implies that Rory is discreet and Anthony is not angry.
Rory being not discreet and Arthur being not angry imply that Rory is not outrageous.
If there is someone who is wild, then Katrina is angry.
Someone who is angry is always wild. | Lucy is not angry. | neutral |
Katrina is aware.
Anthony is not aware.
Arthur is not angry.
Gilbert is not sharp.
Lucy is not discreet.
Grant is discreet.
Grant is wild.
Anthony is not outrageous.
Anthony is sharp.
Arthur is not wild.
Grant is not sharp.
Rory is sharp.If someone is sharp, then he is both wild and discreet.
Someone who is eithor not angry or wild is always aware.
If there is at least one people who is angry, then Rory is outrageous.
If there is at least one people who is not discreet, then Rory is not sharp and Arthur is wild.
Arthur being outrageous implies that Grant is not sharp.
Someone is outrageous and not sharp if and only if he is wild.
If someone is not sharp and not angry, then he is wild, and vice versa.
Someone is outrageous and aware if and only if he is angry and not sharp.
Arthur being not sharp implies that Rory is discreet and Anthony is not angry.
Rory being not discreet and Arthur being not angry imply that Rory is not outrageous.
If there is someone who is wild, then Katrina is angry.
Someone who is angry is always wild. | Lucy is not aware. | neutral |
Katrina is aware.
Anthony is not aware.
Arthur is not angry.
Gilbert is not sharp.
Lucy is not discreet.
Grant is discreet.
Grant is wild.
Anthony is not outrageous.
Anthony is sharp.
Arthur is not wild.
Grant is not sharp.
Rory is sharp.If someone is sharp, then he is both wild and discreet.
Someone who is eithor not angry or wild is always aware.
If there is at least one people who is angry, then Rory is outrageous.
If there is at least one people who is not discreet, then Rory is not sharp and Arthur is wild.
Arthur being outrageous implies that Grant is not sharp.
Someone is outrageous and not sharp if and only if he is wild.
If someone is not sharp and not angry, then he is wild, and vice versa.
Someone is outrageous and aware if and only if he is angry and not sharp.
Arthur being not sharp implies that Rory is discreet and Anthony is not angry.
Rory being not discreet and Arthur being not angry imply that Rory is not outrageous.
If there is someone who is wild, then Katrina is angry.
Someone who is angry is always wild. | Grant is outrageous. | entailment |
Katrina is aware.
Anthony is not aware.
Arthur is not angry.
Gilbert is not sharp.
Lucy is not discreet.
Grant is discreet.
Grant is wild.
Anthony is not outrageous.
Anthony is sharp.
Arthur is not wild.
Grant is not sharp.
Rory is sharp.If someone is sharp, then he is both wild and discreet.
Someone who is eithor not angry or wild is always aware.
If there is at least one people who is angry, then Rory is outrageous.
If there is at least one people who is not discreet, then Rory is not sharp and Arthur is wild.
Arthur being outrageous implies that Grant is not sharp.
Someone is outrageous and not sharp if and only if he is wild.
If someone is not sharp and not angry, then he is wild, and vice versa.
Someone is outrageous and aware if and only if he is angry and not sharp.
Arthur being not sharp implies that Rory is discreet and Anthony is not angry.
Rory being not discreet and Arthur being not angry imply that Rory is not outrageous.
If there is someone who is wild, then Katrina is angry.
Someone who is angry is always wild. | Arthur is not wild. | self_contradiction |
Katrina is aware.
Anthony is not aware.
Arthur is not angry.
Gilbert is not sharp.
Lucy is not discreet.
Grant is discreet.
Grant is wild.
Anthony is not outrageous.
Anthony is sharp.
Arthur is not wild.
Grant is not sharp.
Rory is sharp.If someone is sharp, then he is both wild and discreet.
Someone who is eithor not angry or wild is always aware.
If there is at least one people who is angry, then Rory is outrageous.
If there is at least one people who is not discreet, then Rory is not sharp and Arthur is wild.
Arthur being outrageous implies that Grant is not sharp.
Someone is outrageous and not sharp if and only if he is wild.
If someone is not sharp and not angry, then he is wild, and vice versa.
Someone is outrageous and aware if and only if he is angry and not sharp.
Arthur being not sharp implies that Rory is discreet and Anthony is not angry.
Rory being not discreet and Arthur being not angry imply that Rory is not outrageous.
If there is someone who is wild, then Katrina is angry.
Someone who is angry is always wild. | Grant is wild. | entailment |
Katrina is aware.
Anthony is not aware.
Arthur is not angry.
