Datasets:

---

chiheemwong

/

fldx2_sft_nl

like 0

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Both this non-pictorialness and that blaring keenness happens.\n2. The fact that blaring keenness does not occur if the fact that not this pictorialness but this baying Collembola occurs is wrong is right.\n3. Not the peepshow but that zoning happens.\n4. This pictorialness and that blaring keenness happens if this baying Collembola does not occur.\n5. If this pictorialness happens then that priestliness does not occur and the coding Ascomycota occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat blaring keenness happens.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact1] states that ``Both this non-pictorialness and that blaring keenness happens''. It implies that that blaring keenness happens.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That chipping does not occur and this gybing does not happen.\n2. This ninjutsu does not happen.\n3. That Conservative does not happen and that superconductivity does not occur is caused by that this blandishing 1900s does not occur.\n4. That this gybing does not happen is prevented by this complimenting Chamaeleo.\n5. That chipping occurs is triggered by this bubbling Cheever.\n6. That superconductivity happens if that this bubbling Cheever occurs and that chipping happens is not right.\n7. This gybing does not happen.\n8. If this congeneric happens then that superconductivity does not occur.\n9. That impenitentness does not occur and this accounting does not occur.\n10. This gybing does not occur if that Conservative does not occur.\n11. If that Conservative does not happen then this complimenting Chamaeleo happens and this gybing does not occur.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis bubbling Cheever does not occur.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. Let's assume that this bubbling Cheever happens [assump1]. [fact5] states that ``That chipping occurs is triggered by this bubbling Cheever''. Together, [fact5] and [assump1] imply that that chipping does not happen is incorrect, which we denote as [int1]. [fact1] states that ``That chipping does not occur and this gybing does not happen''. It implies that that chipping does not happen, which we denote as [int2]. [int1] and [int2] contradict each other, which we denote as [int3]. Together, [assump1] and [int3] imply that this bubbling Cheever does not occur.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Someone that is not a immateriality is not mouthless.\n2. That bibliophile is not tsarist or this thing is unpigmented or both.\n3. If the fact that something is not a Yangon but this is mouthless is wrong then this is not a immateriality.\n4. If some person is stomatous then this one is not tsarist and/or this one is non-unpigmented.\n5. That bibliophile is not mouthless.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat bibliophile is not tsarist or it is not unpigmented or both is incorrect.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact4] states that ``If some person is stomatous then this one is not tsarist and/or this one is non-unpigmented''. It implies that if that bibliophile is not mouthless then that bibliophile is not tsarist and/or it is non-unpigmented, which we denote as [int1]. [fact5] states that ``That bibliophile is not mouthless''. Together, [int1] and [fact5] imply that that bibliophile is not tsarist or it is not unpigmented or both is incorrect.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The fact that the foothold happens is not true.\n2. That unrhythmicness does not occur if both this bars and that drizzle occurs.\n3. That modalness happens.\n4. This bars does not occur if that drizzle occurs.\n5. That this variance occurs is true.\n6. This monte occurs.\n7. The desisting Rossini does not happen.\n8. The choking occurs.\n9. Both this penumbralness and the enlacing Mayenne happens.\n10. The sniffling Oxydendrum does not happen.\n11. If the splash happens then the agronomicalness does not happen.\n12. Both that bunko and this programing happens.\n13. This bars and this variance occurs.\n14. If this grinding internationality happens this curb does not occur.\n15. That this graying Maianthemum occurs prevents that this shallowing occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat drizzle does not happen.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. Let's assume that drizzle happens [assump1]. [fact4] states that ``This bars does not occur if that drizzle occurs''. Together, [fact4] and [assump1] imply that this bars does not occur, which we denote as [int1]. [fact13] states that ``This bars and this variance occurs''. It implies that this bars happens, which we denote as [int2]. [int1] and [int2] contradict each other, which we denote as [int3]. Together, [assump1] and [int3] imply that that drizzle does not happen.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. A non-barometrical man is cyclonal and is vacuolate.\n2. The fact that this atomiser is enzymatic and not cyclonal does not hold.\n3. That commissar is not vacuolate if this gingerroot is not aciculate.\n4. If this atomiser is non-vacuolate then that commissar is not cyclonal.\n5. This atomiser is not cyclonal.\n6. If that calliope is aciculate but it is not enzymatic that commissar is vacuolate.\n7. This atomiser is not barometrical if that this gingerroot is a controlled or barometrical or both does not hold.\n8. That calliope is both aciculate and not enzymatic if the fact that this atomiser is cyclonal hold.\n9. If that calliope is aciculate but this person is not empirical this gingerroot is enzymatic.\n10. This gingerroot is vacuolate if that calliope is both aciculate and not enzymatic.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat calliope is aciculate but she is not enzymatic.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That this bailing Phagun does not happen and that prostrating Cocculus does not occur is triggered by that this encouraging impecuniousness does not occur.\n2. That this delineating Procrustes does not happen is prevented by that the immunotherapy occurs.\n3. If that prostrating Cocculus does not happen then this inhabiting does not happen and this bailing Phagun does not occur.\n4. That judo occurs and/or this juvenileness occurs if that orbing does not happen.\n5. That this phlebectomy does not occur causes that not this encouraging impecuniousness but that roiling happens.\n6. That this encouraging impecuniousness does not occur and that prostrating Cocculus does not occur is triggered by that roiling does not occur.\n7. The high occurs if the lotting yuan happens.\n8. That this inhabiting happens and this encouraging impecuniousness occurs is incorrect if that prostrating Cocculus does not happen.\n9. If the fact that both this efficientness and this delineating Procrustes happens is false then that ceilingedness does not happen.\n10. That roiling does not occur if that both this non-gonadotrophicness and this phlebectomy occurs is wrong.\n11. The parching Brachinus occurs.\n12. The fact that this inhabiting does not happen hold if the fact that this inhabiting and this encouraging impecuniousness occurs is not correct hold.\n13. If this bailing Phagun does not occur then this inhabiting does not occur.\n14. This inhabiting happens if this bailing Phagun occurs.\n15. The fact that this delineating Procrustes does not happen but that ceilingedness happens is false if the fact that this efficientness happens hold.\n16. If that the fact that this inhabiting occurs or this bailing Phagun does not occur or both is correct does not hold the slaying paraphrase occurs.\n17. The uninformativeness occurs.\n18. That gonadotrophicness does not happen but this phlebectomy happens is wrong if that ceilingedness does not occur.\n19. That prostrating Cocculus does not happen if the fact that both that roiling and this phlebectomy happens is not correct.\n20. That tender happens.\n21. That gonadotrophicness but not this phlebectomy happens hold if that ceilingedness does not happen.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat this inhabiting occurs is correct.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This skidder is a Yastrzemski if this strongbox is a Durkheim.\n2. If this strongbox is a Yastrzemski this skidder is a Durkheim.\n3. Some person is not a kind of a Yastrzemski and is a Durkheim if it does spark adiposis.\n4. This strongbox is a Durkheim.\n5. The marmalade is a kind of a Durkheim.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis skidder is a Yastrzemski.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact1] states that ``This skidder is a Yastrzemski if this strongbox is a Durkheim''. [fact4] states that ``This strongbox is a Durkheim''. Together, [fact1] and [fact4] imply that this skidder is a Yastrzemski.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If that methylatedness does not happen then this peak occurs and that surviving panegyric does not happen.\n2. That surviving panegyric does not happen leads to that vulvectomy and this veiling hyperacusia happens.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis veiling hyperacusia happens.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That if Be happens the statement that either details does not occur or autumnalness does not take place or both is incorrect is correct.\n2. That arbitrativeness does not happen and/or verifying determinative does not happen does not hold.\n3. Crocheting brierpatch happens.\n4. Be does not occur if that frying and Be happen is false.\n5. If Be does not take place then that saying does not take place and/or murmuring does not happen does not hold.\n6. Be occurs.\n7. If Be does not occur then details does not occur or autumnalness does not take place or both.\n8. Autumnalness occurs if Be occurs.\n9. If penileness occurs the proposition that androgenicness does not happen or ossifying solicitousness does not take place or both is not valid.\n10. If penileness takes place that either yapping Medicare does not take place or calling does not take place or both is invalid.\n11. Larruping Allium takes place.\n12. Autumnalness occurs.\n13. That frying occurs and Be takes place is incorrect if ratcheting fine does not happen.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nDetails does not happen and/or autumnalness does not occur.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact1] states that ``That if Be happens the statement that either details does not occur or autumnalness does not take place or both is incorrect is correct''. [fact6] states that ``Be occurs''. Together, [fact1] and [fact6] imply that details does not happen and/or autumnalness does not occur.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Disembowelling Buchenwald happens if Catholic occurs.\n2. Sassinging occurs.\n3. If that intertwining does not happen is valid then the statement that vulvalness does not take place but sassinging happens is wrong stands.\n4. If escalating optimum occurs then dueness occurs.\n5. That both caudatedness and tape occur cause that escalating optimum does not take place.\n6. If biotypicness occurs then colouring meningism happens.\n7. If surging does not take place that alleviating Fulmarus happens and intertwining happens does not hold.\n8. Alleviating Fulmarus happens.\n9. Caruncularness does not occur.\n10. That slacking takes place and romanness occurs bring about that blanching does not take place.\n11. Remarriage is brought about by striving foxiness.\n12. Surging is prevented by that surging does not occur or that naysaying does not take place or both.\n13. If consultancy occurs vulvalness occurs.\n14. The fact that intertwining happens is not wrong if that consultancy takes place or naysaying does not happen or both does not hold.\n15. Non-Nepaliness is triggered by that romanness and taking adverb take place.\n16. If surging does not take place then the claim that computing JI but not alleviating Fulmarus takes place does not tand.\n17. Alleviating Fulmarus triggers intertwining.\n18. If vulvalness happens and intertwining takes place computing JI does not take place.\n19. Vulvalness is triggered by that naysaying does not happen.\n20. Intertwining does not happen if that alleviating Fulmarus occurs and intertwining takes place is wrong.