premise
stringlengths 923
1.41k
| hypothesis
stringlengths 11
33
| label
stringclasses 4
values |
|---|---|---|
Kimberly is not better.
Kimberly is not lively.
Kelvin is sleepy.
Hunter is not friendly.
Kelvin is not better.
Hunter is sleepy.
Hunter is sincere.
Herbert is sleepy.
Herbert is not better.
Kim is friendly.
Herbert is not practical.
Rufus is lively.Someone who is not better or sincere is always not practical and not friendly.
As long as someone is not practical and not sleepy, he is not friendly and not sincere.
If Carlton is better and Herbert is not practical, then Herbert is not sleepy and Rufus is friendly.
Carlton is practical if and only if Hunter is not friendly.
Someone being sincere is equivalent to being lively.
Herbert is practical if and only if Rufus is not better.
If there is someone who is either not better or not sleepy, then Rufus is not lively.
If all people are not lively, then Rufus is practical and Herbert is not friendly.
As long as someone is practical, he is not sleepy and not sincere.
Someone is not sleepy and not sincere if and only if he is not friendly.
If there is someone who is not better, then Carlton is lively.
It can be concluded that Herbert is not better once knowing that Kimberly is sleepy. | Carlton is better. | neutral |
Kimberly is not better.
Kimberly is not lively.
Kelvin is sleepy.
Hunter is not friendly.
Kelvin is not better.
Hunter is sleepy.
Hunter is sincere.
Herbert is sleepy.
Herbert is not better.
Kim is friendly.
Herbert is not practical.
Rufus is lively.Someone who is not better or sincere is always not practical and not friendly.
As long as someone is not practical and not sleepy, he is not friendly and not sincere.
If Carlton is better and Herbert is not practical, then Herbert is not sleepy and Rufus is friendly.
Carlton is practical if and only if Hunter is not friendly.
Someone being sincere is equivalent to being lively.
Herbert is practical if and only if Rufus is not better.
If there is someone who is either not better or not sleepy, then Rufus is not lively.
If all people are not lively, then Rufus is practical and Herbert is not friendly.
As long as someone is practical, he is not sleepy and not sincere.
Someone is not sleepy and not sincere if and only if he is not friendly.
If there is someone who is not better, then Carlton is lively.
It can be concluded that Herbert is not better once knowing that Kimberly is sleepy. | Rufus is friendly. | contradiction |
Kimberly is not better.
Kimberly is not lively.
Kelvin is sleepy.
Hunter is not friendly.
Kelvin is not better.
Hunter is sleepy.
Hunter is sincere.
Herbert is sleepy.
Herbert is not better.
Kim is friendly.
Herbert is not practical.
Rufus is lively.Someone who is not better or sincere is always not practical and not friendly.
As long as someone is not practical and not sleepy, he is not friendly and not sincere.
If Carlton is better and Herbert is not practical, then Herbert is not sleepy and Rufus is friendly.
Carlton is practical if and only if Hunter is not friendly.
Someone being sincere is equivalent to being lively.
Herbert is practical if and only if Rufus is not better.
If there is someone who is either not better or not sleepy, then Rufus is not lively.
If all people are not lively, then Rufus is practical and Herbert is not friendly.
As long as someone is practical, he is not sleepy and not sincere.
Someone is not sleepy and not sincere if and only if he is not friendly.
If there is someone who is not better, then Carlton is lively.
It can be concluded that Herbert is not better once knowing that Kimberly is sleepy. | Kim is not better. | neutral |
Kimberly is not better.
Kimberly is not lively.
Kelvin is sleepy.
Hunter is not friendly.
Kelvin is not better.
Hunter is sleepy.
Hunter is sincere.
Herbert is sleepy.
Herbert is not better.
Kim is friendly.
Herbert is not practical.
Rufus is lively.Someone who is not better or sincere is always not practical and not friendly.
As long as someone is not practical and not sleepy, he is not friendly and not sincere.
If Carlton is better and Herbert is not practical, then Herbert is not sleepy and Rufus is friendly.
Carlton is practical if and only if Hunter is not friendly.
Someone being sincere is equivalent to being lively.
Herbert is practical if and only if Rufus is not better.
If there is someone who is either not better or not sleepy, then Rufus is not lively.
If all people are not lively, then Rufus is practical and Herbert is not friendly.
As long as someone is practical, he is not sleepy and not sincere.
Someone is not sleepy and not sincere if and only if he is not friendly.
If there is someone who is not better, then Carlton is lively.
It can be concluded that Herbert is not better once knowing that Kimberly is sleepy. | Carlton is friendly. | contradiction |
Kimberly is not better.
Kimberly is not lively.
Kelvin is sleepy.
Hunter is not friendly.
Kelvin is not better.
Hunter is sleepy.
Hunter is sincere.
Herbert is sleepy.
Herbert is not better.
Kim is friendly.
Herbert is not practical.
Rufus is lively.Someone who is not better or sincere is always not practical and not friendly.
As long as someone is not practical and not sleepy, he is not friendly and not sincere.
If Carlton is better and Herbert is not practical, then Herbert is not sleepy and Rufus is friendly.
Carlton is practical if and only if Hunter is not friendly.
Someone being sincere is equivalent to being lively.
Herbert is practical if and only if Rufus is not better.
If there is someone who is either not better or not sleepy, then Rufus is not lively.
If all people are not lively, then Rufus is practical and Herbert is not friendly.
As long as someone is practical, he is not sleepy and not sincere.
Someone is not sleepy and not sincere if and only if he is not friendly.
If there is someone who is not better, then Carlton is lively.
It can be concluded that Herbert is not better once knowing that Kimberly is sleepy. | Hunter is not practical. | entailment |
Kimberly is not better.
Kimberly is not lively.
Kelvin is sleepy.
Hunter is not friendly.
Kelvin is not better.
Hunter is sleepy.
Hunter is sincere.
Herbert is sleepy.
Herbert is not better.
Kim is friendly.
Herbert is not practical.
Rufus is lively.Someone who is not better or sincere is always not practical and not friendly.
As long as someone is not practical and not sleepy, he is not friendly and not sincere.
If Carlton is better and Herbert is not practical, then Herbert is not sleepy and Rufus is friendly.
Carlton is practical if and only if Hunter is not friendly.
Someone being sincere is equivalent to being lively.
Herbert is practical if and only if Rufus is not better.
If there is someone who is either not better or not sleepy, then Rufus is not lively.
If all people are not lively, then Rufus is practical and Herbert is not friendly.
As long as someone is practical, he is not sleepy and not sincere.
Someone is not sleepy and not sincere if and only if he is not friendly.
If there is someone who is not better, then Carlton is lively.
It can be concluded that Herbert is not better once knowing that Kimberly is sleepy. | Hunter is sleepy. | self_contradiction |
Kimberly is not better.
Kimberly is not lively.
Kelvin is sleepy.
Hunter is not friendly.
Kelvin is not better.
Hunter is sleepy.
Hunter is sincere.
Herbert is sleepy.
Herbert is not better.
Kim is friendly.
Herbert is not practical.
Rufus is lively.Someone who is not better or sincere is always not practical and not friendly.
As long as someone is not practical and not sleepy, he is not friendly and not sincere.
If Carlton is better and Herbert is not practical, then Herbert is not sleepy and Rufus is friendly.
Carlton is practical if and only if Hunter is not friendly.
Someone being sincere is equivalent to being lively.
Herbert is practical if and only if Rufus is not better.
If there is someone who is either not better or not sleepy, then Rufus is not lively.
If all people are not lively, then Rufus is practical and Herbert is not friendly.
As long as someone is practical, he is not sleepy and not sincere.
Someone is not sleepy and not sincere if and only if he is not friendly.
If there is someone who is not better, then Carlton is lively.
It can be concluded that Herbert is not better once knowing that Kimberly is sleepy. | Herbert is sincere. | contradiction |
Kimberly is not better.
Kimberly is not lively.
Kelvin is sleepy.
Hunter is not friendly.
Kelvin is not better.
Hunter is sleepy.
Hunter is sincere.
Herbert is sleepy.
Herbert is not better.
Kim is friendly.
Herbert is not practical.
Rufus is lively.Someone who is not better or sincere is always not practical and not friendly.
As long as someone is not practical and not sleepy, he is not friendly and not sincere.
If Carlton is better and Herbert is not practical, then Herbert is not sleepy and Rufus is friendly.
Carlton is practical if and only if Hunter is not friendly.
Someone being sincere is equivalent to being lively.
Herbert is practical if and only if Rufus is not better.
If there is someone who is either not better or not sleepy, then Rufus is not lively.
If all people are not lively, then Rufus is practical and Herbert is not friendly.
As long as someone is practical, he is not sleepy and not sincere.
Someone is not sleepy and not sincere if and only if he is not friendly.
If there is someone who is not better, then Carlton is lively.
It can be concluded that Herbert is not better once knowing that Kimberly is sleepy. | Rufus is not sincere. | self_contradiction |
Kimberly is not better.
Kimberly is not lively.
Kelvin is sleepy.
Hunter is not friendly.
Kelvin is not better.
Hunter is sleepy.
Hunter is sincere.
Herbert is sleepy.
Herbert is not better.
Kim is friendly.
Herbert is not practical.
Rufus is lively.Someone who is not better or sincere is always not practical and not friendly.
As long as someone is not practical and not sleepy, he is not friendly and not sincere.
If Carlton is better and Herbert is not practical, then Herbert is not sleepy and Rufus is friendly.
Carlton is practical if and only if Hunter is not friendly.
Someone being sincere is equivalent to being lively.
Herbert is practical if and only if Rufus is not better.
If there is someone who is either not better or not sleepy, then Rufus is not lively.
If all people are not lively, then Rufus is practical and Herbert is not friendly.
As long as someone is practical, he is not sleepy and not sincere.
Someone is not sleepy and not sincere if and only if he is not friendly.
If there is someone who is not better, then Carlton is lively.
It can be concluded that Herbert is not better once knowing that Kimberly is sleepy. | Kimberly is not practical. | entailment |
Kimberly is not better.
Kimberly is not lively.
Kelvin is sleepy.
Hunter is not friendly.
Kelvin is not better.
Hunter is sleepy.
Hunter is sincere.
Herbert is sleepy.
Herbert is not better.
Kim is friendly.
Herbert is not practical.
Rufus is lively.Someone who is not better or sincere is always not practical and not friendly.
As long as someone is not practical and not sleepy, he is not friendly and not sincere.
If Carlton is better and Herbert is not practical, then Herbert is not sleepy and Rufus is friendly.
Carlton is practical if and only if Hunter is not friendly.
Someone being sincere is equivalent to being lively.
Herbert is practical if and only if Rufus is not better.
If there is someone who is either not better or not sleepy, then Rufus is not lively.
If all people are not lively, then Rufus is practical and Herbert is not friendly.
As long as someone is practical, he is not sleepy and not sincere.
Someone is not sleepy and not sincere if and only if he is not friendly.
If there is someone who is not better, then Carlton is lively.
It can be concluded that Herbert is not better once knowing that Kimberly is sleepy. | Rufus is better. | neutral |
Kimberly is not better.
Kimberly is not lively.
Kelvin is sleepy.
Hunter is not friendly.
Kelvin is not better.
Hunter is sleepy.
Hunter is sincere.
Herbert is sleepy.
Herbert is not better.
Kim is friendly.
Herbert is not practical.
Rufus is lively.Someone who is not better or sincere is always not practical and not friendly.
As long as someone is not practical and not sleepy, he is not friendly and not sincere.
If Carlton is better and Herbert is not practical, then Herbert is not sleepy and Rufus is friendly.
Carlton is practical if and only if Hunter is not friendly.
Someone being sincere is equivalent to being lively.
Herbert is practical if and only if Rufus is not better.
If there is someone who is either not better or not sleepy, then Rufus is not lively.
If all people are not lively, then Rufus is practical and Herbert is not friendly.
As long as someone is practical, he is not sleepy and not sincere.
Someone is not sleepy and not sincere if and only if he is not friendly.
If there is someone who is not better, then Carlton is lively.
It can be concluded that Herbert is not better once knowing that Kimberly is sleepy. | Carlton is not practical. | self_contradiction |
Kimberly is not better.
Kimberly is not lively.
Kelvin is sleepy.
Hunter is not friendly.
Kelvin is not better.
Hunter is sleepy.
Hunter is sincere.
Herbert is sleepy.
Herbert is not better.
Kim is friendly.
Herbert is not practical.
Rufus is lively.Someone who is not better or sincere is always not practical and not friendly.
As long as someone is not practical and not sleepy, he is not friendly and not sincere.
If Carlton is better and Herbert is not practical, then Herbert is not sleepy and Rufus is friendly.
Carlton is practical if and only if Hunter is not friendly.
Someone being sincere is equivalent to being lively.
Herbert is practical if and only if Rufus is not better.
If there is someone who is either not better or not sleepy, then Rufus is not lively.
If all people are not lively, then Rufus is practical and Herbert is not friendly.
As long as someone is practical, he is not sleepy and not sincere.
Someone is not sleepy and not sincere if and only if he is not friendly.
If there is someone who is not better, then Carlton is lively.
It can be concluded that Herbert is not better once knowing that Kimberly is sleepy. | Carlton is not better. | neutral |
Kimberly is not better.
Kimberly is not lively.
Kelvin is sleepy.
Hunter is not friendly.
Kelvin is not better.
Hunter is sleepy.
Hunter is sincere.
Herbert is sleepy.
Herbert is not better.
Kim is friendly.
Herbert is not practical.
Rufus is lively.Someone who is not better or sincere is always not practical and not friendly.
As long as someone is not practical and not sleepy, he is not friendly and not sincere.
If Carlton is better and Herbert is not practical, then Herbert is not sleepy and Rufus is friendly.
Carlton is practical if and only if Hunter is not friendly.
Someone being sincere is equivalent to being lively.
Herbert is practical if and only if Rufus is not better.
If there is someone who is either not better or not sleepy, then Rufus is not lively.
If all people are not lively, then Rufus is practical and Herbert is not friendly.
As long as someone is practical, he is not sleepy and not sincere.
Someone is not sleepy and not sincere if and only if he is not friendly.
If there is someone who is not better, then Carlton is lively.
It can be concluded that Herbert is not better once knowing that Kimberly is sleepy. | Kelvin is not sleepy. | self_contradiction |
Kimberly is not better.
Kimberly is not lively.
Kelvin is sleepy.
Hunter is not friendly.