Gilbert is not sharp.
Lucy is not discreet.
Grant is discreet.
Grant is wild.
Anthony is not outrageous.
Anthony is sharp.
Arthur is not wild.
Grant is not sharp.
Rory is sharp.If someone is sharp, then he is both wild and discreet.
Someone who is eithor not angry or wild is always aware.
If there is at least one people who is angry, then Rory is outrageous.
If there is at least one people who is not discreet, then Rory is not sharp and Arthur is wild.
Arthur being outrageous implies that Grant is not sharp.
Someone is outrageous and not sharp if and only if he is wild.
If someone is not sharp and not angry, then he is wild, and vice versa.
Someone is outrageous and aware if and only if he is angry and not sharp.
Arthur being not sharp implies that Rory is discreet and Anthony is not angry.
Rory being not discreet and Arthur being not angry imply that Rory is not outrageous.
If there is someone who is wild, then Katrina is angry.
Someone who is angry is always wild. | Anthony is aware. | self_contradiction |
Katrina is aware.
Anthony is not aware.
Arthur is not angry.
Gilbert is not sharp.
Lucy is not discreet.
Grant is discreet.
Grant is wild.
Anthony is not outrageous.
Anthony is sharp.
Arthur is not wild.
Grant is not sharp.
Rory is sharp.If someone is sharp, then he is both wild and discreet.
Someone who is eithor not angry or wild is always aware.
If there is at least one people who is angry, then Rory is outrageous.
If there is at least one people who is not discreet, then Rory is not sharp and Arthur is wild.
Arthur being outrageous implies that Grant is not sharp.
Someone is outrageous and not sharp if and only if he is wild.
If someone is not sharp and not angry, then he is wild, and vice versa.
Someone is outrageous and aware if and only if he is angry and not sharp.
Arthur being not sharp implies that Rory is discreet and Anthony is not angry.
Rory being not discreet and Arthur being not angry imply that Rory is not outrageous.
If there is someone who is wild, then Katrina is angry.
Someone who is angry is always wild. | Katrina is not angry. | self_contradiction |
Katrina is aware.
Anthony is not aware.
Arthur is not angry.
Gilbert is not sharp.
Lucy is not discreet.
Grant is discreet.
Grant is wild.
Anthony is not outrageous.
Anthony is sharp.
Arthur is not wild.
Grant is not sharp.
Rory is sharp.If someone is sharp, then he is both wild and discreet.
Someone who is eithor not angry or wild is always aware.
If there is at least one people who is angry, then Rory is outrageous.
If there is at least one people who is not discreet, then Rory is not sharp and Arthur is wild.
Arthur being outrageous implies that Grant is not sharp.
Someone is outrageous and not sharp if and only if he is wild.
If someone is not sharp and not angry, then he is wild, and vice versa.
Someone is outrageous and aware if and only if he is angry and not sharp.
Arthur being not sharp implies that Rory is discreet and Anthony is not angry.
Rory being not discreet and Arthur being not angry imply that Rory is not outrageous.
If there is someone who is wild, then Katrina is angry.
Someone who is angry is always wild. | Rory is not wild. | contradiction |
Katrina is aware.
Anthony is not aware.
Arthur is not angry.
Gilbert is not sharp.
Lucy is not discreet.
Grant is discreet.
Grant is wild.
Anthony is not outrageous.
Anthony is sharp.
Arthur is not wild.
Grant is not sharp.
Rory is sharp.If someone is sharp, then he is both wild and discreet.
Someone who is eithor not angry or wild is always aware.
If there is at least one people who is angry, then Rory is outrageous.
If there is at least one people who is not discreet, then Rory is not sharp and Arthur is wild.
Arthur being outrageous implies that Grant is not sharp.
Someone is outrageous and not sharp if and only if he is wild.
If someone is not sharp and not angry, then he is wild, and vice versa.
Someone is outrageous and aware if and only if he is angry and not sharp.
Arthur being not sharp implies that Rory is discreet and Anthony is not angry.
Rory being not discreet and Arthur being not angry imply that Rory is not outrageous.
If there is someone who is wild, then Katrina is angry.
Someone who is angry is always wild. | Katrina is aware. | entailment |
Katrina is aware.
Anthony is not aware.
Arthur is not angry.
Gilbert is not sharp.
Lucy is not discreet.
Grant is discreet.
Grant is wild.
Anthony is not outrageous.
Anthony is sharp.
Arthur is not wild.
Grant is not sharp.
Rory is sharp.If someone is sharp, then he is both wild and discreet.
Someone who is eithor not angry or wild is always aware.