\n21. If the statement that both escalating optimum and sassinging occur does not hold graining takes place.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nComputing JI takes place.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That both this non-bractedness and that rooms occurs does not hold is correct.\n2. That both the aestheticness and the prosodicness occurs is incorrect.\n3. This Lamarckian does not occur if this stabilizing Anglophilia does not happen.\n4. If this tick occurs this reprobating Manitoba does not happen.\n5. That elves occurs if that deliquium does not happen.\n6. That elves does not happen.\n7. The fact that demoralising Monet does not happen and the fortifying Landsmaal occurs does not hold.\n8. That both this non-dulledness and this kneeling occurs is wrong.\n9. The fact that dulledness and this kneeling happens does not hold.\n10. That overlying Leiopelma does not happen or this reprobating Manitoba occurs or both.\n11. If the fact that either this estuarialness or that stooping or both occurs is incorrect this stabilizing Anglophilia does not occur.\n12. If the fact that both this non-dulledness and this kneeling occurs is wrong then this tick happens.\n13. That this Lamarckian occurs is triggered by this Constitution.\n14. If that overlying Leiopelma and/or this Constitution occurs is not right that deliquium does not happen.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat both this non-dulledness and this kneeling occurs is wrong.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact8] states that ``That both this non-dulledness and this kneeling occurs is wrong''. It implies that that both this non-dulledness and this kneeling occurs is wrong.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That tuxedo is unoriginal.\n2. If something is a optative and unoriginal this is not ethereal.\n3. The fact that tuxedo is ethereal and he is a Parthian is false if this stirk is not ethereal.\n4. This stirk is a optative.\n5. If that tuxedo is not a Parthian is true this stirk is both not a Parthian and not a optative.\n6. This stirk is not original.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat tuxedo is ethereal and it is a Parthian is incorrect.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact4] states that ``This stirk is a optative''. [fact6] states that ``This stirk is not original''. Together, [fact4] and [fact6] imply that this stirk is a optative and the one is unoriginal, which we denote as [int1]. [fact2] states that ``If something is a optative and unoriginal this is not ethereal''. It implies that this stirk is not ethereal if this stirk is both a optative and unoriginal, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that the fact that this stirk is not ethereal is right, which we denote as [int3]. [fact3] states that ``The fact that tuxedo is ethereal and he is a Parthian is false if this stirk is not ethereal''. Together, [int3] and [fact3] imply that that tuxedo is ethereal and it is a Parthian is incorrect.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Both the sterilizing guiltiness and the fashionableness happens.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fashionableness does not occur.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact1] states that ``Both the sterilizing guiltiness and the fashionableness happens''. It implies that the fashionableness does not occur.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That brokering occurs but this haughtiness does not happen is incorrect.\n2. If this incurring chirography does not occur then both that smutching GUI and this formalizing gamma happens.\n3. That both that boondoggle and that historicalness happens is brought about by that the rebellion does not occur.\n4. The fact that brokering does not happen but this haughtiness occurs is false.\n5. That brokering does not happen and this haughtiness does not happen is incorrect if this formalizing gamma occurs.\n6. This apostolicalness occurs but this incurring chirography does not happen if this fistulousness happens.\n7. If that this pervading Himantoglossum does not happen and this submergence does not happen is incorrect the unfrettedness does not happen.\n8. If this formalizing gamma happens then the fact that brokering does not happen and this haughtiness occurs is wrong.\n9. If this formalizing gamma occurs that brokering happens but this haughtiness does not occur does not hold.\n10. This formalizing gamma occurs.\n11. That frettedness causes that echocardiography happens.\n12. That mystification does not happen and/or the ruddlesing Anethum does not happen is false if the fact that expressibleness happens is not false.\n13. That the crowding austral does not occur leads to that expressibleness and that quarterbacking occurs.\n14. If the fact that either that mystification does not happen or the ruddlesing Anethum does not occur or both does not hold that the rebellion does not occur hold.\n15. The fact that that echocardiography happens leads to that this fistulousness occurs and the vegetativeness does not happen is right.\n16. That the fact that this pervading Himantoglossum does not occur and this submergence does not occur is incorrect is true if that boondoggle occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat brokering does not happen and this haughtiness does not happen.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact5] states that ``That brokering does not happen and this haughtiness does not happen is incorrect if this formalizing gamma occurs''. [fact10] states that ``This formalizing gamma occurs''. Together, [fact5] and [fact10] imply that that brokering does not happen and this haughtiness does not happen.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If some man does not cable then it decants welfare.\n2. There exists no person such that it doses meantime and is not interlocutory.\n3. Something is a dalmatian if the fact that the fact that this does not refill kinanesthesia and/or does not cable is correct is false.\n4. There is nothing such that it is a marbleisation and it does not bunker 1900s.\n5. Something is not counterterror and that thing does not mater virtue if that thing is not a kind of a Phintias.\n6. There exists nothing such that it is discreet and it is not imperishable.\n7. If the fact that something is both a Phyllostomatidae and a Thermidor is wrong it is not a cephalalgia.\n8. There exists nothing such that it is both discreet and imperishable.\n9. Everything is not a kind of a Phintias.\n10. If someone decants welfare it is not non-quantized.\n11. If some person does not tent unmercifulness it is quantized.\n12. Some man that swells Beaumont and is not a Lugosi is not a Shakti.\n13. If something is not a Shakti then it is not a Phyllostomatidae.\n14. If something is not a cephalalgia that is not quantized.\n15. There is no person such that she/he is a noticeableness and does not wot dowse.\n16. If some person is non-quantized then it does refill kinanesthesia.\n17. Something is not a dalmatian and/or that does not tent unmercifulness if that does not mater virtue.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that there exists no person that is not indiscreet and not imperishable does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact6] states that ``There exists nothing such that it is discreet and it is not imperishable''. It implies that the fact that there exists no person that is not indiscreet and not imperishable does not hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If penalisation and non-exemptness take place virucidalness happens.\n2. Scuttling posit happens if spirt occurs and cytogeneticness does not occur.\n3. Cuff takes place.\n4. Whittling Melanoplus and non-ceremoniousness occur.\n5. Scuttling posit causes Shakespearianness.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nShakespearianness takes place.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If that berone occurs that netmailing does not occur and/or this unstratifiedness does not occur.\n2. The curry occurs if the retracting Plagianthus does not occur and the casualty does not occur.\n3. If that berone occurs then this unstratifiedness does not occur and that netmailing does not happen.\n4. That side happens if that Biedermeierness happens.\n5. That mischievousness does not happen.\n6. Both the berman and this aculeateness occurs if that lulling does not happen.\n7. If both this femaleness and that hydroelectricness happens then that lulling does not happen.\n8. That netmailing occurs is caused by this aculeateness.\n9. This frying happens if that this unstratifiedness does not happen and this frying does not happen does not hold.\n10. If that hydroelectricness occurs then that lulling does not occur and this femaleness does not happen.\n11. If this reducing Belshazzar occurs then this forming megawatt does not happen and that esotericness does not occur.\n12. That hydroelectricness happens if the fact that the fact that hydroelectricness does not occur and this reducing Belshazzar does not happen is right is false.\n13. That esotericness does not happen leads to that this femaleness occurs and this combining happens.\n14. If this unstratifiedness does not happen and the berperson does not occur then this aculeateness happens.\n15. If that esotericness does not occur that this combining and that hydroelectricness occurs is right.\n16. The wheedling Hemminge happens.\n17. This unstratifiedness does not happen.\n18. If that side occurs then this reducing Belshazzar happens.\n19. The berthing does not happen.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat netmailing happens.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact17] states that ``This unstratifiedness does not happen''. [fact19] states that ``The berthing does not happen''. Together, [fact17] and [fact19] imply that this unstratifiedness does not happen and that berone does not happen, which we denote as [int1]. [fact14] states that ``If this unstratifiedness does not happen and the berperson does not occur then this aculeateness happens''. Together, [int1] and [fact14] imply that this aculeateness happens, which we denote as [int2]. [fact8] states that ``That netmailing occurs is caused by this aculeateness''. Together, [int2] and [fact8] imply that that netmailing happens.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If some man is a kind of a hyperplasia then that one is hypotonic and is not nonnative is not right.\n2. That cadaverine is a syphilitic and this is hypotonic.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat cadaverine is both hypotonic and non-nonnative.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That if that Riffian is not a kind of a arsenical then this plastination is not a suspense hold.\n2. The fact that this plastination is mammary is true if that Riffian is mammary.\n3. That blackseed is not valetudinary if the fact that this sneerer is either a Astroloma or not valetudinary or both does not hold.\n4. If the fact that Riffian is not a arsenical is correct then this plastination is not a ghost and not a suspense.\n5. This plastination is not acidimetric and not a arsenical.\n6. Some person that is mammary is a arsenical.\n7. This plastination is not a kind of a suspense.\n8. If this sneerer is a hudud then the fact that it is a kind of a Astroloma or is not valetudinary or both is wrong.\n9. This plastination is not a suspense and it is not a kind of a guard.\n10. That this sneerer is a kind of a hudud is correct.\n11. That Riffian is not a kind of a arsenical.\n12. The fact that this plastination is both not a ghost and not a suspense is not true if that Riffian is a arsenical.\n13. If that Riffian is not a suspense this plastination is not a arsenical and not a ghost.\n14. Something is not a troop if that thing is not valetudinary.\n15. If something is a arsenical then that the thing is not a ghost and the thing is not a suspense is wrong.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis plastination is not a ghost and not a suspense.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact4] states that ``If the fact that Riffian is not a arsenical is correct then this plastination is not a ghost and not a suspense''. [fact11] states that ``That Riffian is not a kind of a arsenical''. Together, [fact4] and [fact11] imply that this plastination is not a ghost and not a suspense.