Kelvin is not better.
Hunter is sleepy.
Hunter is sincere.
Herbert is sleepy.
Herbert is not better.
Kim is friendly.
Herbert is not practical.
Rufus is lively.Someone who is not better or sincere is always not practical and not friendly.
As long as someone is not practical and not sleepy, he is not friendly and not sincere.
If Carlton is better and Herbert is not practical, then Herbert is not sleepy and Rufus is friendly.
Carlton is practical if and only if Hunter is not friendly.
Someone being sincere is equivalent to being lively.
Herbert is practical if and only if Rufus is not better.
If there is someone who is either not better or not sleepy, then Rufus is not lively.
If all people are not lively, then Rufus is practical and Herbert is not friendly.
As long as someone is practical, he is not sleepy and not sincere.
Someone is not sleepy and not sincere if and only if he is not friendly.
If there is someone who is not better, then Carlton is lively.
It can be concluded that Herbert is not better once knowing that Kimberly is sleepy. | Herbert is not practical. | entailment |
Kimberly is not better.
Kimberly is not lively.
Kelvin is sleepy.
Hunter is not friendly.
Kelvin is not better.
Hunter is sleepy.
Hunter is sincere.
Herbert is sleepy.
Herbert is not better.
Kim is friendly.
Herbert is not practical.
Rufus is lively.Someone who is not better or sincere is always not practical and not friendly.
As long as someone is not practical and not sleepy, he is not friendly and not sincere.
If Carlton is better and Herbert is not practical, then Herbert is not sleepy and Rufus is friendly.
Carlton is practical if and only if Hunter is not friendly.
Someone being sincere is equivalent to being lively.
Herbert is practical if and only if Rufus is not better.
If there is someone who is either not better or not sleepy, then Rufus is not lively.
If all people are not lively, then Rufus is practical and Herbert is not friendly.
As long as someone is practical, he is not sleepy and not sincere.
Someone is not sleepy and not sincere if and only if he is not friendly.
If there is someone who is not better, then Carlton is lively.
It can be concluded that Herbert is not better once knowing that Kimberly is sleepy. | Rufus is sleepy. | contradiction |
Kimberly is not better.
Kimberly is not lively.
Kelvin is sleepy.
Hunter is not friendly.
Kelvin is not better.
Hunter is sleepy.
Hunter is sincere.
Herbert is sleepy.
Herbert is not better.
Kim is friendly.
Herbert is not practical.
Rufus is lively.Someone who is not better or sincere is always not practical and not friendly.
As long as someone is not practical and not sleepy, he is not friendly and not sincere.
If Carlton is better and Herbert is not practical, then Herbert is not sleepy and Rufus is friendly.
Carlton is practical if and only if Hunter is not friendly.
Someone being sincere is equivalent to being lively.
Herbert is practical if and only if Rufus is not better.
If there is someone who is either not better or not sleepy, then Rufus is not lively.
If all people are not lively, then Rufus is practical and Herbert is not friendly.
As long as someone is practical, he is not sleepy and not sincere.
Someone is not sleepy and not sincere if and only if he is not friendly.
If there is someone who is not better, then Carlton is lively.
It can be concluded that Herbert is not better once knowing that Kimberly is sleepy. | Herbert is lively. | neutral |
Kimberly is not better.
Kimberly is not lively.
Kelvin is sleepy.
Hunter is not friendly.
Kelvin is not better.
Hunter is sleepy.
Hunter is sincere.
Herbert is sleepy.
Herbert is not better.
Kim is friendly.
Herbert is not practical.
Rufus is lively.Someone who is not better or sincere is always not practical and not friendly.
As long as someone is not practical and not sleepy, he is not friendly and not sincere.
If Carlton is better and Herbert is not practical, then Herbert is not sleepy and Rufus is friendly.
Carlton is practical if and only if Hunter is not friendly.
Someone being sincere is equivalent to being lively.
Herbert is practical if and only if Rufus is not better.
If there is someone who is either not better or not sleepy, then Rufus is not lively.
If all people are not lively, then Rufus is practical and Herbert is not friendly.
As long as someone is practical, he is not sleepy and not sincere.
Someone is not sleepy and not sincere if and only if he is not friendly.
If there is someone who is not better, then Carlton is lively.
It can be concluded that Herbert is not better once knowing that Kimberly is sleepy. | Carlton is practical. | self_contradiction |
Kimberly is not better.
Kimberly is not lively.
Kelvin is sleepy.
Hunter is not friendly.
Kelvin is not better.
Hunter is sleepy.
Hunter is sincere.
Herbert is sleepy.
Herbert is not better.
Kim is friendly.
Herbert is not practical.
Rufus is lively.Someone who is not better or sincere is always not practical and not friendly.
As long as someone is not practical and not sleepy, he is not friendly and not sincere.
If Carlton is better and Herbert is not practical, then Herbert is not sleepy and Rufus is friendly.
Carlton is practical if and only if Hunter is not friendly.
Someone being sincere is equivalent to being lively.
Herbert is practical if and only if Rufus is not better.
If there is someone who is either not better or not sleepy, then Rufus is not lively.
If all people are not lively, then Rufus is practical and Herbert is not friendly.
As long as someone is practical, he is not sleepy and not sincere.
Someone is not sleepy and not sincere if and only if he is not friendly.
If there is someone who is not better, then Carlton is lively.
It can be concluded that Herbert is not better once knowing that Kimberly is sleepy. | Hunter is lively. | entailment |
Kimberly is not better.
Kimberly is not lively.
Kelvin is sleepy.
Hunter is not friendly.
Kelvin is not better.
Hunter is sleepy.
Hunter is sincere.
Herbert is sleepy.
Herbert is not better.
Kim is friendly.
Herbert is not practical.
Rufus is lively.Someone who is not better or sincere is always not practical and not friendly.
As long as someone is not practical and not sleepy, he is not friendly and not sincere.
If Carlton is better and Herbert is not practical, then Herbert is not sleepy and Rufus is friendly.
Carlton is practical if and only if Hunter is not friendly.
Someone being sincere is equivalent to being lively.
Herbert is practical if and only if Rufus is not better.
If there is someone who is either not better or not sleepy, then Rufus is not lively.
If all people are not lively, then Rufus is practical and Herbert is not friendly.
As long as someone is practical, he is not sleepy and not sincere.
Someone is not sleepy and not sincere if and only if he is not friendly.
If there is someone who is not better, then Carlton is lively.
It can be concluded that Herbert is not better once knowing that Kimberly is sleepy. | Kelvin is not sincere. | entailment |
Kimberly is not better.
Kimberly is not lively.
Kelvin is sleepy.
Hunter is not friendly.
Kelvin is not better.
Hunter is sleepy.
Hunter is sincere.
Herbert is sleepy.
Herbert is not better.
Kim is friendly.
Herbert is not practical.
Rufus is lively.Someone who is not better or sincere is always not practical and not friendly.
As long as someone is not practical and not sleepy, he is not friendly and not sincere.
If Carlton is better and Herbert is not practical, then Herbert is not sleepy and Rufus is friendly.
Carlton is practical if and only if Hunter is not friendly.
Someone being sincere is equivalent to being lively.
Herbert is practical if and only if Rufus is not better.
If there is someone who is either not better or not sleepy, then Rufus is not lively.
If all people are not lively, then Rufus is practical and Herbert is not friendly.
As long as someone is practical, he is not sleepy and not sincere.
Someone is not sleepy and not sincere if and only if he is not friendly.
If there is someone who is not better, then Carlton is lively.
It can be concluded that Herbert is not better once knowing that Kimberly is sleepy. | Kimberly is sincere. | contradiction |
Stewart is naughty.
Mark is not plain.
Alisa is not glorious.
Chad is not plain.
Lloyd is not plain.
Chad is not diplomatic.
Philbert is confident.
Lloyd is not careful.
Shawn is not plain.
Lloyd is diplomatic.
Alisa is careful.
Chad is glorious.Someone who is not plain is always both not glorious and confident.
If someone is not plain, then he is diplomatic.
If there is someone who is both not plain and glorious, then Philbert is confident.
If Mark is not careful or Mark is confident, then Lloyd is plain.
It can be concluded that Mark is not careful once knowing that Shawn is confident or Chad is naughty.
All glorious people are not naughty.
If there is at least one people who is not plain or not glorious, then Mark is not naughty.
If someone who is not diplomatic is also careful, then he is not naughty.
If there is someone who is either diplomatic or not glorious, then Philbert is not confident and Stewart is not naughty.
Someone who is not confident is always both not naughty and not glorious.
If Alisa is confident or Chad is careful, then Lloyd is not glorious.
Someone is plain if and only if he is naughty. | Stewart is not confident. | neutral |
Stewart is naughty.
Mark is not plain.
Alisa is not glorious.
Chad is not plain.
Lloyd is not plain.
Chad is not diplomatic.
Philbert is confident.
Lloyd is not careful.
Shawn is not plain.
Lloyd is diplomatic.
Alisa is careful.
Chad is glorious.Someone who is not plain is always both not glorious and confident.
If someone is not plain, then he is diplomatic.
If there is someone who is both not plain and glorious, then Philbert is confident.
If Mark is not careful or Mark is confident, then Lloyd is plain.
It can be concluded that Mark is not careful once knowing that Shawn is confident or Chad is naughty.
All glorious people are not naughty.
If there is at least one people who is not plain or not glorious, then Mark is not naughty.
If someone who is not diplomatic is also careful, then he is not naughty.
If there is someone who is either diplomatic or not glorious, then Philbert is not confident and Stewart is not naughty.
Someone who is not confident is always both not naughty and not glorious.
If Alisa is confident or Chad is careful, then Lloyd is not glorious.
Someone is plain if and only if he is naughty. | Shawn is not glorious. | entailment |
Stewart is naughty.
Mark is not plain.
Alisa is not glorious.
Chad is not plain.
Lloyd is not plain.
Chad is not diplomatic.
Philbert is confident.
Lloyd is not careful.
Shawn is not plain.
Lloyd is diplomatic.
Alisa is careful.
Chad is glorious.Someone who is not plain is always both not glorious and confident.
If someone is not plain, then he is diplomatic.
If there is someone who is both not plain and glorious, then Philbert is confident.
If Mark is not careful or Mark is confident, then Lloyd is plain.
It can be concluded that Mark is not careful once knowing that Shawn is confident or Chad is naughty.
All glorious people are not naughty.
If there is at least one people who is not plain or not glorious, then Mark is not naughty.
If someone who is not diplomatic is also careful, then he is not naughty.
If there is someone who is either diplomatic or not glorious, then Philbert is not confident and Stewart is not naughty.
Someone who is not confident is always both not naughty and not glorious.
If Alisa is confident or Chad is careful, then Lloyd is not glorious.
Someone is plain if and only if he is naughty. | Stewart is not diplomatic. | neutral |
Stewart is naughty.
Mark is not plain.
Alisa is not glorious.
Chad is not plain.
Lloyd is not plain.
Chad is not diplomatic.
Philbert is confident.
Lloyd is not careful.
Shawn is not plain.
Lloyd is diplomatic.
Alisa is careful.
Chad is glorious.Someone who is not plain is always both not glorious and confident.
If someone is not plain, then he is diplomatic.
If there is someone who is both not plain and glorious, then Philbert is confident.
If Mark is not careful or Mark is confident, then Lloyd is plain.
It can be concluded that Mark is not careful once knowing that Shawn is confident or Chad is naughty.
All glorious people are not naughty.
If there is at least one people who is not plain or not glorious, then Mark is not naughty.
If someone who is not diplomatic is also careful, then he is not naughty.
If there is someone who is either diplomatic or not glorious, then Philbert is not confident and Stewart is not naughty.
Someone who is not confident is always both not naughty and not glorious.
If Alisa is confident or Chad is careful, then Lloyd is not glorious.
Someone is plain if and only if he is naughty. | Mark is naughty. | contradiction |
Stewart is naughty.
Mark is not plain.
Alisa is not glorious.
Chad is not plain.
Lloyd is not plain.
Chad is not diplomatic.
Philbert is confident.
Lloyd is not careful.
Shawn is not plain.
Lloyd is diplomatic.
Alisa is careful.
Chad is glorious.Someone who is not plain is always both not glorious and confident.
If someone is not plain, then he is diplomatic.
If there is someone who is both not plain and glorious, then Philbert is confident.
If Mark is not careful or Mark is confident, then Lloyd is plain.
It can be concluded that Mark is not careful once knowing that Shawn is confident or Chad is naughty.
All glorious people are not naughty.
If there is at least one people who is not plain or not glorious, then Mark is not naughty.
If someone who is not diplomatic is also careful, then he is not naughty.
If there is someone who is either diplomatic or not glorious, then Philbert is not confident and Stewart is not naughty.
Someone who is not confident is always both not naughty and not glorious.
If Alisa is confident or Chad is careful, then Lloyd is not glorious.
Someone is plain if and only if he is naughty. | Mark is careful. | contradiction |
Stewart is naughty.
Mark is not plain.
Alisa is not glorious.
Chad is not plain.
Lloyd is not plain.
Chad is not diplomatic.
Philbert is confident.
Lloyd is not careful.
Shawn is not plain.
Lloyd is diplomatic.
Alisa is careful.
Chad is glorious.Someone who is not plain is always both not glorious and confident.
If someone is not plain, then he is diplomatic.
If there is someone who is both not plain and glorious, then Philbert is confident.
If Mark is not careful or Mark is confident, then Lloyd is plain.
It can be concluded that Mark is not careful once knowing that Shawn is confident or Chad is naughty.
All glorious people are not naughty.
If there is at least one people who is not plain or not glorious, then Mark is not naughty.
If someone who is not diplomatic is also careful, then he is not naughty.
If there is someone who is either diplomatic or not glorious, then Philbert is not confident and Stewart is not naughty.
Someone who is not confident is always both not naughty and not glorious.
If Alisa is confident or Chad is careful, then Lloyd is not glorious.
Someone is plain if and only if he is naughty. | Chad is diplomatic. | self_contradiction |
Stewart is naughty.
Mark is not plain.
Alisa is not glorious.
Chad is not plain.
Lloyd is not plain.
Chad is not diplomatic.
Philbert is confident.
Lloyd is not careful.
Shawn is not plain.
Lloyd is diplomatic.
Alisa is careful.
Chad is glorious.Someone who is not plain is always both not glorious and confident.
If someone is not plain, then he is diplomatic.
If there is someone who is both not plain and glorious, then Philbert is confident.