If there is at least one people who is angry, then Rory is outrageous.
If there is at least one people who is not discreet, then Rory is not sharp and Arthur is wild.
Arthur being outrageous implies that Grant is not sharp.
Someone is outrageous and not sharp if and only if he is wild.
If someone is not sharp and not angry, then he is wild, and vice versa.
Someone is outrageous and aware if and only if he is angry and not sharp.
Arthur being not sharp implies that Rory is discreet and Anthony is not angry.
Rory being not discreet and Arthur being not angry imply that Rory is not outrageous.
If there is someone who is wild, then Katrina is angry.
Someone who is angry is always wild. | Arthur is not outrageous. | contradiction |
Katrina is aware.
Anthony is not aware.
Arthur is not angry.
Gilbert is not sharp.
Lucy is not discreet.
Grant is discreet.
Grant is wild.
Anthony is not outrageous.
Anthony is sharp.
Arthur is not wild.
Grant is not sharp.
Rory is sharp.If someone is sharp, then he is both wild and discreet.
Someone who is eithor not angry or wild is always aware.
If there is at least one people who is angry, then Rory is outrageous.
If there is at least one people who is not discreet, then Rory is not sharp and Arthur is wild.
Arthur being outrageous implies that Grant is not sharp.
Someone is outrageous and not sharp if and only if he is wild.
If someone is not sharp and not angry, then he is wild, and vice versa.
Someone is outrageous and aware if and only if he is angry and not sharp.
Arthur being not sharp implies that Rory is discreet and Anthony is not angry.
Rory being not discreet and Arthur being not angry imply that Rory is not outrageous.
If there is someone who is wild, then Katrina is angry.
Someone who is angry is always wild. | Grant is discreet. | entailment |
Katrina is aware.
Anthony is not aware.
Arthur is not angry.
Gilbert is not sharp.
Lucy is not discreet.
Grant is discreet.
Grant is wild.
Anthony is not outrageous.
Anthony is sharp.
Arthur is not wild.
Grant is not sharp.
Rory is sharp.If someone is sharp, then he is both wild and discreet.
Someone who is eithor not angry or wild is always aware.
If there is at least one people who is angry, then Rory is outrageous.
If there is at least one people who is not discreet, then Rory is not sharp and Arthur is wild.
Arthur being outrageous implies that Grant is not sharp.
Someone is outrageous and not sharp if and only if he is wild.
If someone is not sharp and not angry, then he is wild, and vice versa.
Someone is outrageous and aware if and only if he is angry and not sharp.
Arthur being not sharp implies that Rory is discreet and Anthony is not angry.
Rory being not discreet and Arthur being not angry imply that Rory is not outrageous.
If there is someone who is wild, then Katrina is angry.
Someone who is angry is always wild. | Rory is angry. | self_contradiction |
Katrina is aware.
Anthony is not aware.
Arthur is not angry.
Gilbert is not sharp.
Lucy is not discreet.
Grant is discreet.
Grant is wild.
Anthony is not outrageous.
Anthony is sharp.
Arthur is not wild.
Grant is not sharp.
Rory is sharp.If someone is sharp, then he is both wild and discreet.
Someone who is eithor not angry or wild is always aware.
If there is at least one people who is angry, then Rory is outrageous.
If there is at least one people who is not discreet, then Rory is not sharp and Arthur is wild.
Arthur being outrageous implies that Grant is not sharp.
Someone is outrageous and not sharp if and only if he is wild.
If someone is not sharp and not angry, then he is wild, and vice versa.
Someone is outrageous and aware if and only if he is angry and not sharp.
Arthur being not sharp implies that Rory is discreet and Anthony is not angry.
Rory being not discreet and Arthur being not angry imply that Rory is not outrageous.
If there is someone who is wild, then Katrina is angry.
Someone who is angry is always wild. | Gilbert is sharp. | contradiction |
Katrina is aware.
Anthony is not aware.
Arthur is not angry.
Gilbert is not sharp.
Lucy is not discreet.
Grant is discreet.
Grant is wild.
Anthony is not outrageous.
Anthony is sharp.
Arthur is not wild.
Grant is not sharp.
Rory is sharp.If someone is sharp, then he is both wild and discreet.
Someone who is eithor not angry or wild is always aware.
If there is at least one people who is angry, then Rory is outrageous.
If there is at least one people who is not discreet, then Rory is not sharp and Arthur is wild.
Arthur being outrageous implies that Grant is not sharp.
Someone is outrageous and not sharp if and only if he is wild.
If someone is not sharp and not angry, then he is wild, and vice versa.