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That compoundedness happens if that driftage happens.\n2. This modernness does not happen.\n3. If that hauling Weimar and this chasteness happens then this settling Suez does not occur.\n4. This vision happens.\n5. If that this ginning Kursk occurs and this uninquisitiveness does not happen does not hold this ginning Kursk does not happen.\n6. That rationalisation does not happen and this pallone occurs is false.\n7. That hauling Weimar does not happen.\n8. That this settling Suez does not happen and that emigrating does not happen does not hold if this ginning Kursk does not occur.\n9. That hauling Weimar does not happen but this chasteness happens is triggered by that emigrating does not occur.\n10. This crating Zarathustra does not happen if that this settling Suez does not happen and that emigrating does not occur does not hold.\n11. This settling Suez occurs if that emigrating occurs.\n12. That CT does not occur.\n13. That hauling Weimar does not happen and this chasteness occurs yields that this settling Suez does not occur.\n14. That this ginning Kursk happens but this uninquisitiveness does not happen is wrong if that unobjectionableness happens.\n15. That not the retroactiveness but the yielding interval happens prevents that this disseminating syndactylism happens.\n16. That hauling Weimar and this chasteness happens is wrong.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nLet's assume that hauling Weimar does not occur and this chasteness occurs.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If some person is not a Sequoya he is not a Daimler.\n2. The fact that couchette is a Daimler is right.\n3. If that revers is not a Sequoya and not a O'Toole then that couchette is not a Sequoya.\n4. That revers is not a Sequoya and attends neurinoma.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that couchette is a Daimler is right.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact2] states that ``The fact that couchette is a Daimler is right''. It implies that the fact that couchette is a Daimler is right.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This capsizing happens.\n2. The No prevents that tacking does not occur.\n3. The fact that decoration does not occur is correct.\n4. That interplanetariness does not happen.\n5. The No happens if this capsizing occurs.\n6. That sacrificing theme happens if the geothermalness occurs.\n7. The irreducibleness does not occur.\n8. That slapping occurs.\n9. That this stoning occurs but that clangouring does not happen is caused by that decoration does not happen.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that tacking occurs and this stoning happens is wrong.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact5] states that ``The No happens if this capsizing occurs''. [fact1] states that ``This capsizing happens''. Together, [fact5] and [fact1] imply that the No occurs, which we denote as [int1]. [fact2] states that ``The No prevents that tacking does not occur''. Together, [int1] and [fact2] imply that that tacking occurs, which we denote as [int2]. [fact9] states that ``That this stoning occurs but that clangouring does not happen is caused by that decoration does not happen''. [fact3] states that ``The fact that decoration does not occur is correct''. Together, [fact9] and [fact3] imply that this stoning happens but that clangouring does not occur, which we denote as [int3]. It implies that this stoning happens, which we denote as [int4]. Together, [int2] and [int4] imply that the fact that tacking occurs and this stoning happens is wrong.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This copycat is unwelcome if that horseflesh fuddles Dubya.\n2. This copycat is a toothache if that horseflesh is unwelcome is right.\n3. That horseflesh is salvific and/or the person is unwelcome.\n4. that Dubya fuddles copycat.\n5. This copycat is unwelcome.\n6. This copycat fuddles Dubya.\n7. That horseflesh fuddles Dubya if this copycat is unwelcome.\n8. If that horseflesh is not non-salvific this copycat is a kind of a toothache.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat this copycat is a toothache and fuddles Dubya is false.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact3] states that ``That horseflesh is salvific and/or the person is unwelcome''. [fact8] states that ``If that horseflesh is not non-salvific this copycat is a kind of a toothache''. [fact2] states that ``This copycat is a toothache if that horseflesh is unwelcome is right''. Together, [fact3] and [fact8] and [fact2] imply that that this copycat is a toothache is true, which we denote as [int1]. [fact6] states that ``This copycat fuddles Dubya''. Together, [int1] and [fact6] imply that that this copycat is a toothache and fuddles Dubya is false.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This nasopharynx is originative.\n2. Something averts Ruminantia if this is a Anglesea.\n3. Some man is irreligious if the fact that it is both not irreligious and not fresher does not tand.\n4. This nasopharynx does not locate Blandfordia if this hibachi neither does beacon Schlumbergera nor does locate Blandfordia.\n5. That this nasopharynx neither is a Anglesea nor does bespeak is incorrect if he does not jimmy Latinesce.\n6. That carnotite ebbs steradian.\n7. Something is a Cypraea if it does not locate Blandfordia.\n8. If this nasopharynx is not originative and it is not fresher Alexandria does not ebb steradian.\n9. The fact that some person that is not a etymon is non-originative and non-fresher holds.\n10. If that somebody neither is a Anglesea nor bespeaks does not tand then this person is a Anglesea.\n11. If some person that averts Ruminantia is a Cypraea then that the claim that she is a etymon is incorrect is right.\n12. This nasopharynx does not jimmy Latinesce.\n13. This nasopharynx is not non-fresher and is originative.\n14. This nasopharynx does prepossess abscess.\n15. That Alexandria ebbs steradian is correct if this nasopharynx is fresher.\n16. The claim that this lovage is non-irreligious and non-fresher does not hold if Alexandria does not avert Ruminantia.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nAlexandria does not ebb steradian.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact13] states that ``This nasopharynx is not non-fresher and is originative''. It implies that that this nasopharynx is fresher is not wrong, which we denote as [int1]. [fact15] states that ``That Alexandria ebbs steradian is correct if this nasopharynx is fresher''. Together, [int1] and [fact15] imply that alexandria does not ebb steradian.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The Garibaldi suffices chiseled and this one clucks astrophysics.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe Garibaldi suffices chiseled.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact1] states that ``The Garibaldi suffices chiseled and this one clucks astrophysics''. It implies that the Garibaldi suffices chiseled.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That brierwood is not a farm if the person is not a muckle.\n2. That Moroccan chisels dogging if that brierwood chisels dogging or it is not a protozoan or both is incorrect.\n3. If that brierwood is not a kind of a pycnosis then Jen is a farm and it is abactinal.\n4. This floodhead is a protozoan.\n5. That brierwood either is a kind of a pycnosis or is not a muckle or both.\n6. If that brierwood is not abactinal and it is not a protozoan Jen is abactinal.\n7. This floodhead is a Evernia and it is a protozoan if that brierwood is not a farm.\n8. The rhizomorph is not abactinal if that is undetected and/or is not a contrariety.\n9. The fact that Jen is not abactinal hold if this floodhead is a Evernia and is a kind of a protozoan.\n10. This floodhead is a protozoan if that brierwood is not a farm.\n11. If that brierwood is a pycnosis and/or it is not a muckle then that brierwood is not a kind of a farm.\n12. That brierwood is a pycnosis and/or this one is a muckle.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nJen is not abactinal.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact11] states that ``If that brierwood is a pycnosis and/or it is not a muckle then that brierwood is not a kind of a farm''. [fact5] states that ``That brierwood either is a kind of a pycnosis or is not a muckle or both''. Together, [fact11] and [fact5] imply that that brierwood is not a farm is correct, which we denote as [int1]. [fact7] states that ``This floodhead is a Evernia and it is a protozoan if that brierwood is not a farm''. Together, [int1] and [fact7] imply that this floodhead is a Evernia and that thing is a protozoan, which we denote as [int2]. [fact9] states that ``The fact that Jen is not abactinal hold if this floodhead is a Evernia and is a kind of a protozoan''. Together, [int2] and [fact9] imply that jen is not abactinal.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Something does nitrogenize and is procedural.\n2. All synclinal things that surface are not procedural.\n3. That flashover is procedural if that ideologue is procedural.\n4. That Ball surfaces if he is not a usufructuary.\n5. Some person that is not a Raphanus is synclinal and surfaces.\n6. That flashover surfaces.\n7. If that ideologue is a Stevens is true that flashover is procedural.\n8. That ideologue is a Stevens or it is procedural or both if it does not nitrogenize.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat flashover is synclinal and she/he does surface.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If this massasauga is doubler and not a thrown then that this massasauga is not a top is true.\n2. The selection is Hindoo but it is not a kind of a cleanness.\n3. If that that barterer is not a kind of a vi but it beshrews hold does not hold then it is not a kind of a Leibnitz.\n4. If this euglena is non-paranasal and is not a contractility then this matrikin is not a contractility.\n5. The fact that barterer is biogeographic is true.\n6. Something is a harmonic if that the thing is not a charade and the thing is a kind of a Cruciferae does not hold.\n7. This massasauga is doubler but this one is not a thrown if that this one is basal is true.\n8. The fact that barterer is scurfy and this person is Hindoo does not hold.\n9. A harmonic is both not paranasal and not a contractility.\n10. If this matrikin is not a contractility then the fact that barterer is a vi and does not ally chirpiness is false.\n11. That barterer is a contractility.\n12. That barterer is not scurfy but this is Hindoo is incorrect.\n13. If the fact that somebody inoculates occultism and is not kafkaesque is incorrect then this one is not a neurosyphilis.\n14. If this massasauga is not a kind of a top then the fact that goon inoculates occultism but it is not kafkaesque is not correct.\n15. If that barterer is scurfy that barterer does not ally chirpiness.\n16. That barterer is a vi and this one is a contractility.\n17. That geometrid allies chirpiness if that barterer does not allie chirpiness but it is a contractility.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat barterer is a vi but it does not ally chirpiness.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If someone is epenthetic it does not hrivel knowing.\n2. That Chance is non-malignant is right.\n3. The fact that this proofreader ventilates Scheol hold if that fingerling is malignant.\n4. A malignant one is not astomatal.\n5. That some man is a kind of non-tamed man that is astomatal is wrong if it is malignant.\n6. There is nothing such that it is not a Lermontov and it ventilates Scheol.\n7. If that fingerling is not astomatal but it is a Lermontov is wrong then this proofreader does ventilate Scheol.\n8. The fact that there is nothing such that thing is not a Fillmore and that thing is a Howells hold.\n9. This proofreader is astomatal if the fact that fingerling is not a Lermontov and ventilates Scheol does not hold.\n10. That fingerling is astomatal.\n11. This proofreader is a kind of a Lermontov.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis proofreader is non-malignant.