If Mark is not careful or Mark is confident, then Lloyd is plain.
It can be concluded that Mark is not careful once knowing that Shawn is confident or Chad is naughty.
All glorious people are not naughty.
If there is at least one people who is not plain or not glorious, then Mark is not naughty.
If someone who is not diplomatic is also careful, then he is not naughty.
If there is someone who is either diplomatic or not glorious, then Philbert is not confident and Stewart is not naughty.
Someone who is not confident is always both not naughty and not glorious.
If Alisa is confident or Chad is careful, then Lloyd is not glorious.
Someone is plain if and only if he is naughty. | Philbert is plain. | neutral |
Stewart is naughty.
Mark is not plain.
Alisa is not glorious.
Chad is not plain.
Lloyd is not plain.
Chad is not diplomatic.
Philbert is confident.
Lloyd is not careful.
Shawn is not plain.
Lloyd is diplomatic.
Alisa is careful.
Chad is glorious.Someone who is not plain is always both not glorious and confident.
If someone is not plain, then he is diplomatic.
If there is someone who is both not plain and glorious, then Philbert is confident.
If Mark is not careful or Mark is confident, then Lloyd is plain.
It can be concluded that Mark is not careful once knowing that Shawn is confident or Chad is naughty.
All glorious people are not naughty.
If there is at least one people who is not plain or not glorious, then Mark is not naughty.
If someone who is not diplomatic is also careful, then he is not naughty.
If there is someone who is either diplomatic or not glorious, then Philbert is not confident and Stewart is not naughty.
Someone who is not confident is always both not naughty and not glorious.
If Alisa is confident or Chad is careful, then Lloyd is not glorious.
Someone is plain if and only if he is naughty. | Chad is not diplomatic. | self_contradiction |
Stewart is naughty.
Mark is not plain.
Alisa is not glorious.
Chad is not plain.
Lloyd is not plain.
Chad is not diplomatic.
Philbert is confident.
Lloyd is not careful.
Shawn is not plain.
Lloyd is diplomatic.
Alisa is careful.
Chad is glorious.Someone who is not plain is always both not glorious and confident.
If someone is not plain, then he is diplomatic.
If there is someone who is both not plain and glorious, then Philbert is confident.
If Mark is not careful or Mark is confident, then Lloyd is plain.
It can be concluded that Mark is not careful once knowing that Shawn is confident or Chad is naughty.
All glorious people are not naughty.
If there is at least one people who is not plain or not glorious, then Mark is not naughty.
If someone who is not diplomatic is also careful, then he is not naughty.
If there is someone who is either diplomatic or not glorious, then Philbert is not confident and Stewart is not naughty.
Someone who is not confident is always both not naughty and not glorious.
If Alisa is confident or Chad is careful, then Lloyd is not glorious.
Someone is plain if and only if he is naughty. | Stewart is careful. | neutral |
Stewart is naughty.
Mark is not plain.
Alisa is not glorious.
Chad is not plain.
Lloyd is not plain.
Chad is not diplomatic.
Philbert is confident.
Lloyd is not careful.
Shawn is not plain.
Lloyd is diplomatic.
Alisa is careful.
Chad is glorious.Someone who is not plain is always both not glorious and confident.
If someone is not plain, then he is diplomatic.
If there is someone who is both not plain and glorious, then Philbert is confident.
If Mark is not careful or Mark is confident, then Lloyd is plain.
It can be concluded that Mark is not careful once knowing that Shawn is confident or Chad is naughty.
All glorious people are not naughty.
If there is at least one people who is not plain or not glorious, then Mark is not naughty.
If someone who is not diplomatic is also careful, then he is not naughty.
If there is someone who is either diplomatic or not glorious, then Philbert is not confident and Stewart is not naughty.
Someone who is not confident is always both not naughty and not glorious.
If Alisa is confident or Chad is careful, then Lloyd is not glorious.
Someone is plain if and only if he is naughty. | Lloyd is glorious. | contradiction |
Stewart is naughty.
Mark is not plain.
Alisa is not glorious.
Chad is not plain.
Lloyd is not plain.
Chad is not diplomatic.
Philbert is confident.
Lloyd is not careful.
Shawn is not plain.
Lloyd is diplomatic.
Alisa is careful.
Chad is glorious.Someone who is not plain is always both not glorious and confident.
If someone is not plain, then he is diplomatic.
If there is someone who is both not plain and glorious, then Philbert is confident.
If Mark is not careful or Mark is confident, then Lloyd is plain.
It can be concluded that Mark is not careful once knowing that Shawn is confident or Chad is naughty.
All glorious people are not naughty.
If there is at least one people who is not plain or not glorious, then Mark is not naughty.
If someone who is not diplomatic is also careful, then he is not naughty.
If there is someone who is either diplomatic or not glorious, then Philbert is not confident and Stewart is not naughty.
Someone who is not confident is always both not naughty and not glorious.
If Alisa is confident or Chad is careful, then Lloyd is not glorious.
Someone is plain if and only if he is naughty. | Lloyd is not plain. | self_contradiction |
Stewart is naughty.
Mark is not plain.
Alisa is not glorious.
Chad is not plain.
Lloyd is not plain.
Chad is not diplomatic.
Philbert is confident.
Lloyd is not careful.
Shawn is not plain.
Lloyd is diplomatic.
Alisa is careful.
Chad is glorious.Someone who is not plain is always both not glorious and confident.
If someone is not plain, then he is diplomatic.
If there is someone who is both not plain and glorious, then Philbert is confident.
If Mark is not careful or Mark is confident, then Lloyd is plain.
It can be concluded that Mark is not careful once knowing that Shawn is confident or Chad is naughty.
All glorious people are not naughty.
If there is at least one people who is not plain or not glorious, then Mark is not naughty.
If someone who is not diplomatic is also careful, then he is not naughty.
If there is someone who is either diplomatic or not glorious, then Philbert is not confident and Stewart is not naughty.
Someone who is not confident is always both not naughty and not glorious.
If Alisa is confident or Chad is careful, then Lloyd is not glorious.
Someone is plain if and only if he is naughty. | Chad is glorious. | self_contradiction |
Stewart is naughty.
Mark is not plain.
Alisa is not glorious.
Chad is not plain.
Lloyd is not plain.
Chad is not diplomatic.
Philbert is confident.
Lloyd is not careful.
Shawn is not plain.
Lloyd is diplomatic.
Alisa is careful.
Chad is glorious.Someone who is not plain is always both not glorious and confident.
If someone is not plain, then he is diplomatic.
If there is someone who is both not plain and glorious, then Philbert is confident.
If Mark is not careful or Mark is confident, then Lloyd is plain.
It can be concluded that Mark is not careful once knowing that Shawn is confident or Chad is naughty.
All glorious people are not naughty.
If there is at least one people who is not plain or not glorious, then Mark is not naughty.
If someone who is not diplomatic is also careful, then he is not naughty.
If there is someone who is either diplomatic or not glorious, then Philbert is not confident and Stewart is not naughty.
Someone who is not confident is always both not naughty and not glorious.
If Alisa is confident or Chad is careful, then Lloyd is not glorious.
Someone is plain if and only if he is naughty. | Lloyd is naughty. | entailment |
Stewart is naughty.
Mark is not plain.
Alisa is not glorious.
Chad is not plain.
Lloyd is not plain.
Chad is not diplomatic.
Philbert is confident.
Lloyd is not careful.
Shawn is not plain.
Lloyd is diplomatic.
Alisa is careful.
Chad is glorious.Someone who is not plain is always both not glorious and confident.
If someone is not plain, then he is diplomatic.
If there is someone who is both not plain and glorious, then Philbert is confident.
If Mark is not careful or Mark is confident, then Lloyd is plain.
It can be concluded that Mark is not careful once knowing that Shawn is confident or Chad is naughty.
All glorious people are not naughty.
If there is at least one people who is not plain or not glorious, then Mark is not naughty.
If someone who is not diplomatic is also careful, then he is not naughty.
If there is someone who is either diplomatic or not glorious, then Philbert is not confident and Stewart is not naughty.
Someone who is not confident is always both not naughty and not glorious.
If Alisa is confident or Chad is careful, then Lloyd is not glorious.
Someone is plain if and only if he is naughty. | Alisa is not glorious. | entailment |
Stewart is naughty.
Mark is not plain.
Alisa is not glorious.
Chad is not plain.
Lloyd is not plain.
Chad is not diplomatic.
Philbert is confident.
Lloyd is not careful.
Shawn is not plain.
Lloyd is diplomatic.
Alisa is careful.
Chad is glorious.Someone who is not plain is always both not glorious and confident.
If someone is not plain, then he is diplomatic.
If there is someone who is both not plain and glorious, then Philbert is confident.
If Mark is not careful or Mark is confident, then Lloyd is plain.
It can be concluded that Mark is not careful once knowing that Shawn is confident or Chad is naughty.
All glorious people are not naughty.
If there is at least one people who is not plain or not glorious, then Mark is not naughty.
If someone who is not diplomatic is also careful, then he is not naughty.
If there is someone who is either diplomatic or not glorious, then Philbert is not confident and Stewart is not naughty.
Someone who is not confident is always both not naughty and not glorious.
If Alisa is confident or Chad is careful, then Lloyd is not glorious.
Someone is plain if and only if he is naughty. | Chad is not glorious. | self_contradiction |
Stewart is naughty.
Mark is not plain.
Alisa is not glorious.
Chad is not plain.
Lloyd is not plain.
Chad is not diplomatic.
Philbert is confident.
Lloyd is not careful.
Shawn is not plain.
Lloyd is diplomatic.
Alisa is careful.
Chad is glorious.Someone who is not plain is always both not glorious and confident.
If someone is not plain, then he is diplomatic.
If there is someone who is both not plain and glorious, then Philbert is confident.
If Mark is not careful or Mark is confident, then Lloyd is plain.
It can be concluded that Mark is not careful once knowing that Shawn is confident or Chad is naughty.
All glorious people are not naughty.
If there is at least one people who is not plain or not glorious, then Mark is not naughty.
If someone who is not diplomatic is also careful, then he is not naughty.
If there is someone who is either diplomatic or not glorious, then Philbert is not confident and Stewart is not naughty.
Someone who is not confident is always both not naughty and not glorious.
If Alisa is confident or Chad is careful, then Lloyd is not glorious.
Someone is plain if and only if he is naughty. | Stewart is diplomatic. | neutral |
Stewart is naughty.
Mark is not plain.
Alisa is not glorious.
Chad is not plain.
Lloyd is not plain.
Chad is not diplomatic.
Philbert is confident.
Lloyd is not careful.
Shawn is not plain.
Lloyd is diplomatic.
Alisa is careful.
Chad is glorious.Someone who is not plain is always both not glorious and confident.
If someone is not plain, then he is diplomatic.
If there is someone who is both not plain and glorious, then Philbert is confident.
If Mark is not careful or Mark is confident, then Lloyd is plain.
It can be concluded that Mark is not careful once knowing that Shawn is confident or Chad is naughty.
All glorious people are not naughty.
If there is at least one people who is not plain or not glorious, then Mark is not naughty.
If someone who is not diplomatic is also careful, then he is not naughty.
If there is someone who is either diplomatic or not glorious, then Philbert is not confident and Stewart is not naughty.
Someone who is not confident is always both not naughty and not glorious.
If Alisa is confident or Chad is careful, then Lloyd is not glorious.
Someone is plain if and only if he is naughty. | Mark is plain. | contradiction |
Stewart is naughty.
Mark is not plain.
Alisa is not glorious.
Chad is not plain.
Lloyd is not plain.
Chad is not diplomatic.
Philbert is confident.
Lloyd is not careful.
Shawn is not plain.
Lloyd is diplomatic.
Alisa is careful.
Chad is glorious.Someone who is not plain is always both not glorious and confident.
If someone is not plain, then he is diplomatic.
If there is someone who is both not plain and glorious, then Philbert is confident.
If Mark is not careful or Mark is confident, then Lloyd is plain.
It can be concluded that Mark is not careful once knowing that Shawn is confident or Chad is naughty.
All glorious people are not naughty.
If there is at least one people who is not plain or not glorious, then Mark is not naughty.
If someone who is not diplomatic is also careful, then he is not naughty.
If there is someone who is either diplomatic or not glorious, then Philbert is not confident and Stewart is not naughty.
Someone who is not confident is always both not naughty and not glorious.
If Alisa is confident or Chad is careful, then Lloyd is not glorious.
Someone is plain if and only if he is naughty. | Mark is not plain. | entailment |
Stewart is naughty.
Mark is not plain.
Alisa is not glorious.
Chad is not plain.
Lloyd is not plain.
Chad is not diplomatic.
Philbert is confident.
Lloyd is not careful.
Shawn is not plain.
Lloyd is diplomatic.
Alisa is careful.
Chad is glorious.Someone who is not plain is always both not glorious and confident.
If someone is not plain, then he is diplomatic.
If there is someone who is both not plain and glorious, then Philbert is confident.
If Mark is not careful or Mark is confident, then Lloyd is plain.
It can be concluded that Mark is not careful once knowing that Shawn is confident or Chad is naughty.
All glorious people are not naughty.
If there is at least one people who is not plain or not glorious, then Mark is not naughty.
If someone who is not diplomatic is also careful, then he is not naughty.
If there is someone who is either diplomatic or not glorious, then Philbert is not confident and Stewart is not naughty.
Someone who is not confident is always both not naughty and not glorious.
If Alisa is confident or Chad is careful, then Lloyd is not glorious.
Someone is plain if and only if he is naughty. | Chad is not plain. | entailment |
Stewart is naughty.
Mark is not plain.
Alisa is not glorious.
Chad is not plain.
Lloyd is not plain.
Chad is not diplomatic.
Philbert is confident.
Lloyd is not careful.
Shawn is not plain.
Lloyd is diplomatic.
Alisa is careful.
Chad is glorious.Someone who is not plain is always both not glorious and confident.
If someone is not plain, then he is diplomatic.
If there is someone who is both not plain and glorious, then Philbert is confident.
If Mark is not careful or Mark is confident, then Lloyd is plain.
It can be concluded that Mark is not careful once knowing that Shawn is confident or Chad is naughty.
All glorious people are not naughty.
If there is at least one people who is not plain or not glorious, then Mark is not naughty.
If someone who is not diplomatic is also careful, then he is not naughty.
If there is someone who is either diplomatic or not glorious, then Philbert is not confident and Stewart is not naughty.