Someone is outrageous and aware if and only if he is angry and not sharp.
Arthur being not sharp implies that Rory is discreet and Anthony is not angry.
Rory being not discreet and Arthur being not angry imply that Rory is not outrageous.
If there is someone who is wild, then Katrina is angry.
Someone who is angry is always wild. | Arthur is not aware. | contradiction |
Katrina is aware.
Anthony is not aware.
Arthur is not angry.
Gilbert is not sharp.
Lucy is not discreet.
Grant is discreet.
Grant is wild.
Anthony is not outrageous.
Anthony is sharp.
Arthur is not wild.
Grant is not sharp.
Rory is sharp.If someone is sharp, then he is both wild and discreet.
Someone who is eithor not angry or wild is always aware.
If there is at least one people who is angry, then Rory is outrageous.
If there is at least one people who is not discreet, then Rory is not sharp and Arthur is wild.
Arthur being outrageous implies that Grant is not sharp.
Someone is outrageous and not sharp if and only if he is wild.
If someone is not sharp and not angry, then he is wild, and vice versa.
Someone is outrageous and aware if and only if he is angry and not sharp.
Arthur being not sharp implies that Rory is discreet and Anthony is not angry.
Rory being not discreet and Arthur being not angry imply that Rory is not outrageous.
If there is someone who is wild, then Katrina is angry.
Someone who is angry is always wild. | Gilbert is not discreet. | neutral |
Katrina is aware.
Anthony is not aware.
Arthur is not angry.
Gilbert is not sharp.
Lucy is not discreet.
Grant is discreet.
Grant is wild.
Anthony is not outrageous.
Anthony is sharp.
Arthur is not wild.
Grant is not sharp.
Rory is sharp.If someone is sharp, then he is both wild and discreet.
Someone who is eithor not angry or wild is always aware.
If there is at least one people who is angry, then Rory is outrageous.
If there is at least one people who is not discreet, then Rory is not sharp and Arthur is wild.
Arthur being outrageous implies that Grant is not sharp.
Someone is outrageous and not sharp if and only if he is wild.
If someone is not sharp and not angry, then he is wild, and vice versa.
Someone is outrageous and aware if and only if he is angry and not sharp.
Arthur being not sharp implies that Rory is discreet and Anthony is not angry.
Rory being not discreet and Arthur being not angry imply that Rory is not outrageous.
If there is someone who is wild, then Katrina is angry.
Someone who is angry is always wild. | Lucy is sharp. | neutral |
Katrina is aware.
Anthony is not aware.
Arthur is not angry.
Gilbert is not sharp.
Lucy is not discreet.
Grant is discreet.
Grant is wild.
Anthony is not outrageous.
Anthony is sharp.
Arthur is not wild.
Grant is not sharp.
Rory is sharp.If someone is sharp, then he is both wild and discreet.
Someone who is eithor not angry or wild is always aware.
If there is at least one people who is angry, then Rory is outrageous.
If there is at least one people who is not discreet, then Rory is not sharp and Arthur is wild.
Arthur being outrageous implies that Grant is not sharp.
Someone is outrageous and not sharp if and only if he is wild.
If someone is not sharp and not angry, then he is wild, and vice versa.
Someone is outrageous and aware if and only if he is angry and not sharp.
Arthur being not sharp implies that Rory is discreet and Anthony is not angry.
Rory being not discreet and Arthur being not angry imply that Rory is not outrageous.
If there is someone who is wild, then Katrina is angry.
Someone who is angry is always wild. | Katrina is sharp. | contradiction |
Katrina is aware.
Anthony is not aware.
Arthur is not angry.
Gilbert is not sharp.
Lucy is not discreet.
Grant is discreet.
Grant is wild.
Anthony is not outrageous.
Anthony is sharp.
Arthur is not wild.
Grant is not sharp.
Rory is sharp.If someone is sharp, then he is both wild and discreet.
Someone who is eithor not angry or wild is always aware.
If there is at least one people who is angry, then Rory is outrageous.
If there is at least one people who is not discreet, then Rory is not sharp and Arthur is wild.
Arthur being outrageous implies that Grant is not sharp.
Someone is outrageous and not sharp if and only if he is wild.
If someone is not sharp and not angry, then he is wild, and vice versa.
Someone is outrageous and aware if and only if he is angry and not sharp.
Arthur being not sharp implies that Rory is discreet and Anthony is not angry.
Rory being not discreet and Arthur being not angry imply that Rory is not outrageous.
If there is someone who is wild, then Katrina is angry.
Someone who is angry is always wild. | Arthur is not angry. | self_contradiction |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.