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact6] states that ``There is nothing such that it is not a Lermontov and it ventilates Scheol''. It implies that the fact that fingerling is not a Lermontov and ventilates Scheol is incorrect, which we denote as [int1]. [fact9] states that ``This proofreader is astomatal if the fact that fingerling is not a Lermontov and ventilates Scheol does not hold''. Together, [int1] and [fact9] imply that the fact that this proofreader is astomatal is right, which we denote as [int2]. [fact4] states that ``A malignant one is not astomatal''. It implies that if somebody is astomatal he/she is not malignant, which we denote as [int3]. Together, [int2] and [int3] imply that this proofreader is non-malignant.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The fact that the gyrostabilizer does not unearth solicitousness is correct.\n2. If that firebug is a immovableness that firebug does not inhumed.\n3. That firebug inhumeds if that firebug does not unearth solicitousness but this person is a kind of a Zoroaster.\n4. That firebug does not advie graciousness.\n5. That firebug does not unearth solicitousness and is a Zoroaster.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that firebug is not a immovableness is not false.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. Let's assume that firebug is a immovableness [assump1]. [fact2] states that ``If that firebug is a immovableness that firebug does not inhumed''. Together, [fact2] and [assump1] imply that that firebug does not inhumed, which we denote as [int1]. [fact5] states that ``That firebug does not unearth solicitousness and is a Zoroaster''. [fact3] states that ``That firebug inhumeds if that firebug does not unearth solicitousness but this person is a kind of a Zoroaster''. Together, [fact5] and [fact3] imply that that firebug inhumeds, which we denote as [int2]. [int1] and [int2] contradict each other, which we denote as [int3]. Together, [assump1] and [int3] imply that the fact that firebug is not a immovableness is not false.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The fact that that greaseball is a illicitness and/or is a kind of an epicurean hold is not right if that greaseball is not a nanosecond.\n2. The fact that greaseball does not joy Pei or is a Siphonaptera or both does not hold if the thing is not a nanosecond.\n3. That greaseball is not an epicurean if that greaseball is not a kind of a nanosecond.\n4. That greaseball is not a illicitness and/or he is an epicurean if he is not a nanosecond.\n5. The fact that something does not intill or it is not non-weak or both does not hold if it does not romanticie.\n6. The fact that greaseball either is not a kind of a illicitness or is an epicurean or both is false if he is a kind of a nanosecond.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat there is something such that if that it is not a kind of a nanosecond is true the fact that it is not a illicitness and/or it is an epicurean is not right does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If that tearaway is a nail but this thing does not think radicalism does not hold then that this jack is not a nail is not wrong.\n2. Some person does not think radicalism if the fact that he searches Cumbria and he does not cork Synapsida is wrong.\n3. That molar is a reliance or it is not a kind of a Toulon or both if that this jack is not a nail is true.\n4. If this jack is not a nail then the shareowner does not link and is not a construct.\n5. That molar is not a northwards.\n6. The fact that molar is a reliance and/or this is not a Toulon is wrong if that molar is not a reliance.\n7. If some man does not cork Synapsida then the fact that the one is a nail and the one does not think radicalism is not right.\n8. Someone does not cork Synapsida if that it searches Cumbria hold.\n9. Something is a Sambucus that searches Cumbria if it does not tay Nation.\n10. If that molar is a kind of a northwards that does not link the person is not a reliance.\n11. The fact that molar is not a northwards is right if this jack is a nail.\n12. If that molar is not a nail but it is a kind of a Toulon this jack is not a nail.\n13. This jack is a nail.\n14. If that molar is not a northwards and does not link then he is not a kind of a reliance.\n15. That molar is not a kind of a northwards and it does not link if this jack is a nail.\n16. Something is a kind of a reliance if it does not think radicalism.\n17. The fact that molar searches Cumbria but this thing does not cork Synapsida does not hold if this thing is a Sambucus.\n18. That either the runner is a kind of a rattled or it is not a Toulon or both is not right.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat molar is a reliance and/or is not a Toulon.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact15] states that ``That molar is not a kind of a northwards and it does not link if this jack is a nail''. [fact13] states that ``This jack is a nail''. Together, [fact15] and [fact13] imply that that molar is not a northwards and it does not link, which we denote as [int1]. [fact14] states that ``If that molar is not a northwards and does not link then he is not a kind of a reliance''. Together, [int1] and [fact14] imply that that molar is not a reliance, which we denote as [int2]. [fact6] states that ``The fact that molar is a reliance and/or this is not a Toulon is wrong if that molar is not a reliance''. Together, [int2] and [fact6] imply that that molar is a reliance and/or is not a Toulon.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This cobblestoning risibility happens.\n2. If the recovering assembler happens that not this playacting romanticism but this commemorating Cushitic happens does not hold.\n3. The fact that the recovering assembler and that cholecystectomy occurs hold is brought about by that Byzantine does not happen.\n4. The fact that if the fact that this urbanness happens and that Bacchanalia occurs does not hold then this urbanness does not occur hold.\n5. The fact that anticoagulativeness happens but this urbanness does not happen does not hold.\n6. If that this playacting romanticism does not occur and this commemorating Cushitic occurs is false then this commemorating Cushitic does not occur.\n7. The fact that this urbanness and that Bacchanalia occurs is wrong if this commemorating Cushitic does not occur.\n8. That anticoagulativeness does not occur but this urbanness happens is incorrect.\n9. The assembling DOEI does not occur and that Byzantine does not happen if this odyssey happens.\n10. That anticoagulativeness occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nLet's assume that both the non-anticoagulativeness and the non-urbanness occurs.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. Let's assume that both the non-anticoagulativeness and the non-urbanness occurs [assump1]. It implies that that anticoagulativeness does not occur, which we denote as [int1]. [fact10] states that ``That anticoagulativeness occurs''. [int1] and [fact10] contradict each other, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [assump1] and [int2] imply that let's assume that both the non-anticoagulativeness and the non-urbanness occurs.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Something is a kind of non-unregenerated thing that is not an abstract.\n2. There is some man such that the fact that it is not a Delbruck and does not conquer tonnage is incorrect.\n3. There is some person such that it is not unregenerated and is a kind of an abstract is incorrect.\n4. If there is some person such that the one is an abstract that canvasser does not conquer tonnage.\n5. That canvasser is a Delbruck and it is a kind of a achondroplasia.\n6. If the fact that some person does not whack malaprop and does not prick hyphema is incorrect then he/she whack malaprop.\n7. If something is not a kind of a ultimacy it is a vomiting.\n8. There exists something such that the fact that it is both unregenerated and not an abstract is wrong.\n9. If there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of non-unregenerated thing that is not an abstract does not hold that canvasser does not conquer tonnage.\n10. That dura is a hugging that is not a kind of a zed.\n11. That canvasser is a achondroplasia.\n12. Every man is not a ultimacy.\n13. That somebody does not whack malaprop and does not prick hyphema does not hold if the fact that this person is a vomiting is true.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat canvasser is a Delbruck that does not conquer tonnage.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If some man does imagine she is not a kind of a Lessing.\n2. Something is not non-fundamentalist or not Spanish or both if this thing is not a Lessing.\n3. If that snowberry is Eolithic then that amylase is not a kind of a Lacertidae.\n4. If this thistle is fundamentalist then that snowberry is non-Spanish.\n5. If that acetylcholine is Eolithic then that snowberry is not a kind of a Lappish.\n6. That snowberry reconnoiters Siegfried if this endothelium is not a caper.\n7. That acetylcholine is a Lappish but not a Aplectrum is wrong.\n8. The fact that either this thistle is a omniscience or it plays or both does not hold if that this thistle is not unessential is right.\n9. That snowberry is not a Aplectrum if that acetylcholine is Eolithic.\n10. That snowberry is not Spanish if this thistle is not Spanish.\n11. That acetylcholine is not a kind of a Latrodectus if that snowberry is non-Spanish one that reconnoiters Siegfried.\n12. This thistle is not unessential.\n13. The fact that acetylcholine is not a Lappish and it is not a Aplectrum is wrong.\n14. If that this endothelium tinges tangibility and he is a caper is wrong this endothelium is not a caper.\n15. If that amylase is not a Lappish and that person is not a Aplectrum is false then that acetylcholine is a Lacertidae.\n16. Some person does not people pharyngeal if that person is a omniscience and/or that person plays is wrong.\n17. If the fact that this thistle is not a kind of a ALIR and is a keratoscleritis is false this thistle does imagine.\n18. That snowberry is Eolithic if that acetylcholine is not a Lappish and is not a kind of a Aplectrum does not hold.\n19. That amylase is both a Lacertidae and Eolithic if that acetylcholine is not a Latrodectus.\n20. The fact that something is not a ALIR but a keratoscleritis is wrong if it does not people pharyngeal.\n21. If that snowberry is a kind of non-Eolithic thing that is not a Aplectrum is incorrect then that acetylcholine is a Lacertidae.\n22. The fact that something tinges tangibility and is a caper is wrong if it is not acropetal.\n23. That acetylcholine is not a Lappish and is a Aplectrum is false.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat amylase is a Lacertidae.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact18] states that ``That snowberry is Eolithic if that acetylcholine is not a Lappish and is not a kind of a Aplectrum does not hold''. [fact13] states that ``The fact that acetylcholine is not a Lappish and it is not a Aplectrum is wrong''. Together, [fact18] and [fact13] imply that that snowberry is not non-Eolithic, which we denote as [int1]. [fact3] states that ``If that snowberry is Eolithic then that amylase is not a kind of a Lacertidae''. Together, [int1] and [fact3] imply that that amylase is a Lacertidae.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That something is tactile thing that does not buffalo corp is not true if it is not a zed.\n2. That this whiskers is a zed and it is hemorrhagic does not hold.\n3. Something either is not hemorrhagic or is not a orography or both if this thing is not tactile.\n4. If this agnathan buffalos corp and is a kind of a Sacagawea then that fencer does not buffalo corp.\n5. That something is not tactile hold if this is a zed.\n6. If this agnathan is not rugged this agnathan buffalos corp and it is a Sacagawea.\n7. That fencer is a kind of mucose thing that is a kind of a cone.\n8. If either that fencer is not hemorrhagic or it is not a orography or both then this whiskers is not a orography.\n9. If that fencer is hemorrhagic the fact that this whiskers is a zed and it is hemorrhagic is false.\n10. If that this maxilla is not carnal but it exacerbates Amiidae does not hold this whiskers is not non-tactile.\n11. If that fencer is tactile then that fencer is a zed or is a orography or both.\n12. That fencer is a orography and that is hemorrhagic.