Someone who is not confident is always both not naughty and not glorious.
If Alisa is confident or Chad is careful, then Lloyd is not glorious.
Someone is plain if and only if he is naughty. | Lloyd is not confident. | contradiction |
Mark is not hypocritical.
Shawn is not puzzled.
Barclay is desperate.
Brian is afraid.
Carter is plain.
Mark is not lucky.
Richard is lucky.
Barclay is not afraid.
Shawn is plain.
Carter is afraid.
Shawn is not desperate.
Carter is not puzzled.If someone is both hypocritical and puzzled, then he is plain.
It can be concluded that Brian is not afraid once knowing that Shawn is not desperate and Mark is not lucky.
If there is at least one people who is desperate, then Richard is puzzled and Shawn is not plain.
If all people are not afraid or desperate, then Mark is hypocritical.
If Barclay is not plain and Barclay is lucky, then Shawn is not hypocritical.
If Mark is not lucky and Barclay is not puzzled, then Mark is not afraid.
All lucky people are not desperate.
If Mark is not afraid or Carter is not plain, then Carter is lucky.
It can be concluded that Maddox is not lucky once knowing that Richard is puzzled or Mark is desperate.
If someone who is not desperate is also not plain, then he is puzzled.
If there is at least one people who is both not hypocritical and plain, then Brian is not puzzled.
If there is someone who is both not puzzled and hypocritical, then Barclay is not lucky and Mark is not desperate. | Brian is not afraid. | self_contradiction |
Mark is not hypocritical.
Shawn is not puzzled.
Barclay is desperate.
Brian is afraid.
Carter is plain.
Mark is not lucky.
Richard is lucky.
Barclay is not afraid.
Shawn is plain.
Carter is afraid.
Shawn is not desperate.
Carter is not puzzled.If someone is both hypocritical and puzzled, then he is plain.
It can be concluded that Brian is not afraid once knowing that Shawn is not desperate and Mark is not lucky.
If there is at least one people who is desperate, then Richard is puzzled and Shawn is not plain.
If all people are not afraid or desperate, then Mark is hypocritical.
If Barclay is not plain and Barclay is lucky, then Shawn is not hypocritical.
If Mark is not lucky and Barclay is not puzzled, then Mark is not afraid.
All lucky people are not desperate.
If Mark is not afraid or Carter is not plain, then Carter is lucky.
It can be concluded that Maddox is not lucky once knowing that Richard is puzzled or Mark is desperate.
If someone who is not desperate is also not plain, then he is puzzled.
If there is at least one people who is both not hypocritical and plain, then Brian is not puzzled.
If there is someone who is both not puzzled and hypocritical, then Barclay is not lucky and Mark is not desperate. | Barclay is lucky. | neutral |
Mark is not hypocritical.
Shawn is not puzzled.
Barclay is desperate.
Brian is afraid.
Carter is plain.
Mark is not lucky.
Richard is lucky.
Barclay is not afraid.
Shawn is plain.
Carter is afraid.
Shawn is not desperate.
Carter is not puzzled.If someone is both hypocritical and puzzled, then he is plain.
It can be concluded that Brian is not afraid once knowing that Shawn is not desperate and Mark is not lucky.
If there is at least one people who is desperate, then Richard is puzzled and Shawn is not plain.
If all people are not afraid or desperate, then Mark is hypocritical.
If Barclay is not plain and Barclay is lucky, then Shawn is not hypocritical.
If Mark is not lucky and Barclay is not puzzled, then Mark is not afraid.
All lucky people are not desperate.
If Mark is not afraid or Carter is not plain, then Carter is lucky.
It can be concluded that Maddox is not lucky once knowing that Richard is puzzled or Mark is desperate.
If someone who is not desperate is also not plain, then he is puzzled.
If there is at least one people who is both not hypocritical and plain, then Brian is not puzzled.
If there is someone who is both not puzzled and hypocritical, then Barclay is not lucky and Mark is not desperate. | Carter is plain. | entailment |
Mark is not hypocritical.
Shawn is not puzzled.
Barclay is desperate.
Brian is afraid.
Carter is plain.
Mark is not lucky.
Richard is lucky.
Barclay is not afraid.
Shawn is plain.
Carter is afraid.
Shawn is not desperate.
Carter is not puzzled.If someone is both hypocritical and puzzled, then he is plain.
It can be concluded that Brian is not afraid once knowing that Shawn is not desperate and Mark is not lucky.
If there is at least one people who is desperate, then Richard is puzzled and Shawn is not plain.
If all people are not afraid or desperate, then Mark is hypocritical.
If Barclay is not plain and Barclay is lucky, then Shawn is not hypocritical.
If Mark is not lucky and Barclay is not puzzled, then Mark is not afraid.
All lucky people are not desperate.
If Mark is not afraid or Carter is not plain, then Carter is lucky.
It can be concluded that Maddox is not lucky once knowing that Richard is puzzled or Mark is desperate.
If someone who is not desperate is also not plain, then he is puzzled.
If there is at least one people who is both not hypocritical and plain, then Brian is not puzzled.
If there is someone who is both not puzzled and hypocritical, then Barclay is not lucky and Mark is not desperate. | Mark is hypocritical. | contradiction |
Mark is not hypocritical.
Shawn is not puzzled.
Barclay is desperate.
Brian is afraid.
Carter is plain.
Mark is not lucky.
Richard is lucky.
Barclay is not afraid.
Shawn is plain.
Carter is afraid.
Shawn is not desperate.
Carter is not puzzled.If someone is both hypocritical and puzzled, then he is plain.
It can be concluded that Brian is not afraid once knowing that Shawn is not desperate and Mark is not lucky.
If there is at least one people who is desperate, then Richard is puzzled and Shawn is not plain.
If all people are not afraid or desperate, then Mark is hypocritical.
If Barclay is not plain and Barclay is lucky, then Shawn is not hypocritical.
If Mark is not lucky and Barclay is not puzzled, then Mark is not afraid.
All lucky people are not desperate.
If Mark is not afraid or Carter is not plain, then Carter is lucky.
It can be concluded that Maddox is not lucky once knowing that Richard is puzzled or Mark is desperate.
If someone who is not desperate is also not plain, then he is puzzled.
If there is at least one people who is both not hypocritical and plain, then Brian is not puzzled.
If there is someone who is both not puzzled and hypocritical, then Barclay is not lucky and Mark is not desperate. | Shawn is not desperate. | entailment |
Mark is not hypocritical.
Shawn is not puzzled.
Barclay is desperate.
Brian is afraid.
Carter is plain.
Mark is not lucky.
Richard is lucky.
Barclay is not afraid.
Shawn is plain.
Carter is afraid.
Shawn is not desperate.
Carter is not puzzled.If someone is both hypocritical and puzzled, then he is plain.
It can be concluded that Brian is not afraid once knowing that Shawn is not desperate and Mark is not lucky.
If there is at least one people who is desperate, then Richard is puzzled and Shawn is not plain.
If all people are not afraid or desperate, then Mark is hypocritical.
If Barclay is not plain and Barclay is lucky, then Shawn is not hypocritical.
If Mark is not lucky and Barclay is not puzzled, then Mark is not afraid.
All lucky people are not desperate.
If Mark is not afraid or Carter is not plain, then Carter is lucky.
It can be concluded that Maddox is not lucky once knowing that Richard is puzzled or Mark is desperate.
If someone who is not desperate is also not plain, then he is puzzled.
If there is at least one people who is both not hypocritical and plain, then Brian is not puzzled.
If there is someone who is both not puzzled and hypocritical, then Barclay is not lucky and Mark is not desperate. | Carter is not afraid. | contradiction |
Mark is not hypocritical.
Shawn is not puzzled.
Barclay is desperate.
Brian is afraid.
Carter is plain.
Mark is not lucky.
Richard is lucky.
Barclay is not afraid.
Shawn is plain.
Carter is afraid.
Shawn is not desperate.
Carter is not puzzled.If someone is both hypocritical and puzzled, then he is plain.
It can be concluded that Brian is not afraid once knowing that Shawn is not desperate and Mark is not lucky.
If there is at least one people who is desperate, then Richard is puzzled and Shawn is not plain.
If all people are not afraid or desperate, then Mark is hypocritical.
If Barclay is not plain and Barclay is lucky, then Shawn is not hypocritical.
If Mark is not lucky and Barclay is not puzzled, then Mark is not afraid.
All lucky people are not desperate.
If Mark is not afraid or Carter is not plain, then Carter is lucky.
It can be concluded that Maddox is not lucky once knowing that Richard is puzzled or Mark is desperate.
If someone who is not desperate is also not plain, then he is puzzled.
If there is at least one people who is both not hypocritical and plain, then Brian is not puzzled.
If there is someone who is both not puzzled and hypocritical, then Barclay is not lucky and Mark is not desperate. | Maddox is puzzled. | neutral |
Mark is not hypocritical.
Shawn is not puzzled.
Barclay is desperate.
Brian is afraid.
Carter is plain.
Mark is not lucky.
Richard is lucky.
Barclay is not afraid.
Shawn is plain.
Carter is afraid.
Shawn is not desperate.
Carter is not puzzled.If someone is both hypocritical and puzzled, then he is plain.
It can be concluded that Brian is not afraid once knowing that Shawn is not desperate and Mark is not lucky.
If there is at least one people who is desperate, then Richard is puzzled and Shawn is not plain.
If all people are not afraid or desperate, then Mark is hypocritical.
If Barclay is not plain and Barclay is lucky, then Shawn is not hypocritical.
If Mark is not lucky and Barclay is not puzzled, then Mark is not afraid.
All lucky people are not desperate.
If Mark is not afraid or Carter is not plain, then Carter is lucky.
It can be concluded that Maddox is not lucky once knowing that Richard is puzzled or Mark is desperate.
If someone who is not desperate is also not plain, then he is puzzled.
If there is at least one people who is both not hypocritical and plain, then Brian is not puzzled.
If there is someone who is both not puzzled and hypocritical, then Barclay is not lucky and Mark is not desperate. | Shawn is not hypocritical. | neutral |
Mark is not hypocritical.
Shawn is not puzzled.
Barclay is desperate.
Brian is afraid.
Carter is plain.
Mark is not lucky.
Richard is lucky.
Barclay is not afraid.
Shawn is plain.
Carter is afraid.
Shawn is not desperate.
Carter is not puzzled.If someone is both hypocritical and puzzled, then he is plain.
It can be concluded that Brian is not afraid once knowing that Shawn is not desperate and Mark is not lucky.
If there is at least one people who is desperate, then Richard is puzzled and Shawn is not plain.
If all people are not afraid or desperate, then Mark is hypocritical.
If Barclay is not plain and Barclay is lucky, then Shawn is not hypocritical.
If Mark is not lucky and Barclay is not puzzled, then Mark is not afraid.
All lucky people are not desperate.
If Mark is not afraid or Carter is not plain, then Carter is lucky.
It can be concluded that Maddox is not lucky once knowing that Richard is puzzled or Mark is desperate.
If someone who is not desperate is also not plain, then he is puzzled.
If there is at least one people who is both not hypocritical and plain, then Brian is not puzzled.
If there is someone who is both not puzzled and hypocritical, then Barclay is not lucky and Mark is not desperate. | Mark is lucky. | contradiction |
Mark is not hypocritical.
Shawn is not puzzled.
Barclay is desperate.
Brian is afraid.
Carter is plain.
Mark is not lucky.
Richard is lucky.
Barclay is not afraid.
Shawn is plain.
Carter is afraid.
Shawn is not desperate.
Carter is not puzzled.If someone is both hypocritical and puzzled, then he is plain.
It can be concluded that Brian is not afraid once knowing that Shawn is not desperate and Mark is not lucky.
If there is at least one people who is desperate, then Richard is puzzled and Shawn is not plain.
If all people are not afraid or desperate, then Mark is hypocritical.
If Barclay is not plain and Barclay is lucky, then Shawn is not hypocritical.
If Mark is not lucky and Barclay is not puzzled, then Mark is not afraid.
All lucky people are not desperate.
If Mark is not afraid or Carter is not plain, then Carter is lucky.
It can be concluded that Maddox is not lucky once knowing that Richard is puzzled or Mark is desperate.
If someone who is not desperate is also not plain, then he is puzzled.
If there is at least one people who is both not hypocritical and plain, then Brian is not puzzled.
If there is someone who is both not puzzled and hypocritical, then Barclay is not lucky and Mark is not desperate. | Shawn is not puzzled. | self_contradiction |
Mark is not hypocritical.
Shawn is not puzzled.
Barclay is desperate.
Brian is afraid.
Carter is plain.
Mark is not lucky.
Richard is lucky.
Barclay is not afraid.
Shawn is plain.
Carter is afraid.
Shawn is not desperate.
Carter is not puzzled.If someone is both hypocritical and puzzled, then he is plain.
It can be concluded that Brian is not afraid once knowing that Shawn is not desperate and Mark is not lucky.
If there is at least one people who is desperate, then Richard is puzzled and Shawn is not plain.
If all people are not afraid or desperate, then Mark is hypocritical.
If Barclay is not plain and Barclay is lucky, then Shawn is not hypocritical.
If Mark is not lucky and Barclay is not puzzled, then Mark is not afraid.
All lucky people are not desperate.
If Mark is not afraid or Carter is not plain, then Carter is lucky.
It can be concluded that Maddox is not lucky once knowing that Richard is puzzled or Mark is desperate.
If someone who is not desperate is also not plain, then he is puzzled.
If there is at least one people who is both not hypocritical and plain, then Brian is not puzzled.
If there is someone who is both not puzzled and hypocritical, then Barclay is not lucky and Mark is not desperate. | Mark is not puzzled. | neutral |
Mark is not hypocritical.
Shawn is not puzzled.
Barclay is desperate.
Brian is afraid.
Carter is plain.
Mark is not lucky.
Richard is lucky.
Barclay is not afraid.
Shawn is plain.
Carter is afraid.
Shawn is not desperate.
Carter is not puzzled.If someone is both hypocritical and puzzled, then he is plain.
It can be concluded that Brian is not afraid once knowing that Shawn is not desperate and Mark is not lucky.
If there is at least one people who is desperate, then Richard is puzzled and Shawn is not plain.
If all people are not afraid or desperate, then Mark is hypocritical.
If Barclay is not plain and Barclay is lucky, then Shawn is not hypocritical.
If Mark is not lucky and Barclay is not puzzled, then Mark is not afraid.
All lucky people are not desperate.
If Mark is not afraid or Carter is not plain, then Carter is lucky.
It can be concluded that Maddox is not lucky once knowing that Richard is puzzled or Mark is desperate.
If someone who is not desperate is also not plain, then he is puzzled.
If there is at least one people who is both not hypocritical and plain, then Brian is not puzzled.
If there is someone who is both not puzzled and hypocritical, then Barclay is not lucky and Mark is not desperate. | Mark is not lucky. | entailment |
Mark is not hypocritical.
Shawn is not puzzled.
Barclay is desperate.
Brian is afraid.
Carter is plain.
Mark is not lucky.
Richard is lucky.
Barclay is not afraid.
Shawn is plain.
Carter is afraid.
Shawn is not desperate.
Carter is not puzzled.If someone is both hypocritical and puzzled, then he is plain.
It can be concluded that Brian is not afraid once knowing that Shawn is not desperate and Mark is not lucky.
If there is at least one people who is desperate, then Richard is puzzled and Shawn is not plain.
If all people are not afraid or desperate, then Mark is hypocritical.
If Barclay is not plain and Barclay is lucky, then Shawn is not hypocritical.
If Mark is not lucky and Barclay is not puzzled, then Mark is not afraid.
All lucky people are not desperate.
If Mark is not afraid or Carter is not plain, then Carter is lucky.
It can be concluded that Maddox is not lucky once knowing that Richard is puzzled or Mark is desperate.
If someone who is not desperate is also not plain, then he is puzzled.
If there is at least one people who is both not hypocritical and plain, then Brian is not puzzled.
If there is someone who is both not puzzled and hypocritical, then Barclay is not lucky and Mark is not desperate. | Carter is afraid. | entailment |
Mark is not hypocritical.
Shawn is not puzzled.
Barclay is desperate.
Brian is afraid.
Carter is plain.
Mark is not lucky.
Richard is lucky.
Barclay is not afraid.
Shawn is plain.
Carter is afraid.
Shawn is not desperate.
Carter is not puzzled.If someone is both hypocritical and puzzled, then he is plain.
It can be concluded that Brian is not afraid once knowing that Shawn is not desperate and Mark is not lucky.
If there is at least one people who is desperate, then Richard is puzzled and Shawn is not plain.
If all people are not afraid or desperate, then Mark is hypocritical.
If Barclay is not plain and Barclay is lucky, then Shawn is not hypocritical.
If Mark is not lucky and Barclay is not puzzled, then Mark is not afraid.
All lucky people are not desperate.
If Mark is not afraid or Carter is not plain, then Carter is lucky.
It can be concluded that Maddox is not lucky once knowing that Richard is puzzled or Mark is desperate.
If someone who is not desperate is also not plain, then he is puzzled.
If there is at least one people who is both not hypocritical and plain, then Brian is not puzzled.
If there is someone who is both not puzzled and hypocritical, then Barclay is not lucky and Mark is not desperate. | Mark is plain. | neutral |
Mark is not hypocritical.
Shawn is not puzzled.
Barclay is desperate.
Brian is afraid.
Carter is plain.
Mark is not lucky.
Richard is lucky.
Barclay is not afraid.
Shawn is plain.
Carter is afraid.
Shawn is not desperate.
Carter is not puzzled.If someone is both hypocritical and puzzled, then he is plain.
It can be concluded that Brian is not afraid once knowing that Shawn is not desperate and Mark is not lucky.
If there is at least one people who is desperate, then Richard is puzzled and Shawn is not plain.
If all people are not afraid or desperate, then Mark is hypocritical.
If Barclay is not plain and Barclay is lucky, then Shawn is not hypocritical.
If Mark is not lucky and Barclay is not puzzled, then Mark is not afraid.
All lucky people are not desperate.
If Mark is not afraid or Carter is not plain, then Carter is lucky.
It can be concluded that Maddox is not lucky once knowing that Richard is puzzled or Mark is desperate.
If someone who is not desperate is also not plain, then he is puzzled.
If there is at least one people who is both not hypocritical and plain, then Brian is not puzzled.
If there is someone who is both not puzzled and hypocritical, then Barclay is not lucky and Mark is not desperate. | Shawn is plain. | self_contradiction |
Mark is not hypocritical.
Shawn is not puzzled.
Barclay is desperate.
Brian is afraid.
Carter is plain.
Mark is not lucky.
Richard is lucky.
Barclay is not afraid.
Shawn is plain.
Carter is afraid.
Shawn is not desperate.
Carter is not puzzled.If someone is both hypocritical and puzzled, then he is plain.
It can be concluded that Brian is not afraid once knowing that Shawn is not desperate and Mark is not lucky.
If there is at least one people who is desperate, then Richard is puzzled and Shawn is not plain.
If all people are not afraid or desperate, then Mark is hypocritical.
If Barclay is not plain and Barclay is lucky, then Shawn is not hypocritical.
If Mark is not lucky and Barclay is not puzzled, then Mark is not afraid.
All lucky people are not desperate.
If Mark is not afraid or Carter is not plain, then Carter is lucky.
It can be concluded that Maddox is not lucky once knowing that Richard is puzzled or Mark is desperate.
If someone who is not desperate is also not plain, then he is puzzled.
If there is at least one people who is both not hypocritical and plain, then Brian is not puzzled.
If there is someone who is both not puzzled and hypocritical, then Barclay is not lucky and Mark is not desperate. | Barclay is afraid. | contradiction |
Mark is not hypocritical.
Shawn is not puzzled.
Barclay is desperate.
Brian is afraid.
Carter is plain.
Mark is not lucky.
Richard is lucky.
Barclay is not afraid.
Shawn is plain.
Carter is afraid.
Shawn is not desperate.
Carter is not puzzled.If someone is both hypocritical and puzzled, then he is plain.
It can be concluded that Brian is not afraid once knowing that Shawn is not desperate and Mark is not lucky.
If there is at least one people who is desperate, then Richard is puzzled and Shawn is not plain.
If all people are not afraid or desperate, then Mark is hypocritical.
If Barclay is not plain and Barclay is lucky, then Shawn is not hypocritical.
If Mark is not lucky and Barclay is not puzzled, then Mark is not afraid.
All lucky people are not desperate.
If Mark is not afraid or Carter is not plain, then Carter is lucky.
It can be concluded that Maddox is not lucky once knowing that Richard is puzzled or Mark is desperate.
If someone who is not desperate is also not plain, then he is puzzled.
If there is at least one people who is both not hypocritical and plain, then Brian is not puzzled.
If there is someone who is both not puzzled and hypocritical, then Barclay is not lucky and Mark is not desperate. | Carter is not puzzled. | entailment |
Mark is not hypocritical.
Shawn is not puzzled.
Barclay is desperate.
Brian is afraid.
Carter is plain.
Mark is not lucky.
Richard is lucky.
Barclay is not afraid.
Shawn is plain.
Carter is afraid.
Shawn is not desperate.
Carter is not puzzled.If someone is both hypocritical and puzzled, then he is plain.
It can be concluded that Brian is not afraid once knowing that Shawn is not desperate and Mark is not lucky.
If there is at least one people who is desperate, then Richard is puzzled and Shawn is not plain.
If all people are not afraid or desperate, then Mark is hypocritical.
If Barclay is not plain and Barclay is lucky, then Shawn is not hypocritical.
If Mark is not lucky and Barclay is not puzzled, then Mark is not afraid.
All lucky people are not desperate.
If Mark is not afraid or Carter is not plain, then Carter is lucky.
It can be concluded that Maddox is not lucky once knowing that Richard is puzzled or Mark is desperate.
If someone who is not desperate is also not plain, then he is puzzled.
If there is at least one people who is both not hypocritical and plain, then Brian is not puzzled.
If there is someone who is both not puzzled and hypocritical, then Barclay is not lucky and Mark is not desperate. | Shawn is puzzled. | self_contradiction |
Mark is not hypocritical.
Shawn is not puzzled.
Barclay is desperate.
Brian is afraid.
Carter is plain.
Mark is not lucky.
Richard is lucky.
Barclay is not afraid.
Shawn is plain.
Carter is afraid.
Shawn is not desperate.
Carter is not puzzled.If someone is both hypocritical and puzzled, then he is plain.
It can be concluded that Brian is not afraid once knowing that Shawn is not desperate and Mark is not lucky.
If there is at least one people who is desperate, then Richard is puzzled and Shawn is not plain.
If all people are not afraid or desperate, then Mark is hypocritical.
If Barclay is not plain and Barclay is lucky, then Shawn is not hypocritical.
If Mark is not lucky and Barclay is not puzzled, then Mark is not afraid.
All lucky people are not desperate.
If Mark is not afraid or Carter is not plain, then Carter is lucky.
It can be concluded that Maddox is not lucky once knowing that Richard is puzzled or Mark is desperate.
If someone who is not desperate is also not plain, then he is puzzled.
If there is at least one people who is both not hypocritical and plain, then Brian is not puzzled.
If there is someone who is both not puzzled and hypocritical, then Barclay is not lucky and Mark is not desperate. | Brian is afraid. | self_contradiction |
Mark is not hypocritical.
Shawn is not puzzled.
Barclay is desperate.
Brian is afraid.
Carter is plain.
Mark is not lucky.
Richard is lucky.
Barclay is not afraid.
Shawn is plain.
Carter is afraid.
Shawn is not desperate.
Carter is not puzzled.If someone is both hypocritical and puzzled, then he is plain.
It can be concluded that Brian is not afraid once knowing that Shawn is not desperate and Mark is not lucky.
If there is at least one people who is desperate, then Richard is puzzled and Shawn is not plain.
If all people are not afraid or desperate, then Mark is hypocritical.
If Barclay is not plain and Barclay is lucky, then Shawn is not hypocritical.
If Mark is not lucky and Barclay is not puzzled, then Mark is not afraid.
All lucky people are not desperate.
If Mark is not afraid or Carter is not plain, then Carter is lucky.
It can be concluded that Maddox is not lucky once knowing that Richard is puzzled or Mark is desperate.
If someone who is not desperate is also not plain, then he is puzzled.
If there is at least one people who is both not hypocritical and plain, then Brian is not puzzled.
If there is someone who is both not puzzled and hypocritical, then Barclay is not lucky and Mark is not desperate. | Shawn is desperate. | contradiction |
Carl is romantic.
Gabriel is not curious.
Ramsey is not conscientious.
Gabriel is conscientious.
Marlon is not optimistic.
Isaiah is not curious.
Isaiah is not thankful.
Marlon is conscientious.
Lucy is not romantic.
Marlon is not determined.
Isaiah is not optimistic.
Ramsey is not romantic.It can be concluded that Janet is determined once knowing that Gabriel is thankful or Gabriel is optimistic.
If there is nobody who is not romantic, then Isaiah is not curious and Gabriel is not thankful.
It can be concluded that Isaiah is thankful and Janet is not determined once knowing that Isaiah is optimistic.
As long as someone is curious and romantic, he is thankful and not determined.
If there is at least one people who is not thankful or not curious, then Isaiah is romantic.
It can be concluded that Ramsey is curious once knowing that Lucy is determined or Lucy is not optimistic.
Someone who is both not romantic and not thankful is always not curious.
If someone is not curious and not romantic, then he is both thankful and optimistic, and vice versa.
Someone being both not optimistic and not curious is equivalent to being not thankful.
If someone is determined, then he is not curious, and vice versa.
Carl being romantic is equivalent to Isaiah being curious.
Someone being both not conscientious and curious is equivalent to being thankful and not romantic. | Ramsey is not romantic. | entailment |
Carl is romantic.
Gabriel is not curious.
Ramsey is not conscientious.
Gabriel is conscientious.
Marlon is not optimistic.
Isaiah is not curious.
Isaiah is not thankful.
Marlon is conscientious.
Lucy is not romantic.
Marlon is not determined.
Isaiah is not optimistic.
Ramsey is not romantic.It can be concluded that Janet is determined once knowing that Gabriel is thankful or Gabriel is optimistic.
If there is nobody who is not romantic, then Isaiah is not curious and Gabriel is not thankful.
It can be concluded that Isaiah is thankful and Janet is not determined once knowing that Isaiah is optimistic.
As long as someone is curious and romantic, he is thankful and not determined.
If there is at least one people who is not thankful or not curious, then Isaiah is romantic.
It can be concluded that Ramsey is curious once knowing that Lucy is determined or Lucy is not optimistic.
Someone who is both not romantic and not thankful is always not curious.
If someone is not curious and not romantic, then he is both thankful and optimistic, and vice versa.
Someone being both not optimistic and not curious is equivalent to being not thankful.
If someone is determined, then he is not curious, and vice versa.
Carl being romantic is equivalent to Isaiah being curious.
Someone being both not conscientious and curious is equivalent to being thankful and not romantic. | Ramsey is determined. | neutral |
Carl is romantic.
Gabriel is not curious.
Ramsey is not conscientious.
Gabriel is conscientious.
Marlon is not optimistic.
Isaiah is not curious.
Isaiah is not thankful.
Marlon is conscientious.
Lucy is not romantic.
Marlon is not determined.
Isaiah is not optimistic.
Ramsey is not romantic.It can be concluded that Janet is determined once knowing that Gabriel is thankful or Gabriel is optimistic.
If there is nobody who is not romantic, then Isaiah is not curious and Gabriel is not thankful.
It can be concluded that Isaiah is thankful and Janet is not determined once knowing that Isaiah is optimistic.
As long as someone is curious and romantic, he is thankful and not determined.
If there is at least one people who is not thankful or not curious, then Isaiah is romantic.
It can be concluded that Ramsey is curious once knowing that Lucy is determined or Lucy is not optimistic.
Someone who is both not romantic and not thankful is always not curious.
If someone is not curious and not romantic, then he is both thankful and optimistic, and vice versa.
Someone being both not optimistic and not curious is equivalent to being not thankful.
If someone is determined, then he is not curious, and vice versa.
Carl being romantic is equivalent to Isaiah being curious.
Someone being both not conscientious and curious is equivalent to being thankful and not romantic. | Janet is determined. | neutral |
Carl is romantic.
Gabriel is not curious.
Ramsey is not conscientious.
Gabriel is conscientious.
Marlon is not optimistic.
Isaiah is not curious.
Isaiah is not thankful.
Marlon is conscientious.
Lucy is not romantic.
Marlon is not determined.
Isaiah is not optimistic.
Ramsey is not romantic.It can be concluded that Janet is determined once knowing that Gabriel is thankful or Gabriel is optimistic.