\n13. Somebody is tactile or it is hemorrhagic or both if it does not buffalo corp.\n14. If the fact that something is not a zed and not non-hemorrhagic does not hold it is not tactile.\n15. That fencer is a orography.\n16. The fact that this whiskers is not a zed but it is hemorrhagic does not hold if that fencer is hemorrhagic.\n17. This whiskers is not tactile if this whiskers is a zed.\n18. The fact that this whiskers is not hemorrhagic but it is a zed hold does not hold if that fencer is a kind of a zed.\n19. This agnathan is not rugged if that this agnathan is rugged and is a discretion is false.\n20. If that fencer is a zed that this maxilla is a kind of non-carnal one that exacerbates Amiidae is incorrect.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis whiskers is not tactile.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact12] states that ``That fencer is a orography and that is hemorrhagic''. It implies that that fencer is hemorrhagic, which we denote as [int1]. [fact16] states that ``The fact that this whiskers is not a zed but it is hemorrhagic does not hold if that fencer is hemorrhagic''. Together, [int1] and [fact16] imply that the fact that this whiskers is both not a zed and hemorrhagic does not hold, which we denote as [int2]. [fact14] states that ``If the fact that something is not a zed and not non-hemorrhagic does not hold it is not tactile''. It implies that this whiskers is not tactile if the fact that this whiskers is not a zed but he/she is not non-hemorrhagic is wrong, which we denote as [int3]. Together, [int2] and [int3] imply that this whiskers is not tactile.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If Greg is idealistic then Greg telescopes Ctenophora.\n2. That all atheistic ones are idealistic and are not Werfels is valid.\n3. That this rafts is idealistic stands.\n4. If this rafts is renewable the thing muses.\n5. This rafts describes if the thing is idealistic.\n6. The alpinist is idealistic if that this rafts is a Werfel but it does not decribe is not right.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis rafts does not decribe.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact5] states that ``This rafts describes if the thing is idealistic''. [fact3] states that ``That this rafts is idealistic stands''. Together, [fact5] and [fact3] imply that this rafts does not decribe.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If something is a natality this thing is not an aerial and this thing is not unpremeditated.\n2. The fact that the fact that supper does not rut Uruguay but it is not non-apogean does not hold hold if that supper grudges Samia.\n3. The fact that supper is eolithic but it is not a southernism is wrong if it is a apercu.\n4. The fact that some person is not eolithic but a southernism does not hold if it is a apercu.\n5. Something does not enconce Rhynchoelaps and is not a surplusage if this thing is enthusiastic.\n6. The fact that someone does not prefabricate Balaenoptera and is not atonal is incorrect if it is a perfumed.\n7. That somebody is a millenarism and not a uncheerfulness does not hold if she/he is contraclockwise.\n8. The fact that supper is a kind of a Mosaic that is not a kind of an intuition is not correct if that supper is a kind of a southernism.\n9. That supper is a kind of non-cucurbitaceous man that is not liliaceous if it is eolithic.\n10. If the spatchcock is a southernism then that person is not divergent and does not reconcile lateral does not hold.\n11. The fact that something does not rut Uruguay but that thing is a perfumed does not hold if that thing is undistinguishable.\n12. If something is Anglophilic then it is not a monition and it does not ulcerate heedfulness.\n13. Something does not ready and it is not enthusiastic if it does displace Chinookan.\n14. If something is a kind of a apercu then that thing is a kind of non-eolithic thing that is not a southernism is wrong.\n15. Somebody is indiscriminate one that is not a Marche if he is benzenoid.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nIf the fact that supper is a kind of a apercu hold then that it is not eolithic and not a southernism is false.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact14] states that ``If something is a kind of a apercu then that thing is a kind of non-eolithic thing that is not a southernism is wrong''. It implies that if the fact that supper is a kind of a apercu hold then that it is not eolithic and not a southernism is false.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If either this P.E. does not occur or this insistence happens or both that febrileness does not happen.\n2. That both this layoff and this despoticness occurs is brought about by that rehearsal does not happen.\n3. That this grafting satori happens and that insincereness happens hold.\n4. That costalness does not occur and this pituitary does not happen does not hold.\n5. If that febrileness does not occur then that waging precept happens and/or this grafting satori does not happen.\n6. That waging precept does not occur if that waging precept happens but this P.E. does not occur does not hold.\n7. This grafting satori happens.\n8. That the avoidableness happens hold.\n9. If this layoff happens this fatality does not happen and this P.E. does not happen.\n10. If that this grafting satori does not happen and that insincereness does not happen is false this tiring reputability happens.\n11. That this traffic occurs is prevented by that spark does not occur and/or the dithyrambicness occurs.\n12. If that waging precept does not happen then the fact that this grafting satori does not happen and that insincereness does not happen does not hold.\n13. That this hallucinating sensuality does not happen and that rehearsal does not occur is caused by that this traffic does not occur.\n14. If that costalness does not happen and this pituitary does not occur does not hold that spark does not happen.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat insincereness does not occur.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact3] states that ``That this grafting satori happens and that insincereness happens hold''. It implies that that insincereness does not occur.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If the fact that someone is Epicurean and this one gossips Oestridae does not hold then that this one is not a whit is right.\n2. This transaminase does not lace Zion if the fact that this star is not a hypoproteinemia and is not incombustible is false.\n3. If something does not mythologize scolding but it is a bourgeoisie then it colors dependableness.\n4. This lodgings mythologizes scolding if she does mythologizes scolding or is not omnivorous or both.\n5. Something that does not mythologize scolding and is not a bourgeoisie does not color dependableness.\n6. That choreographer colors dependableness if the fact that choreographer does not mythologize scolding but it is a bourgeoisie hold.\n7. If the fact that this star mythologizes scolding or it does tag Gentianaceae or both does not hold the fitch colors dependableness.\n8. If this transaminase is omnivorous this lodgings does mythologize scolding and/or he is not omnivorous.\n9. Something either transforms Pulex or colors dependableness or both if that is non-Epicurean.\n10. That choreographer does not mythologize scolding and is not a bourgeoisie.\n11. If this transaminase is omnivorous then that choreographer does not color dependableness and it does not tranform Pulex.\n12. That choreographer is not a bourgeoisie.\n13. If that choreographer is not a bourgeoisie and is not pietistical this thing espouses Perognathus.\n14. Someone that is not a kind of a whit is omnivorous and tags Gentianaceae.\n15. Someone that is Epicurean is a kind of a whit.\n16. If this transaminase mythologizes scolding then this lodgings does mythologizes scolding.\n17. That jackstones is not a Plecotus and does not color dependableness.\n18. If some man transforms Pulex then it is omnivorous or it does mythologize scolding or both.\n19. The fact that someone is Epicurean and it gossips Oestridae is incorrect if that it does not lace Zion is not incorrect.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat choreographer does not color dependableness.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact5] states that ``Something that does not mythologize scolding and is not a bourgeoisie does not color dependableness''. It implies that that choreographer colors dependableness if that choreographer does not mythologize scolding and it is not a bourgeoisie, which we denote as [int1]. [fact10] states that ``That choreographer does not mythologize scolding and is not a bourgeoisie''. Together, [int1] and [fact10] imply that that choreographer does not color dependableness.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This clashing ALGOL does not occur.\n2. If that aliyah does not occur but that shelter occurs then the bushwhacking flickering does not occur.\n3. That the teasing does not happen and the Niloticness occurs prevents that the smudging Hypericales happens.\n4. That this grasping symbology does not happen is triggered by that not the demo but that defoliating Yevtushenko occurs.\n5. This servicing dissatisfaction does not occur if not that breeding but this slaughtering happens.\n6. Both that misdemeanor and that altitudinalness happens if that inequitableness does not occur.\n7. That unscheduledness occurs prevents that this servicing dissatisfaction does not occur.\n8. The computing does not happen but the norther occurs.\n9. The fact that not that healing 15 but this scouting Ta'ziyeh happens hold.\n10. That both the cleaning conspectus and the reallotment occurs yields that the turnabout does not happen.\n11. This slaughtering happens.\n12. The assaulting disgustingness does not occur.\n13. If the fact that that inequitableness and this oxidizing occurs is correct does not hold that inequitableness does not happen.\n14. This non-cruralness and the roguishness occurs.\n15. Not that darning NRL but this demonetization happens.\n16. That perambulating Madonna does not occur.\n17. This non-phylogeneticness is caused by that the hurdle occurs and this hydroelectricness occurs.\n18. If that misdemeanor occurs that unscheduledness happens.\n19. That prestidigitation does not occur is triggered by that this non-dictyopteranness and the colourizing equanimity occurs.\n20. That dictyopteranness does not occur.\n21. That fidgeting does not occur.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis servicing dissatisfaction happens.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That westerly is a radicalism and it mops Scripps.\n2. The Trappist browns.\n3. That westerly is not a radicalism if either this ghrelin is not autogamous or it is non-frictional or both.\n4. That westerly browns if that westerly is not inward and this thing is not a shibah.\n5. If something is not a villainage then it is not autogamous or it is non-frictional or both.\n6. The fact that somebody mops Scripps and it browns does not hold if it is not a radicalism.\n7. That westerly is not a shibah.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that westerly does mop Scripps and it browns is incorrect.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Something does not bat lasting if that thing bat lasting and that thing is not a kind of a HMO is false.\n2. The fact that something bats lasting but this thing is not a HMO is not right if this thing tampers.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat everything is not a HMO is wrong.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The fact that wildflower is a kind of an andante is correct.\n2. If this straightedge is not a blueing this straightedge is not an andante and belts.\n3. The fact that this straightedge is an andante is correct.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that this straightedge is an andante is correct.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact3] states that ``The fact that this straightedge is an andante is correct''. It implies that the fact that this straightedge is an andante is correct.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Both that Mormon and that collagenicness occurs.\n2. That channeling Barth does not occur and this alphanumericalness does not happen is wrong.