If there is nobody who is not romantic, then Isaiah is not curious and Gabriel is not thankful.
It can be concluded that Isaiah is thankful and Janet is not determined once knowing that Isaiah is optimistic.
As long as someone is curious and romantic, he is thankful and not determined.
If there is at least one people who is not thankful or not curious, then Isaiah is romantic.
It can be concluded that Ramsey is curious once knowing that Lucy is determined or Lucy is not optimistic.
Someone who is both not romantic and not thankful is always not curious.
If someone is not curious and not romantic, then he is both thankful and optimistic, and vice versa.
Someone being both not optimistic and not curious is equivalent to being not thankful.
If someone is determined, then he is not curious, and vice versa.
Carl being romantic is equivalent to Isaiah being curious.
Someone being both not conscientious and curious is equivalent to being thankful and not romantic. | Isaiah is thankful. | self_contradiction |
Carl is romantic.
Gabriel is not curious.
Ramsey is not conscientious.
Gabriel is conscientious.
Marlon is not optimistic.
Isaiah is not curious.
Isaiah is not thankful.
Marlon is conscientious.
Lucy is not romantic.
Marlon is not determined.
Isaiah is not optimistic.
Ramsey is not romantic.It can be concluded that Janet is determined once knowing that Gabriel is thankful or Gabriel is optimistic.
If there is nobody who is not romantic, then Isaiah is not curious and Gabriel is not thankful.
It can be concluded that Isaiah is thankful and Janet is not determined once knowing that Isaiah is optimistic.
As long as someone is curious and romantic, he is thankful and not determined.
If there is at least one people who is not thankful or not curious, then Isaiah is romantic.
It can be concluded that Ramsey is curious once knowing that Lucy is determined or Lucy is not optimistic.
Someone who is both not romantic and not thankful is always not curious.
If someone is not curious and not romantic, then he is both thankful and optimistic, and vice versa.
Someone being both not optimistic and not curious is equivalent to being not thankful.
If someone is determined, then he is not curious, and vice versa.
Carl being romantic is equivalent to Isaiah being curious.
Someone being both not conscientious and curious is equivalent to being thankful and not romantic. | Carl is not optimistic. | neutral |
Carl is romantic.
Gabriel is not curious.
Ramsey is not conscientious.
Gabriel is conscientious.
Marlon is not optimistic.
Isaiah is not curious.
Isaiah is not thankful.
Marlon is conscientious.
Lucy is not romantic.
Marlon is not determined.
Isaiah is not optimistic.
Ramsey is not romantic.It can be concluded that Janet is determined once knowing that Gabriel is thankful or Gabriel is optimistic.
If there is nobody who is not romantic, then Isaiah is not curious and Gabriel is not thankful.
It can be concluded that Isaiah is thankful and Janet is not determined once knowing that Isaiah is optimistic.
As long as someone is curious and romantic, he is thankful and not determined.
If there is at least one people who is not thankful or not curious, then Isaiah is romantic.
It can be concluded that Ramsey is curious once knowing that Lucy is determined or Lucy is not optimistic.
Someone who is both not romantic and not thankful is always not curious.
If someone is not curious and not romantic, then he is both thankful and optimistic, and vice versa.
Someone being both not optimistic and not curious is equivalent to being not thankful.
If someone is determined, then he is not curious, and vice versa.
Carl being romantic is equivalent to Isaiah being curious.
Someone being both not conscientious and curious is equivalent to being thankful and not romantic. | Isaiah is not determined. | self_contradiction |
Carl is romantic.
Gabriel is not curious.
Ramsey is not conscientious.
Gabriel is conscientious.
Marlon is not optimistic.
Isaiah is not curious.
Isaiah is not thankful.
Marlon is conscientious.
Lucy is not romantic.
Marlon is not determined.
Isaiah is not optimistic.
Ramsey is not romantic.It can be concluded that Janet is determined once knowing that Gabriel is thankful or Gabriel is optimistic.
If there is nobody who is not romantic, then Isaiah is not curious and Gabriel is not thankful.
It can be concluded that Isaiah is thankful and Janet is not determined once knowing that Isaiah is optimistic.
As long as someone is curious and romantic, he is thankful and not determined.
If there is at least one people who is not thankful or not curious, then Isaiah is romantic.
It can be concluded that Ramsey is curious once knowing that Lucy is determined or Lucy is not optimistic.
Someone who is both not romantic and not thankful is always not curious.
If someone is not curious and not romantic, then he is both thankful and optimistic, and vice versa.
Someone being both not optimistic and not curious is equivalent to being not thankful.
If someone is determined, then he is not curious, and vice versa.
Carl being romantic is equivalent to Isaiah being curious.
Someone being both not conscientious and curious is equivalent to being thankful and not romantic. | Marlon is not determined. | entailment |
Carl is romantic.
Gabriel is not curious.
Ramsey is not conscientious.
Gabriel is conscientious.
Marlon is not optimistic.
Isaiah is not curious.
Isaiah is not thankful.
Marlon is conscientious.
Lucy is not romantic.
Marlon is not determined.
Isaiah is not optimistic.
Ramsey is not romantic.It can be concluded that Janet is determined once knowing that Gabriel is thankful or Gabriel is optimistic.
If there is nobody who is not romantic, then Isaiah is not curious and Gabriel is not thankful.
It can be concluded that Isaiah is thankful and Janet is not determined once knowing that Isaiah is optimistic.
As long as someone is curious and romantic, he is thankful and not determined.
If there is at least one people who is not thankful or not curious, then Isaiah is romantic.
It can be concluded that Ramsey is curious once knowing that Lucy is determined or Lucy is not optimistic.
Someone who is both not romantic and not thankful is always not curious.
If someone is not curious and not romantic, then he is both thankful and optimistic, and vice versa.
Someone being both not optimistic and not curious is equivalent to being not thankful.
If someone is determined, then he is not curious, and vice versa.
Carl being romantic is equivalent to Isaiah being curious.
Someone being both not conscientious and curious is equivalent to being thankful and not romantic. | Isaiah is curious. | self_contradiction |
Carl is romantic.
Gabriel is not curious.
Ramsey is not conscientious.
Gabriel is conscientious.
Marlon is not optimistic.
Isaiah is not curious.
Isaiah is not thankful.
Marlon is conscientious.
Lucy is not romantic.
Marlon is not determined.
Isaiah is not optimistic.
Ramsey is not romantic.It can be concluded that Janet is determined once knowing that Gabriel is thankful or Gabriel is optimistic.
If there is nobody who is not romantic, then Isaiah is not curious and Gabriel is not thankful.
It can be concluded that Isaiah is thankful and Janet is not determined once knowing that Isaiah is optimistic.
As long as someone is curious and romantic, he is thankful and not determined.
If there is at least one people who is not thankful or not curious, then Isaiah is romantic.
It can be concluded that Ramsey is curious once knowing that Lucy is determined or Lucy is not optimistic.
Someone who is both not romantic and not thankful is always not curious.
If someone is not curious and not romantic, then he is both thankful and optimistic, and vice versa.
Someone being both not optimistic and not curious is equivalent to being not thankful.
If someone is determined, then he is not curious, and vice versa.
Carl being romantic is equivalent to Isaiah being curious.
Someone being both not conscientious and curious is equivalent to being thankful and not romantic. | Janet is not curious. | neutral |
Carl is romantic.
Gabriel is not curious.
Ramsey is not conscientious.
Gabriel is conscientious.
Marlon is not optimistic.
Isaiah is not curious.
Isaiah is not thankful.
Marlon is conscientious.
Lucy is not romantic.
Marlon is not determined.
Isaiah is not optimistic.
Ramsey is not romantic.It can be concluded that Janet is determined once knowing that Gabriel is thankful or Gabriel is optimistic.
If there is nobody who is not romantic, then Isaiah is not curious and Gabriel is not thankful.
It can be concluded that Isaiah is thankful and Janet is not determined once knowing that Isaiah is optimistic.
As long as someone is curious and romantic, he is thankful and not determined.
If there is at least one people who is not thankful or not curious, then Isaiah is romantic.
It can be concluded that Ramsey is curious once knowing that Lucy is determined or Lucy is not optimistic.
Someone who is both not romantic and not thankful is always not curious.
If someone is not curious and not romantic, then he is both thankful and optimistic, and vice versa.
Someone being both not optimistic and not curious is equivalent to being not thankful.
If someone is determined, then he is not curious, and vice versa.
Carl being romantic is equivalent to Isaiah being curious.
Someone being both not conscientious and curious is equivalent to being thankful and not romantic. | Isaiah is not thankful. | self_contradiction |
Carl is romantic.
Gabriel is not curious.
Ramsey is not conscientious.
Gabriel is conscientious.
Marlon is not optimistic.
Isaiah is not curious.
Isaiah is not thankful.
Marlon is conscientious.
Lucy is not romantic.
Marlon is not determined.
Isaiah is not optimistic.
Ramsey is not romantic.It can be concluded that Janet is determined once knowing that Gabriel is thankful or Gabriel is optimistic.
If there is nobody who is not romantic, then Isaiah is not curious and Gabriel is not thankful.
It can be concluded that Isaiah is thankful and Janet is not determined once knowing that Isaiah is optimistic.
As long as someone is curious and romantic, he is thankful and not determined.
If there is at least one people who is not thankful or not curious, then Isaiah is romantic.
It can be concluded that Ramsey is curious once knowing that Lucy is determined or Lucy is not optimistic.
Someone who is both not romantic and not thankful is always not curious.
If someone is not curious and not romantic, then he is both thankful and optimistic, and vice versa.
Someone being both not optimistic and not curious is equivalent to being not thankful.
If someone is determined, then he is not curious, and vice versa.
Carl being romantic is equivalent to Isaiah being curious.
Someone being both not conscientious and curious is equivalent to being thankful and not romantic. | Lucy is romantic. | contradiction |
Carl is romantic.
Gabriel is not curious.
Ramsey is not conscientious.
Gabriel is conscientious.
Marlon is not optimistic.
Isaiah is not curious.
Isaiah is not thankful.
Marlon is conscientious.
Lucy is not romantic.
Marlon is not determined.
Isaiah is not optimistic.
Ramsey is not romantic.It can be concluded that Janet is determined once knowing that Gabriel is thankful or Gabriel is optimistic.
If there is nobody who is not romantic, then Isaiah is not curious and Gabriel is not thankful.
It can be concluded that Isaiah is thankful and Janet is not determined once knowing that Isaiah is optimistic.
As long as someone is curious and romantic, he is thankful and not determined.
If there is at least one people who is not thankful or not curious, then Isaiah is romantic.
It can be concluded that Ramsey is curious once knowing that Lucy is determined or Lucy is not optimistic.
Someone who is both not romantic and not thankful is always not curious.
If someone is not curious and not romantic, then he is both thankful and optimistic, and vice versa.
Someone being both not optimistic and not curious is equivalent to being not thankful.
If someone is determined, then he is not curious, and vice versa.
Carl being romantic is equivalent to Isaiah being curious.
Someone being both not conscientious and curious is equivalent to being thankful and not romantic. | Gabriel is determined. | entailment |
Carl is romantic.
Gabriel is not curious.
Ramsey is not conscientious.
Gabriel is conscientious.
Marlon is not optimistic.
Isaiah is not curious.
Isaiah is not thankful.
Marlon is conscientious.
Lucy is not romantic.
Marlon is not determined.
Isaiah is not optimistic.
Ramsey is not romantic.It can be concluded that Janet is determined once knowing that Gabriel is thankful or Gabriel is optimistic.
If there is nobody who is not romantic, then Isaiah is not curious and Gabriel is not thankful.
It can be concluded that Isaiah is thankful and Janet is not determined once knowing that Isaiah is optimistic.
As long as someone is curious and romantic, he is thankful and not determined.
If there is at least one people who is not thankful or not curious, then Isaiah is romantic.
It can be concluded that Ramsey is curious once knowing that Lucy is determined or Lucy is not optimistic.
Someone who is both not romantic and not thankful is always not curious.
If someone is not curious and not romantic, then he is both thankful and optimistic, and vice versa.
Someone being both not optimistic and not curious is equivalent to being not thankful.
If someone is determined, then he is not curious, and vice versa.
Carl being romantic is equivalent to Isaiah being curious.
Someone being both not conscientious and curious is equivalent to being thankful and not romantic. | Isaiah is determined. | self_contradiction |
Carl is romantic.
Gabriel is not curious.
Ramsey is not conscientious.
Gabriel is conscientious.
Marlon is not optimistic.
Isaiah is not curious.
Isaiah is not thankful.
Marlon is conscientious.
Lucy is not romantic.
Marlon is not determined.
Isaiah is not optimistic.
Ramsey is not romantic.It can be concluded that Janet is determined once knowing that Gabriel is thankful or Gabriel is optimistic.
If there is nobody who is not romantic, then Isaiah is not curious and Gabriel is not thankful.
It can be concluded that Isaiah is thankful and Janet is not determined once knowing that Isaiah is optimistic.
As long as someone is curious and romantic, he is thankful and not determined.
If there is at least one people who is not thankful or not curious, then Isaiah is romantic.
It can be concluded that Ramsey is curious once knowing that Lucy is determined or Lucy is not optimistic.
Someone who is both not romantic and not thankful is always not curious.
If someone is not curious and not romantic, then he is both thankful and optimistic, and vice versa.
Someone being both not optimistic and not curious is equivalent to being not thankful.
If someone is determined, then he is not curious, and vice versa.
Carl being romantic is equivalent to Isaiah being curious.
Someone being both not conscientious and curious is equivalent to being thankful and not romantic. | Isaiah is optimistic. | contradiction |
Carl is romantic.
Gabriel is not curious.
Ramsey is not conscientious.
Gabriel is conscientious.
Marlon is not optimistic.
Isaiah is not curious.
Isaiah is not thankful.
Marlon is conscientious.
Lucy is not romantic.
Marlon is not determined.
Isaiah is not optimistic.
Ramsey is not romantic.It can be concluded that Janet is determined once knowing that Gabriel is thankful or Gabriel is optimistic.
If there is nobody who is not romantic, then Isaiah is not curious and Gabriel is not thankful.
It can be concluded that Isaiah is thankful and Janet is not determined once knowing that Isaiah is optimistic.
As long as someone is curious and romantic, he is thankful and not determined.
If there is at least one people who is not thankful or not curious, then Isaiah is romantic.
It can be concluded that Ramsey is curious once knowing that Lucy is determined or Lucy is not optimistic.
Someone who is both not romantic and not thankful is always not curious.
If someone is not curious and not romantic, then he is both thankful and optimistic, and vice versa.
Someone being both not optimistic and not curious is equivalent to being not thankful.
If someone is determined, then he is not curious, and vice versa.
Carl being romantic is equivalent to Isaiah being curious.
Someone being both not conscientious and curious is equivalent to being thankful and not romantic. | Ramsey is conscientious. | contradiction |
Carl is romantic.
Gabriel is not curious.
Ramsey is not conscientious.
Gabriel is conscientious.
Marlon is not optimistic.
Isaiah is not curious.
Isaiah is not thankful.
Marlon is conscientious.
Lucy is not romantic.
Marlon is not determined.
Isaiah is not optimistic.
Ramsey is not romantic.It can be concluded that Janet is determined once knowing that Gabriel is thankful or Gabriel is optimistic.
If there is nobody who is not romantic, then Isaiah is not curious and Gabriel is not thankful.
It can be concluded that Isaiah is thankful and Janet is not determined once knowing that Isaiah is optimistic.
As long as someone is curious and romantic, he is thankful and not determined.
If there is at least one people who is not thankful or not curious, then Isaiah is romantic.
It can be concluded that Ramsey is curious once knowing that Lucy is determined or Lucy is not optimistic.
Someone who is both not romantic and not thankful is always not curious.
If someone is not curious and not romantic, then he is both thankful and optimistic, and vice versa.
Someone being both not optimistic and not curious is equivalent to being not thankful.
If someone is determined, then he is not curious, and vice versa.
Carl being romantic is equivalent to Isaiah being curious.
Someone being both not conscientious and curious is equivalent to being thankful and not romantic. | Lucy is not romantic. | entailment |
Carl is romantic.
Gabriel is not curious.
Ramsey is not conscientious.
Gabriel is conscientious.
Marlon is not optimistic.
Isaiah is not curious.
Isaiah is not thankful.
Marlon is conscientious.
Lucy is not romantic.
Marlon is not determined.
Isaiah is not optimistic.
Ramsey is not romantic.It can be concluded that Janet is determined once knowing that Gabriel is thankful or Gabriel is optimistic.
If there is nobody who is not romantic, then Isaiah is not curious and Gabriel is not thankful.
It can be concluded that Isaiah is thankful and Janet is not determined once knowing that Isaiah is optimistic.
As long as someone is curious and romantic, he is thankful and not determined.
If there is at least one people who is not thankful or not curious, then Isaiah is romantic.
It can be concluded that Ramsey is curious once knowing that Lucy is determined or Lucy is not optimistic.
Someone who is both not romantic and not thankful is always not curious.
If someone is not curious and not romantic, then he is both thankful and optimistic, and vice versa.
Someone being both not optimistic and not curious is equivalent to being not thankful.
If someone is determined, then he is not curious, and vice versa.
Carl being romantic is equivalent to Isaiah being curious.
Someone being both not conscientious and curious is equivalent to being thankful and not romantic. | Marlon is optimistic. | contradiction |
Carl is romantic.
Gabriel is not curious.
Ramsey is not conscientious.
Gabriel is conscientious.
Marlon is not optimistic.
Isaiah is not curious.
Isaiah is not thankful.
Marlon is conscientious.
Lucy is not romantic.
Marlon is not determined.
Isaiah is not optimistic.
Ramsey is not romantic.It can be concluded that Janet is determined once knowing that Gabriel is thankful or Gabriel is optimistic.
If there is nobody who is not romantic, then Isaiah is not curious and Gabriel is not thankful.
It can be concluded that Isaiah is thankful and Janet is not determined once knowing that Isaiah is optimistic.
As long as someone is curious and romantic, he is thankful and not determined.
If there is at least one people who is not thankful or not curious, then Isaiah is romantic.
It can be concluded that Ramsey is curious once knowing that Lucy is determined or Lucy is not optimistic.
Someone who is both not romantic and not thankful is always not curious.
If someone is not curious and not romantic, then he is both thankful and optimistic, and vice versa.
Someone being both not optimistic and not curious is equivalent to being not thankful.
If someone is determined, then he is not curious, and vice versa.
Carl being romantic is equivalent to Isaiah being curious.
Someone being both not conscientious and curious is equivalent to being thankful and not romantic. | Ramsey is not conscientious. | entailment |
Carl is romantic.
Gabriel is not curious.
Ramsey is not conscientious.
Gabriel is conscientious.
Marlon is not optimistic.
Isaiah is not curious.
Isaiah is not thankful.
Marlon is conscientious.
Lucy is not romantic.
Marlon is not determined.
Isaiah is not optimistic.
Ramsey is not romantic.It can be concluded that Janet is determined once knowing that Gabriel is thankful or Gabriel is optimistic.
If there is nobody who is not romantic, then Isaiah is not curious and Gabriel is not thankful.
It can be concluded that Isaiah is thankful and Janet is not determined once knowing that Isaiah is optimistic.
As long as someone is curious and romantic, he is thankful and not determined.
If there is at least one people who is not thankful or not curious, then Isaiah is romantic.
It can be concluded that Ramsey is curious once knowing that Lucy is determined or Lucy is not optimistic.
Someone who is both not romantic and not thankful is always not curious.
If someone is not curious and not romantic, then he is both thankful and optimistic, and vice versa.
Someone being both not optimistic and not curious is equivalent to being not thankful.
If someone is determined, then he is not curious, and vice versa.
Carl being romantic is equivalent to Isaiah being curious.
Someone being both not conscientious and curious is equivalent to being thankful and not romantic. | Janet is not conscientious. | neutral |
Carl is romantic.
Gabriel is not curious.
Ramsey is not conscientious.
Gabriel is conscientious.
Marlon is not optimistic.
Isaiah is not curious.
Isaiah is not thankful.
Marlon is conscientious.
Lucy is not romantic.
Marlon is not determined.
Isaiah is not optimistic.
Ramsey is not romantic.It can be concluded that Janet is determined once knowing that Gabriel is thankful or Gabriel is optimistic.
If there is nobody who is not romantic, then Isaiah is not curious and Gabriel is not thankful.
It can be concluded that Isaiah is thankful and Janet is not determined once knowing that Isaiah is optimistic.
As long as someone is curious and romantic, he is thankful and not determined.
If there is at least one people who is not thankful or not curious, then Isaiah is romantic.
It can be concluded that Ramsey is curious once knowing that Lucy is determined or Lucy is not optimistic.
Someone who is both not romantic and not thankful is always not curious.
If someone is not curious and not romantic, then he is both thankful and optimistic, and vice versa.
Someone being both not optimistic and not curious is equivalent to being not thankful.
If someone is determined, then he is not curious, and vice versa.
Carl being romantic is equivalent to Isaiah being curious.
Someone being both not conscientious and curious is equivalent to being thankful and not romantic. | Marlon is not conscientious. | contradiction |
Gemma is powerful.
Kimball is not comprehensive.
Gemma is oak.
Addison is powerful.
Kimball is not popular.
Gemma is not informal.
Kimberly is not popular.
Kimberly is informal.
Vera is not comprehensive.
Kimball is not informal.
Addison is comprehensive.
Vera is not informal.Someone who is aggressive is always both oak and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is informal, then Gemma is popular and Randolph is not aggressive.
Someone is not popular and oak if and only if he is powerful.
It can be concluded that Bruce is not oak once knowing that Addison is not popular and Gemma is not aggressive.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Kimball is aggressive and Vera is popular.
All not comprehensive people are informal.
If someone is comprehensive and powerful, then he is both oak and informal, and vice versa.
If Randolph is not aggressive, then Addison is informal and Randolph is oak.
Someone who is not oak and popular is always not informal and not comprehensive.
It can be concluded that Kimball is informal once knowing that Kimball is powerful and Vera is not comprehensive.
If Kimball is informal, then Kimberly is not powerful.
Randolph being oak and Bruce being not popular imply that Kimberly is informal. | Vera is not comprehensive. | entailment |
Gemma is powerful.
Kimball is not comprehensive.
Gemma is oak.
Addison is powerful.
Kimball is not popular.
Gemma is not informal.
Kimberly is not popular.
Kimberly is informal.
Vera is not comprehensive.
Kimball is not informal.
Addison is comprehensive.
Vera is not informal.Someone who is aggressive is always both oak and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is informal, then Gemma is popular and Randolph is not aggressive.
Someone is not popular and oak if and only if he is powerful.
It can be concluded that Bruce is not oak once knowing that Addison is not popular and Gemma is not aggressive.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Kimball is aggressive and Vera is popular.
All not comprehensive people are informal.
If someone is comprehensive and powerful, then he is both oak and informal, and vice versa.
If Randolph is not aggressive, then Addison is informal and Randolph is oak.
Someone who is not oak and popular is always not informal and not comprehensive.
It can be concluded that Kimball is informal once knowing that Kimball is powerful and Vera is not comprehensive.
If Kimball is informal, then Kimberly is not powerful.
Randolph being oak and Bruce being not popular imply that Kimberly is informal. | Vera is oak. | neutral |
Gemma is powerful.
Kimball is not comprehensive.
Gemma is oak.
Addison is powerful.
Kimball is not popular.
Gemma is not informal.
Kimberly is not popular.
Kimberly is informal.
Vera is not comprehensive.
Kimball is not informal.
Addison is comprehensive.
Vera is not informal.Someone who is aggressive is always both oak and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is informal, then Gemma is popular and Randolph is not aggressive.
Someone is not popular and oak if and only if he is powerful.
It can be concluded that Bruce is not oak once knowing that Addison is not popular and Gemma is not aggressive.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Kimball is aggressive and Vera is popular.
All not comprehensive people are informal.
If someone is comprehensive and powerful, then he is both oak and informal, and vice versa.
If Randolph is not aggressive, then Addison is informal and Randolph is oak.
Someone who is not oak and popular is always not informal and not comprehensive.
It can be concluded that Kimball is informal once knowing that Kimball is powerful and Vera is not comprehensive.
If Kimball is informal, then Kimberly is not powerful.
Randolph being oak and Bruce being not popular imply that Kimberly is informal. | Kimball is informal. | self_contradiction |
Gemma is powerful.
Kimball is not comprehensive.
Gemma is oak.
Addison is powerful.
Kimball is not popular.
Gemma is not informal.
Kimberly is not popular.
Kimberly is informal.
Vera is not comprehensive.
Kimball is not informal.
Addison is comprehensive.
Vera is not informal.Someone who is aggressive is always both oak and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is informal, then Gemma is popular and Randolph is not aggressive.
Someone is not popular and oak if and only if he is powerful.
It can be concluded that Bruce is not oak once knowing that Addison is not popular and Gemma is not aggressive.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Kimball is aggressive and Vera is popular.
All not comprehensive people are informal.
If someone is comprehensive and powerful, then he is both oak and informal, and vice versa.
If Randolph is not aggressive, then Addison is informal and Randolph is oak.
Someone who is not oak and popular is always not informal and not comprehensive.
It can be concluded that Kimball is informal once knowing that Kimball is powerful and Vera is not comprehensive.
If Kimball is informal, then Kimberly is not powerful.
Randolph being oak and Bruce being not popular imply that Kimberly is informal. | Gemma is not popular. | self_contradiction |
Gemma is powerful.
Kimball is not comprehensive.
Gemma is oak.
Addison is powerful.
Kimball is not popular.
Gemma is not informal.
Kimberly is not popular.
Kimberly is informal.
Vera is not comprehensive.
Kimball is not informal.
Addison is comprehensive.
Vera is not informal.Someone who is aggressive is always both oak and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is informal, then Gemma is popular and Randolph is not aggressive.
Someone is not popular and oak if and only if he is powerful.
It can be concluded that Bruce is not oak once knowing that Addison is not popular and Gemma is not aggressive.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Kimball is aggressive and Vera is popular.
All not comprehensive people are informal.
If someone is comprehensive and powerful, then he is both oak and informal, and vice versa.
If Randolph is not aggressive, then Addison is informal and Randolph is oak.
Someone who is not oak and popular is always not informal and not comprehensive.
It can be concluded that Kimball is informal once knowing that Kimball is powerful and Vera is not comprehensive.
If Kimball is informal, then Kimberly is not powerful.
Randolph being oak and Bruce being not popular imply that Kimberly is informal. | Vera is not popular. | neutral |
Gemma is powerful.
Kimball is not comprehensive.
Gemma is oak.
Addison is powerful.
Kimball is not popular.
Gemma is not informal.
Kimberly is not popular.
Kimberly is informal.
Vera is not comprehensive.
Kimball is not informal.
Addison is comprehensive.
Vera is not informal.Someone who is aggressive is always both oak and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is informal, then Gemma is popular and Randolph is not aggressive.
Someone is not popular and oak if and only if he is powerful.
It can be concluded that Bruce is not oak once knowing that Addison is not popular and Gemma is not aggressive.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Kimball is aggressive and Vera is popular.
All not comprehensive people are informal.
If someone is comprehensive and powerful, then he is both oak and informal, and vice versa.
If Randolph is not aggressive, then Addison is informal and Randolph is oak.
Someone who is not oak and popular is always not informal and not comprehensive.
It can be concluded that Kimball is informal once knowing that Kimball is powerful and Vera is not comprehensive.
If Kimball is informal, then Kimberly is not powerful.
Randolph being oak and Bruce being not popular imply that Kimberly is informal. | Kimball is not comprehensive. | entailment |
Gemma is powerful.
Kimball is not comprehensive.
Gemma is oak.
Addison is powerful.
Kimball is not popular.
Gemma is not informal.
Kimberly is not popular.
Kimberly is informal.
Vera is not comprehensive.
Kimball is not informal.
Addison is comprehensive.
Vera is not informal.Someone who is aggressive is always both oak and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is informal, then Gemma is popular and Randolph is not aggressive.
Someone is not popular and oak if and only if he is powerful.
It can be concluded that Bruce is not oak once knowing that Addison is not popular and Gemma is not aggressive.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Kimball is aggressive and Vera is popular.
All not comprehensive people are informal.
If someone is comprehensive and powerful, then he is both oak and informal, and vice versa.
If Randolph is not aggressive, then Addison is informal and Randolph is oak.
Someone who is not oak and popular is always not informal and not comprehensive.
It can be concluded that Kimball is informal once knowing that Kimball is powerful and Vera is not comprehensive.
If Kimball is informal, then Kimberly is not powerful.