\n3. The fact that both that non-diffuserness and this usage occurs is not correct.\n4. That this disgraced does not happen but the stinking happens is wrong.\n5. This tactileness does not happen if that this wearying occurs but this disgraced does not occur is wrong.\n6. The fact that disagreeableness happens but the picking apophasis does not occur is wrong.\n7. The fact that non-mesonicness and that non-holisticness occurs is incorrect.\n8. That clunk does not occur and that gauntlet does not occur is false.\n9. The fact that the fact that this wearying occurs but this disgraced does not happen is incorrect is right if that Mormon happens.\n10. That this truncating Betula does not happen and this engagement does not occur is false.\n11. The fact that both that non-goingness and that noninstitutionalisedness occurs does not hold.\n12. That the vote does not happen and this curatorship does not happen is caused by that this tactileness does not occur.\n13. The fact that neuralgicness occurs is correct if this usage occurs.\n14. That if not this curatorship but that neuralgicness happens this pickup does not occur is right.\n15. If this pickup does not occur that disagreeableness does not occur and the preemption does not occur is wrong.\n16. That both the inanimateness and that non-fanciness happens is not correct.\n17. If this pickup occurs that channeling Barth does not happen and this alphanumericalness does not occur.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat channeling Barth does not happen and this alphanumericalness does not occur.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact2] states that ``That channeling Barth does not occur and this alphanumericalness does not happen is wrong''. It implies that that channeling Barth does not happen and this alphanumericalness does not occur.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The fact that something is both not a bivalved and not subclinical does not hold if this is not suppurative.\n2. Something that does share is nonsuppurative.\n3. The fact that oxtail does hoe shaytan but it is not recollective is incorrect if that marker is nonsuppurative.\n4. That oxtail is not confirmed and does not hunt is incorrect.\n5. If the fact that something is not a bivalved and is non-subclinical is false that is not inconstant.\n6. If something is not nonsuppurative it hoes shaytan and it is not recollective.\n7. That oxtail is not nonsuppurative if the fact that it is unconfirmed and it does not hunt is false.\n8. If something is a kind of a picometer then it hunts.\n9. Some man is a kind of a picometer if that person is not unconfirmed.\n10. If the fact that somebody boils Boehmenism but it is not a quadric is wrong then it does not hunt.\n11. Everybody is not unconfirmed and/or it does share.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat oxtail hoes shaytan but it is non-recollective is wrong.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact6] states that ``If something is not nonsuppurative it hoes shaytan and it is not recollective''. It implies that that oxtail hoes shaytan and is not recollective if that it is not nonsuppurative is right, which we denote as [int1]. [fact4] states that ``That oxtail is not confirmed and does not hunt is incorrect''. [fact7] states that ``That oxtail is not nonsuppurative if the fact that it is unconfirmed and it does not hunt is false''. Together, [fact4] and [fact7] imply that that oxtail is not nonsuppurative, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that that oxtail hoes shaytan but it is non-recollective is wrong.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Something stipples cooperativeness if it is not an acoustic and it does not exacerbate.\n2. That rattan does not urvey Susquehanna if that that margosa is a surplus and it is conductive is incorrect is right.\n3. The fact that this tippet is not a convincingness and this thing does not commence does not hold if this tippet freezes.\n4. That kaffiyeh is autogenous.\n5. That kaffiyeh does stipple cooperativeness and that thing is not non-autogenous if that rattan is not a Jesuitry.\n6. If this tippet finds dented then that margosa does not find dented.\n7. If that this tippet is not a convincingness and it does not commence is incorrect then it finds dented.\n8. That kaffiyeh is autogenous if a Jesuitry perfects archaeology.\n9. Some man that does not urvey Susquehanna is not an acoustic and does not exacerbate.\n10. That kaffiyeh stipples cooperativeness if that rattan stipples cooperativeness.\n11. There is something such that it does deputize Urocystis and stipples cooperativeness.\n12. That kaffiyeh perfects archaeology if something that deputizes Urocystis stipples cooperativeness.\n13. The fact that kaffiyeh is a kind of a Jesuitry is true if that kaffiyeh is autogenous.\n14. The fact that something is a kind of a Jesuitry that perfects archaeology is not correct if that is not autogenous.\n15. If something does not find dented then the fact that it is a kind of a surplus and it is conductive is false.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that kaffiyeh is a Jesuitry and the person perfects archaeology does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact13] states that ``The fact that kaffiyeh is a kind of a Jesuitry is true if that kaffiyeh is autogenous''. [fact4] states that ``That kaffiyeh is autogenous''. Together, [fact13] and [fact4] imply that that kaffiyeh is a Jesuitry, which we denote as [int1]. [fact11] states that ``There is something such that it does deputize Urocystis and stipples cooperativeness''. [fact12] states that ``That kaffiyeh perfects archaeology if something that deputizes Urocystis stipples cooperativeness''. Together, [fact11] and [fact12] imply that that kaffiyeh perfects archaeology, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that the fact that kaffiyeh is a Jesuitry and the person perfects archaeology does not hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If Magaly is a vapidity and not awkward then this syringa is a hypotonus.\n2. There exists some person such that he/she is a WV and he/she is not unreflected.\n3. There exists something such that thing is vinaceous and that thing does not liten.\n4. There exists some man such that it is a kind of vinaceous man that listens is not true.\n5. There exists something such that that thing is a kind of a monody and that thing does not fulfill does not hold.\n6. Either every man is not a Fulgoridae or it is adventuristic or both.\n7. There is someone such that the fact that she is a Rhamnus and she is a poliosis is incorrect.\n8. Something is not adventuristic if that the thing is both audiometric and not a saintliness is right.\n9. Magaly is a vapidity but he is not awkward.\n10. Every person is not a hypotonus or this one is a Fulgoridae or both.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat there exists someone such that it is vinaceous and it does not liten is false is wrong.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If this regent considers enjambement this breeziness is not blastodermatic.\n2. The fact that coach is a Asperula or this does synthesise or both does not hold if that pussly does not hob Mayday.\n3. If the fact that something does not forgo subversiveness but it plugs Tyndale is wrong then it considers enjambement.\n4. If the fact that coach is a Asperula and/or it synthesises is false that sloucher is not blastodermatic.\n5. That this regent does not forgo subversiveness but this plugs Tyndale does not hold if that this is a Asperula is correct.\n6. This breeziness is blastodermatic if that sloucher is not blastodermatic and/or the person considers enjambement.\n7. This regent is a Asperula.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis breeziness is not blastodermatic.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact3] states that ``If the fact that something does not forgo subversiveness but it plugs Tyndale is wrong then it considers enjambement''. It implies that this regent does consider enjambement if that it does not forgo subversiveness and plugs Tyndale is incorrect, which we denote as [int1]. [fact5] states that ``That this regent does not forgo subversiveness but this plugs Tyndale does not hold if that this is a Asperula is correct''. [fact7] states that ``This regent is a Asperula''. Together, [fact5] and [fact7] imply that that this regent does not forgo subversiveness but it plugs Tyndale does not hold, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that this regent considers enjambement, which we denote as [int3]. [fact1] states that ``If this regent considers enjambement this breeziness is not blastodermatic''. Together, [int3] and [fact1] imply that this breeziness is not blastodermatic.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Something is not a subunit if the fact that it is not a kind of a Dasyprocta and it is not a Ruhr is false.\n2. Joel crystalizeds Bucconidae and is a Gounod.\n3. Something is a Ruhr if the fact that it is a kind of a Dasyprocta is right.\n4. That carbonyl is not a Pinckneya or that person is not a Gounod or both is false if that psilocin is not a Candlemas.\n5. That carbonyl is a Pinckneya if Joel crystalizeds Bucconidae.\n6. If Joel is not a Candlemas that carbonyl is either not a Pinckneya or not a Gounod or both.\n7. There is someone such that it does not crytalized Bucconidae.\n8. If something is a subunit the fact that the thing is not a Ruhr is right.\n9. The tub does transfuse Sipuncula and is conductive.\n10. Someone is not a Candlemas if that one is not a Dasyprocta and not a Ruhr.\n11. If that something does not crytalized Bucconidae and/or that thing is not a Gounod is incorrect then that thing is not a Pinckneya.\n12. There exists some person such that it is not a Dasyprocta and it is a Terrapene.\n13. The fact that either something does not crytalized Bucconidae or this thing is not a Gounod or both is false if this thing is not a kind of a subunit.\n14. Joel is a Gounod.\n15. If Joel installs Meade then Joel is a subunit.\n16. Joel is a Terrapene and she/he installs Meade.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat carbonyl is not a Pinckneya.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact2] states that ``Joel crystalizeds Bucconidae and is a Gounod''. It implies that joel crystalizeds Bucconidae, which we denote as [int1]. [fact5] states that ``That carbonyl is a Pinckneya if Joel crystalizeds Bucconidae''. Together, [int1] and [fact5] imply that that carbonyl is not a Pinckneya.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This reliever is a mini and this is a Aquitania.\n2. That this reliever is a Changtzu and is a kind of a mini is not incorrect.\n3. Some person that is both not a candied and a truck is not a Artocarpus.\n4. The permeation resubmits Ludian and it corners.\n5. The fact that something is a kind of a Changtzu and corners does not hold if the thing is not a Artocarpus.\n6. This reliever is a Changtzu.\n7. This reliever corners and the thing is a kind of a Changtzu.\n8. This reliever is a tracheitis and it is a tameness.\n9. Some man does not corner if the fact that he/she is a kind of a Changtzu that corner is wrong.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis reliever does corner.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact7] states that ``This reliever corners and the thing is a kind of a Changtzu''. It implies that this reliever does corner.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Everything is not quincentennial and is endogenous.\n2. Everything does not roam and is a inquietude.\n3. That everything is both not preanal and a baroque is not wrong.\n4. The fact that every person is not a kind of a Eschscholtzia and she/he is a plosive is correct.\n5. Something that is not talented is not a Apium and betrays.\n6. The fact that everything disforests Anguidae hold.\n7. Everything is not a season and peruses.\n8. Everyone is not a kind of a religion and that one is a Parsiism.\n9. Everything is not an esthetic and it is a glad.\n10. If something disforests Anguidae then that thing is not talented and that thing ruffs dynamics.\n11. Everyone does not illuminate and wrongs Hizbullah.\n12. Every person is a baroque.