Randolph being oak and Bruce being not popular imply that Kimberly is informal. | Gemma is comprehensive. | neutral |
Gemma is powerful.
Kimball is not comprehensive.
Gemma is oak.
Addison is powerful.
Kimball is not popular.
Gemma is not informal.
Kimberly is not popular.
Kimberly is informal.
Vera is not comprehensive.
Kimball is not informal.
Addison is comprehensive.
Vera is not informal.Someone who is aggressive is always both oak and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is informal, then Gemma is popular and Randolph is not aggressive.
Someone is not popular and oak if and only if he is powerful.
It can be concluded that Bruce is not oak once knowing that Addison is not popular and Gemma is not aggressive.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Kimball is aggressive and Vera is popular.
All not comprehensive people are informal.
If someone is comprehensive and powerful, then he is both oak and informal, and vice versa.
If Randolph is not aggressive, then Addison is informal and Randolph is oak.
Someone who is not oak and popular is always not informal and not comprehensive.
It can be concluded that Kimball is informal once knowing that Kimball is powerful and Vera is not comprehensive.
If Kimball is informal, then Kimberly is not powerful.
Randolph being oak and Bruce being not popular imply that Kimberly is informal. | Gemma is not informal. | entailment |
Gemma is powerful.
Kimball is not comprehensive.
Gemma is oak.
Addison is powerful.
Kimball is not popular.
Gemma is not informal.
Kimberly is not popular.
Kimberly is informal.
Vera is not comprehensive.
Kimball is not informal.
Addison is comprehensive.
Vera is not informal.Someone who is aggressive is always both oak and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is informal, then Gemma is popular and Randolph is not aggressive.
Someone is not popular and oak if and only if he is powerful.
It can be concluded that Bruce is not oak once knowing that Addison is not popular and Gemma is not aggressive.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Kimball is aggressive and Vera is popular.
All not comprehensive people are informal.
If someone is comprehensive and powerful, then he is both oak and informal, and vice versa.
If Randolph is not aggressive, then Addison is informal and Randolph is oak.
Someone who is not oak and popular is always not informal and not comprehensive.
It can be concluded that Kimball is informal once knowing that Kimball is powerful and Vera is not comprehensive.
If Kimball is informal, then Kimberly is not powerful.
Randolph being oak and Bruce being not popular imply that Kimberly is informal. | Randolph is aggressive. | contradiction |
Gemma is powerful.
Kimball is not comprehensive.
Gemma is oak.
Addison is powerful.
Kimball is not popular.
Gemma is not informal.
Kimberly is not popular.
Kimberly is informal.
Vera is not comprehensive.
Kimball is not informal.
Addison is comprehensive.
Vera is not informal.Someone who is aggressive is always both oak and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is informal, then Gemma is popular and Randolph is not aggressive.
Someone is not popular and oak if and only if he is powerful.
It can be concluded that Bruce is not oak once knowing that Addison is not popular and Gemma is not aggressive.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Kimball is aggressive and Vera is popular.
All not comprehensive people are informal.
If someone is comprehensive and powerful, then he is both oak and informal, and vice versa.
If Randolph is not aggressive, then Addison is informal and Randolph is oak.
Someone who is not oak and popular is always not informal and not comprehensive.
It can be concluded that Kimball is informal once knowing that Kimball is powerful and Vera is not comprehensive.
If Kimball is informal, then Kimberly is not powerful.
Randolph being oak and Bruce being not popular imply that Kimberly is informal. | Vera is informal. | self_contradiction |
Gemma is powerful.
Kimball is not comprehensive.
Gemma is oak.
Addison is powerful.
Kimball is not popular.
Gemma is not informal.
Kimberly is not popular.
Kimberly is informal.
Vera is not comprehensive.
Kimball is not informal.
Addison is comprehensive.
Vera is not informal.Someone who is aggressive is always both oak and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is informal, then Gemma is popular and Randolph is not aggressive.
Someone is not popular and oak if and only if he is powerful.
It can be concluded that Bruce is not oak once knowing that Addison is not popular and Gemma is not aggressive.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Kimball is aggressive and Vera is popular.
All not comprehensive people are informal.
If someone is comprehensive and powerful, then he is both oak and informal, and vice versa.
If Randolph is not aggressive, then Addison is informal and Randolph is oak.
Someone who is not oak and popular is always not informal and not comprehensive.
It can be concluded that Kimball is informal once knowing that Kimball is powerful and Vera is not comprehensive.
If Kimball is informal, then Kimberly is not powerful.
Randolph being oak and Bruce being not popular imply that Kimberly is informal. | Kimberly is oak. | neutral |
Gemma is powerful.
Kimball is not comprehensive.
Gemma is oak.
Addison is powerful.
Kimball is not popular.
Gemma is not informal.
Kimberly is not popular.
Kimberly is informal.
Vera is not comprehensive.
Kimball is not informal.
Addison is comprehensive.
Vera is not informal.Someone who is aggressive is always both oak and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is informal, then Gemma is popular and Randolph is not aggressive.
Someone is not popular and oak if and only if he is powerful.
It can be concluded that Bruce is not oak once knowing that Addison is not popular and Gemma is not aggressive.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Kimball is aggressive and Vera is popular.
All not comprehensive people are informal.
If someone is comprehensive and powerful, then he is both oak and informal, and vice versa.
If Randolph is not aggressive, then Addison is informal and Randolph is oak.
Someone who is not oak and popular is always not informal and not comprehensive.
It can be concluded that Kimball is informal once knowing that Kimball is powerful and Vera is not comprehensive.
If Kimball is informal, then Kimberly is not powerful.
Randolph being oak and Bruce being not popular imply that Kimberly is informal. | Addison is popular. | contradiction |
Gemma is powerful.
Kimball is not comprehensive.
Gemma is oak.
Addison is powerful.
Kimball is not popular.
Gemma is not informal.
Kimberly is not popular.
Kimberly is informal.
Vera is not comprehensive.
Kimball is not informal.
Addison is comprehensive.
Vera is not informal.Someone who is aggressive is always both oak and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is informal, then Gemma is popular and Randolph is not aggressive.
Someone is not popular and oak if and only if he is powerful.
It can be concluded that Bruce is not oak once knowing that Addison is not popular and Gemma is not aggressive.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Kimball is aggressive and Vera is popular.
All not comprehensive people are informal.
If someone is comprehensive and powerful, then he is both oak and informal, and vice versa.
If Randolph is not aggressive, then Addison is informal and Randolph is oak.
Someone who is not oak and popular is always not informal and not comprehensive.
It can be concluded that Kimball is informal once knowing that Kimball is powerful and Vera is not comprehensive.
If Kimball is informal, then Kimberly is not powerful.
Randolph being oak and Bruce being not popular imply that Kimberly is informal. | Vera is not informal. | self_contradiction |
Gemma is powerful.
Kimball is not comprehensive.
Gemma is oak.
Addison is powerful.
Kimball is not popular.
Gemma is not informal.
Kimberly is not popular.
Kimberly is informal.
Vera is not comprehensive.
Kimball is not informal.
Addison is comprehensive.
Vera is not informal.Someone who is aggressive is always both oak and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is informal, then Gemma is popular and Randolph is not aggressive.
Someone is not popular and oak if and only if he is powerful.
It can be concluded that Bruce is not oak once knowing that Addison is not popular and Gemma is not aggressive.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Kimball is aggressive and Vera is popular.
All not comprehensive people are informal.
If someone is comprehensive and powerful, then he is both oak and informal, and vice versa.
If Randolph is not aggressive, then Addison is informal and Randolph is oak.
Someone who is not oak and popular is always not informal and not comprehensive.
It can be concluded that Kimball is informal once knowing that Kimball is powerful and Vera is not comprehensive.
If Kimball is informal, then Kimberly is not powerful.
Randolph being oak and Bruce being not popular imply that Kimberly is informal. | Kimball is not informal. | self_contradiction |
Gemma is powerful.
Kimball is not comprehensive.
Gemma is oak.
Addison is powerful.
Kimball is not popular.
Gemma is not informal.
Kimberly is not popular.
Kimberly is informal.
Vera is not comprehensive.
Kimball is not informal.
Addison is comprehensive.
Vera is not informal.Someone who is aggressive is always both oak and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is informal, then Gemma is popular and Randolph is not aggressive.
Someone is not popular and oak if and only if he is powerful.
It can be concluded that Bruce is not oak once knowing that Addison is not popular and Gemma is not aggressive.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Kimball is aggressive and Vera is popular.
All not comprehensive people are informal.
If someone is comprehensive and powerful, then he is both oak and informal, and vice versa.
If Randolph is not aggressive, then Addison is informal and Randolph is oak.
Someone who is not oak and popular is always not informal and not comprehensive.
It can be concluded that Kimball is informal once knowing that Kimball is powerful and Vera is not comprehensive.
If Kimball is informal, then Kimberly is not powerful.
Randolph being oak and Bruce being not popular imply that Kimberly is informal. | Gemma is informal. | contradiction |
Gemma is powerful.
Kimball is not comprehensive.
Gemma is oak.
Addison is powerful.
Kimball is not popular.
Gemma is not informal.
Kimberly is not popular.
Kimberly is informal.
Vera is not comprehensive.
Kimball is not informal.
Addison is comprehensive.
Vera is not informal.Someone who is aggressive is always both oak and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is informal, then Gemma is popular and Randolph is not aggressive.
Someone is not popular and oak if and only if he is powerful.
It can be concluded that Bruce is not oak once knowing that Addison is not popular and Gemma is not aggressive.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Kimball is aggressive and Vera is popular.
All not comprehensive people are informal.
If someone is comprehensive and powerful, then he is both oak and informal, and vice versa.
If Randolph is not aggressive, then Addison is informal and Randolph is oak.
Someone who is not oak and popular is always not informal and not comprehensive.
It can be concluded that Kimball is informal once knowing that Kimball is powerful and Vera is not comprehensive.
If Kimball is informal, then Kimberly is not powerful.
Randolph being oak and Bruce being not popular imply that Kimberly is informal. | Randolph is informal. | neutral |
Gemma is powerful.
Kimball is not comprehensive.
Gemma is oak.
Addison is powerful.
Kimball is not popular.
Gemma is not informal.
Kimberly is not popular.
Kimberly is informal.
Vera is not comprehensive.
Kimball is not informal.
Addison is comprehensive.
Vera is not informal.Someone who is aggressive is always both oak and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is informal, then Gemma is popular and Randolph is not aggressive.
Someone is not popular and oak if and only if he is powerful.
It can be concluded that Bruce is not oak once knowing that Addison is not popular and Gemma is not aggressive.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Kimball is aggressive and Vera is popular.
All not comprehensive people are informal.
If someone is comprehensive and powerful, then he is both oak and informal, and vice versa.
If Randolph is not aggressive, then Addison is informal and Randolph is oak.
Someone who is not oak and popular is always not informal and not comprehensive.
It can be concluded that Kimball is informal once knowing that Kimball is powerful and Vera is not comprehensive.
If Kimball is informal, then Kimberly is not powerful.
Randolph being oak and Bruce being not popular imply that Kimberly is informal. | Addison is not popular. | entailment |
Gemma is powerful.
Kimball is not comprehensive.
Gemma is oak.
Addison is powerful.
Kimball is not popular.
Gemma is not informal.
Kimberly is not popular.
Kimberly is informal.
Vera is not comprehensive.
Kimball is not informal.
Addison is comprehensive.
Vera is not informal.Someone who is aggressive is always both oak and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is informal, then Gemma is popular and Randolph is not aggressive.
Someone is not popular and oak if and only if he is powerful.
It can be concluded that Bruce is not oak once knowing that Addison is not popular and Gemma is not aggressive.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Kimball is aggressive and Vera is popular.
All not comprehensive people are informal.
If someone is comprehensive and powerful, then he is both oak and informal, and vice versa.
If Randolph is not aggressive, then Addison is informal and Randolph is oak.
Someone who is not oak and popular is always not informal and not comprehensive.
It can be concluded that Kimball is informal once knowing that Kimball is powerful and Vera is not comprehensive.
If Kimball is informal, then Kimberly is not powerful.
Randolph being oak and Bruce being not popular imply that Kimberly is informal. | Kimberly is not powerful. | entailment |
Gemma is powerful.
Kimball is not comprehensive.
Gemma is oak.
Addison is powerful.
Kimball is not popular.
Gemma is not informal.
Kimberly is not popular.
Kimberly is informal.
Vera is not comprehensive.
Kimball is not informal.
Addison is comprehensive.
Vera is not informal.Someone who is aggressive is always both oak and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is informal, then Gemma is popular and Randolph is not aggressive.
Someone is not popular and oak if and only if he is powerful.
It can be concluded that Bruce is not oak once knowing that Addison is not popular and Gemma is not aggressive.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Kimball is aggressive and Vera is popular.
All not comprehensive people are informal.
If someone is comprehensive and powerful, then he is both oak and informal, and vice versa.
If Randolph is not aggressive, then Addison is informal and Randolph is oak.
Someone who is not oak and popular is always not informal and not comprehensive.
It can be concluded that Kimball is informal once knowing that Kimball is powerful and Vera is not comprehensive.
If Kimball is informal, then Kimberly is not powerful.
Randolph being oak and Bruce being not popular imply that Kimberly is informal. | Gemma is not powerful. | contradiction |
Gemma is powerful.
Kimball is not comprehensive.
Gemma is oak.
Addison is powerful.
Kimball is not popular.
Gemma is not informal.
Kimberly is not popular.
Kimberly is informal.
Vera is not comprehensive.
Kimball is not informal.
Addison is comprehensive.
Vera is not informal.Someone who is aggressive is always both oak and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is informal, then Gemma is popular and Randolph is not aggressive.
Someone is not popular and oak if and only if he is powerful.
It can be concluded that Bruce is not oak once knowing that Addison is not popular and Gemma is not aggressive.
If there is someone who is not oak, then Kimball is aggressive and Vera is popular.
All not comprehensive people are informal.
If someone is comprehensive and powerful, then he is both oak and informal, and vice versa.
If Randolph is not aggressive, then Addison is informal and Randolph is oak.
Someone who is not oak and popular is always not informal and not comprehensive.
It can be concluded that Kimball is informal once knowing that Kimball is powerful and Vera is not comprehensive.
If Kimball is informal, then Kimberly is not powerful.
Randolph being oak and Bruce being not popular imply that Kimberly is informal. | Addison is not comprehensive. | contradiction |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.