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat everything is both not preanal and a baroque is not wrong.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact3] states that ``That everything is both not preanal and a baroque is not wrong''. It implies that that everything is both not preanal and a baroque is not wrong.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The fact that this betrayer is not a kind of a Bannockburn is valid.\n2. That Chelsey is a kind of a complaisance and is inedible is false if this betrayer is not a Bannockburn.\n3. That apex is aromatic but that thing is not provocative if Chelsey is not a postlude.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat apex is aromatic but it is not provocative is wrong.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. A Myosotis is intelligible.\n2. If that Brie is not a Pugin that telescope is not inappropriate.\n3. If Alfonso does not trifle Newton this unguent is a arcsin and is a genie.\n4. That ridiculer is a Myosotis if that tatterdemalion is a blind hold.\n5. If that Brie is intelligible and the one is inappropriate then that telescope does not join Gynne.\n6. That Brie is not a Myosotis and that one is not a Pugin if that Brie is non-thermometric.\n7. If that some man is a Myosotis and the person is a lamenting is false the person is not a Myosotis.\n8. Every person is not thermometric.\n9. The fact that some man is a Myosotis and is a lamenting does not hold if it is not thermometric.\n10. Alfonso does not trifle Newton if the fact that the fact that this paleface does not trifle Newton and is a pearlweed hold does not hold.\n11. If some man is a kind of a genie she/he is non-thermometric.\n12. If the fact that this unguent is a lamenting but not thermometric is false then that Brie is not thermometric.\n13. If something is not thermometric it is a Pugin and/or a lamenting.\n14. The fact that this paleface does not trifle Newton and is a pearlweed does not hold.\n15. That Brie is not inappropriate.\n16. That Brie is a kind of a Pugin if this unguent is a Pugin.\n17. If that ridiculer is a Myosotis that Brie is a Myosotis.\n18. Somebody is non-intelligible a Pugin if it is not non-intelligible.\n19. Something is intelligible if it is a Pugin and it is inappropriate.\n20. That telescope joins Gynne if that is intelligible and that is a Pugin.\n21. If something is not intelligible but it is a Pugin then it joins Gynne.\n22. If something that is intelligible is a Pugin it joins Gynne.\n23. The fact that Brie is not a kind of a Pugin hold if that telescope is not a Myosotis.\n24. That telescope is non-intelligible if that Brie is not inappropriate.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat telescope does not join Gynne.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact24] states that ``That telescope is non-intelligible if that Brie is not inappropriate''. [fact15] states that ``That Brie is not inappropriate''. Together, [fact24] and [fact15] imply that that telescope is not intelligible, which we denote as [int1]. [fact18] states that ``Somebody is non-intelligible a Pugin if it is not non-intelligible''. It implies that if that telescope is not intelligible it is a kind of intelligible thing that is a kind of a Pugin, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that that telescope is a kind of non-intelligible one that is a kind of a Pugin, which we denote as [int3]. [fact21] states that ``If something is not intelligible but it is a Pugin then it joins Gynne''. It implies that if that telescope is not intelligible but it is a Pugin then it joins Gynne, which we denote as [int4]. Together, [int3] and [int4] imply that that telescope does not join Gynne.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That Sonja is both not a Hydnum and not non-integumentary does not hold if someone does not gallop coexistence.\n2. Sonja does not annihilate if it is not integumentary.\n3. If somebody does not gallop coexistence that it annihilates hold.\n4. That Sonja is not a Brachycome but a Psoralea is wrong if someone does not remember Midweek.\n5. Someone is not a Fosbury if he/she is not a Brachycome.\n6. The fact that something does not fancy and gallops coexistence is correct is not true if the thing pets Trematoda.\n7. If that something is not a Hydnum and is not non-integumentary does not hold then this thing does not annihilate.\n8. There is something such that this thing gallops coexistence.\n9. There exists somebody such that it does not gallop coexistence.\n10. That Sonja is not a ablaut but that thing is integumentary is not correct.\n11. Something does not annihilate if it is not integumentary.\n12. That fovea is a puce and annihilates.\n13. If that something is not undomestic but it is a kind of a parenthesis does not hold that it is not a biophysics is right.\n14. This cover is not integumentary.\n15. That the Tanzanian does not bedewed Minotaur is true if that this is not unintelligible and this is a Conepatus is wrong.\n16. If the fact that somebody does not fancy and gallops coexistence is incorrect he does not gallop coexistence.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nSonja does not annihilate.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact7] states that ``If that something is not a Hydnum and is not non-integumentary does not hold then this thing does not annihilate''. It implies that sonja does not annihilate if the fact that it is not a Hydnum and it is not non-integumentary is wrong, which we denote as [int1]. [fact9] states that ``There exists somebody such that it does not gallop coexistence''. [fact1] states that ``That Sonja is both not a Hydnum and not non-integumentary does not hold if someone does not gallop coexistence''. Together, [fact9] and [fact1] imply that that Sonja is both not a Hydnum and integumentary is incorrect, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that sonja does not annihilate.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That this suctioning does not occur brings about that euphonicalness occurs and that resistibleness happens.\n2. If this employing Richea does not occur then the fact that blocking Sedna does not happen and this thwacking XXI does not occur is false.\n3. If that outshouting Congregationalism happens that overprotection does not occur and that seasoning sneer does not happen.\n4. If that the fact that this suctioning and that domesticness occurs does not hold hold then this suctioning does not occur.\n5. That this employing Richea and that blocking Sedna occurs is wrong if this thwacking XXI does not occur.\n6. This superintendence does not occur and this thwacking XXI does not occur if that euphonicalness happens.\n7. That Slovenianness occurs if the fact that blocking Sedna does not occur and this thwacking XXI does not happen is false.\n8. That blocking Sedna does not occur if that this employing Richea occurs and that blocking Sedna occurs is right is not true.\n9. If this nodularness happens then that this suctioning occurs and that undomesticness does not occur is incorrect.\n10. If that blocking Sedna does not happen the fact that extraction happens and the impaling Embiodea does not happen does not hold.\n11. That the fact that Slovenianness happens and that motoring occurs does not hold is true.\n12. That overprotection does not occur causes that this nodularness and the subluxating happens.\n13. The fact that Slovenianness happens and that motoring does not happen does not hold.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat Slovenianness but not that motoring happens.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact13] states that ``The fact that Slovenianness happens and that motoring does not happen does not hold''. It implies that that Slovenianness but not that motoring happens.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If that this tying happens is true then this quoting bounded does not happen.\n2. The sorrowing Capparis does not happen.\n3. That review does not happen if this quoting bounded does not occur.\n4. If that this skateboarding does not happen but this sublittoralness happens is incorrect then this tying happens.\n5. If that erythropoieticness does not occur then that review occurs and that lockage happens.\n6. This sublittoralness does not happen.\n7. This sublittoralness is caused by that review occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis sublittoralness occurs.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact6] states that ``This sublittoralness does not happen''. It implies that this sublittoralness occurs.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The logomachist is an overhead.\n2. Something that intervenes Onychogalea does not thromboed knowledge and does not noie Vespasian.\n3. This Stalinization is a Haiti and that thing intervenes Onychogalea if that burrawong is inoperable.\n4. Every person noises Vespasian.\n5. Everybody does not thin unhealthfulness and/or it thromboseds knowledge.\n6. If that snuggery is an aloofness that thing is nonenzymatic and/or that thing is not a kind of an aloofness does not hold.\n7. That snuggery is a fecklessness and it imprints.\n8. Everybody is not a fecklessness or the person does imprint or both.\n9. Something that is an overhead does not thromboed knowledge.\n10. This siamang imprints if this Stalinization does not thromboed knowledge and does not noie Vespasian.\n11. The fact that snuggery is an overhead and/or is not a kind of a neolithic does not hold if that it is a neolithic is correct.\n12. Somebody is a neolithic if it imprints.\n13. Someone is a fecklessness and/or is a kind of a neolithic if he is not an overhead.\n14. Some person is not a neolithic and/or that one imprints if that one noises Vespasian.\n15. That snuggery is both not an overhead and not a fecklessness is not true if this siamang imprints.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that snuggery is an overhead and/or that one is not a kind of a neolithic does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact7] states that ``That snuggery is a fecklessness and it imprints''. It implies that that snuggery imprints, which we denote as [int1]. [fact12] states that ``Somebody is a neolithic if it imprints''. It implies that if that snuggery imprints that person is a neolithic, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that that snuggery is a neolithic, which we denote as [int3]. [fact11] states that ``The fact that snuggery is an overhead and/or is not a kind of a neolithic does not hold if that it is a neolithic is correct''. Together, [int3] and [fact11] imply that the fact that snuggery is an overhead and/or that one is not a kind of a neolithic does not hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If that abscising Pediocactus happens the fact that this parring sarcasm but not this synovialness occurs does not hold.\n2. If this skylarking kibit occurs this showering occurs.\n3. If this synovialness does not happen that either this auditiveness or this elysianness or both occurs is false.\n4. The invention occurs if this stargazinging occurs.\n5. The fact that the luck does not happen is wrong.\n6. This emf brings about that the payoff occurs.\n7. The fact that if this elysianness happens then this overturning happens is right.\n8. The councillorship occurs.\n9. The repurchasing occurs.\n10. The regurgitation and this polyploid happens.\n11. This overturning does not happen if the fact that this auditiveness happens and/or this elysianness occurs is wrong.\n12. The apsidalness leads to that crustoseness occurs.\n13. If this parring sarcasm does not happen then this synovialness does not happen.\n14. This skylarking kibit happens if this syncreticness occurs.\n15. The uncontroversialness happens and that treat happens.\n16. That this auditiveness does not occur results in that this overturning does not occur and this elysianness does not occur.\n17. This auditiveness occurs.\n18. This Indonesian occurs.\n19. The woolgathering nonaggression happens.\n20. If the qualifying febrility occurs this abruption happens.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis overturning does not occur.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If the fact that this photicness and that zymolyticness occurs does not hold that unprovocativeness does not occur.\n2. That sobering occurs.\n3. The fact that the fact that this pyrotechnics does not happen and/or that Rhenishness does not happen is false if this overprotecting happens hold.\n4. That howling carping does not happen if that this pyrotechnics does not happen and/or that Rhenishness does not occur is false.\n5. The fact that Natalness but not this rolling happens is incorrect if this keratotomy does not occur.\n6. Both that tootle and the whiplash occurs.\n7. That sobering happens and this daycare occurs.\n8. This rolling occurs if the fact that Natalness happens and this rolling does not occur is incorrect.\n9. The fact that this photicness happens and that zymolyticness happens is incorrect if that howling carping does not occur.\n10. That non-zymolyticness triggers that provocativeness and this photicness occurs.\n11. If that unprovocativeness does not occur then that sobering does not happen and that Englishness does not happen.\n12. That this daycare occurs and this keratotomy happens brings about that this rolling does not occur.\n13. The roofing klick occurs.\n14. If the fact that sobering does not happen is correct then this daycare occurs but this keratotomy does not occur.\n15. That zymolyticness does not happen and that howling carping occurs if that Rhenishness does not occur.\n16. That Natalness occurs.\n17. This religious happens and that prevailing sexuality occurs.\n18. The whiplash happens and the corporateness occurs.\n19. That this keratotomy does not occur and this daycare does not occur is brought about by that sobering does not happen.\n20. If that Natalness occurs this keratotomy occurs.\n21. Both the waterpower and this sluicing Antigonia occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis rolling does not happen.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact20] states that ``If that Natalness occurs this keratotomy occurs''. [fact16] states that ``That Natalness occurs''. Together, [fact20] and [fact16] imply that this keratotomy happens, which we denote as [int1]. [fact7] states that ``That sobering happens and this daycare occurs''. It implies that this daycare happens, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that this daycare happens and this keratotomy occurs, which we denote as [int3]. [fact12] states that ``That this daycare occurs and this keratotomy happens brings about that this rolling does not occur''. Together, [int3] and [fact12] imply that this rolling does not happen.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If this colourfulness occurs and/or that prevarication occurs then the fact that whizzing happens does not hold.\n2. If either the likableness or the workingsing Hydrochoerus or both happens then this diatomicness does not occur.\n3. That prevarication happens.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat whizzing does not occur.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact3] states that ``That prevarication happens''. It implies that this colourfulness or that prevarication or both occurs, which we denote as [int1]. [fact1] states that ``If this colourfulness occurs and/or that prevarication occurs then the fact that whizzing happens does not hold''. Together, [int1] and [fact1] imply that that whizzing does not occur.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If that cruse is not prosodic is true that this Arikara is not a Kichaga and is prosodic is not correct.\n2. This Arikara is not a Kichaga if that browse is not a Kichaga but this one is a hitch does not hold.\n3. That browse outstays but it is not umbellar.\n4. If that browse does outstay but it is not umbellar then that cruse is not prosodic.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that the fact that this Arikara is not a Kichaga but this is prosodic is wrong is right.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact4] states that ``If that browse does outstay but it is not umbellar then that cruse is not prosodic''. [fact3] states that ``That browse outstays but it is not umbellar''. Together, [fact4] and [fact3] imply that that cruse is not prosodic, which we denote as [int1]. [fact1] states that ``If that cruse is not prosodic is true that this Arikara is not a Kichaga and is prosodic is not correct''. Together, [int1] and [fact1] imply that the fact that the fact that this Arikara is not a Kichaga but this is prosodic is wrong is right.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That magnifying arcdegree and/or that trapping beingness happens brings about that impropriety does not occur.\n2. That mapmaking happens.\n3. The non-proximateness is caused by that the macrocosmicness occurs.\n4. The neuroendocrineness happens and that towage happens.\n5. If that magnifying arcdegree happens then that impropriety does not occur.\n6. That mapmaking happens and that trapping beingness happens.\n7. If either this inhibition or this rocking or both happens that celiocentesis does not occur.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat impropriety happens.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact6] states that ``That mapmaking happens and that trapping beingness happens''. It implies that that trapping beingness occurs, which we denote as [int1]. It implies that that magnifying arcdegree and/or that trapping beingness happens, which we denote as [int2]. [fact1] states that ``That magnifying arcdegree and/or that trapping beingness happens brings about that impropriety does not occur''. Together, [int2] and [fact1] imply that that impropriety happens.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That diastrophism is not phonemic and the one does not flatter anastrophe is false if the one is not unseeded.\n2. If that victor is unseeded and this person is a Hadrian is incorrect then the clam is not unseeded.\n3. If that diastrophism is not unseeded that the person is not phonemic and the person flatters anastrophe does not hold.\n4. If someone flatters anastrophe then the one is unsensational.\n5. Something is unsensational if that thing is not phonemic and does not flatter anastrophe does not hold.\n6. If someone references Pyrrhula then the person is a Wernicke.\n7. If that diastrophism flatters anastrophe she is unsensational.\n8. If a unseeded thing is unsensational then that is not a kind of a cautious.\n9. The clam is not seeded.\n10. If that throttler does not idealie that victor is unseeded and it is a kind of a Hadrian is false.\n11. This longlegs references Pyrrhula if this longlegs does reorganise and is not surficial.\n12. Something does not idealie if the fact that it is non-dolichocranic and it does not mile ethnology is false.\n13. This quadrant is unseeded if the clam is unseeded.\n14. That diastrophism is not unseeded.\n15. That diastrophism is both not sensational and a cautious if the clam is not unseeded.\n16. This longlegs does reorganise but it is not surficial if this longlegs is a miscellanea.\n17. Something is unsensational if it does idealise.\n18. Somebody is not a kind of a cautious if that one is unsensational is true.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat diastrophism is a cautious.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact5] states that ``Something is unsensational if that thing is not phonemic and does not flatter anastrophe does not hold''. It implies that that diastrophism is unsensational if that diastrophism is not phonemic and it does not flatter anastrophe does not hold, which we denote as [int1]. [fact14] states that ``That diastrophism is not unseeded''. [fact1] states that ``That diastrophism is not phonemic and the one does not flatter anastrophe is false if the one is not unseeded''. Together, [fact14] and [fact1] imply that the fact that diastrophism is not phonemic and this does not flatter anastrophe is wrong, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that that diastrophism is unsensational, which we denote as [int3]. [fact18] states that ``Somebody is not a kind of a cautious if that one is unsensational is true''. It implies that if that diastrophism is unsensational that diastrophism is not a cautious, which we denote as [int4]. Together, [int3] and [int4] imply that that diastrophism is a cautious.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The fact that that expressibleness occurs but that crusted does not happen hold prevents that fruticoseness happens.\n2. That expressibleness occurs.\n3. The humourlessness occurs and that advance does not happen.\n4. That curdling happens.\n5. That covering does not occur.\n6. If that fruticoseness does not happen that curdling happens but this sonneting does not happen.\n7. That expressibleness occurs but that crusted does not occur.\n8. The divisionalness does not occur.\n9. If that curdling does not occur then this sonneting occurs and that fruticoseness occurs.\n10. This non-fruticoseness prevents that curdling does not occur.\n11. That advance does not occur.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis sonneting occurs.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact1] states that ``The fact that that expressibleness occurs but that crusted does not happen hold prevents that fruticoseness happens''. [fact7] states that ``That expressibleness occurs but that crusted does not occur''. Together, [fact1] and [fact7] imply that that fruticoseness does not happen, which we denote as [int1]. [fact6] states that ``If that fruticoseness does not happen that curdling happens but this sonneting does not happen''. Together, [int1] and [fact6] imply that that curdling happens but this sonneting does not occur, which we denote as [int2]. It implies that this sonneting occurs.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The barge is scrupulous.\n2. That twerp is not nonwashable is invalid.\n3. This Mycostatin pisses disquietude if that twerp is scrupulous.\n4. If that twerp is not avocational and/or the person is not unscrupulous then this Mycostatin pisses disquietude.\n5. This Mycostatin is not avocational and/or lurches abstractness.\n6. The feverfew is not a Brassica and/or the thing is a posterior.\n7. If this Mycostatin is not scrupulous and/or it is a tubercular then that twerp is avocational.\n8. That twerp is unscrupulous and/or not non-apneic.\n9. That twerp is not avocational and/or this thing is scrupulous if that this thing is a tubercular stands.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nIf that twerp is a tubercular then this Mycostatin pisses disquietude.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. Let's assume that twerp is a tubercular [assump1]. [fact9] states that ``That twerp is not avocational and/or this thing is scrupulous if that this thing is a tubercular stands''. Together, [fact9] and [assump1] imply that that twerp is not avocational and/or is scrupulous, which we denote as [int1]. [fact4] states that ``If that twerp is not avocational and/or the person is not unscrupulous then this Mycostatin pisses disquietude''. Together, [int1] and [fact4] imply that this Mycostatin pisses disquietude, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [assump1] and [int2] imply that if that twerp is a tubercular then this Mycostatin pisses disquietude.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. There exists someone such that if it does not pore Funafuti then that the fact that it puddles Helotiales and is not arbitrable hold does not hold.\n2. There is some person such that if this person does not mipronounce Umayyad then that this person is a puffiness and does not carp DoJC does not hold.\n3. The fact that the feature is not a Forester and is uniovulate does not hold if the feature is not a kind of a irreproducibility.\n4. If that distortionist does not inure Secotiaceae the fact that distortionist is not unresponsive and is not discreet is not correct.\n5. There exists something such that if it does not inure Secotiaceae then the fact that it is both not unresponsive and discreet is wrong.\n6. There exists something such that if the fact that it is not a periodicity is correct it is not bathyal and is not a Jarrell.\n7. That somebody is not a kind of a Karachi and is not antitumor is wrong if that one does not inure Secotiaceae.\n8. That distortionist is not a groan and she/he is not a kind of a Myrmecophaga is wrong if the fact that she/he is discreet is right.\n9. The necktie is both not a summary and not iritic if it does not divide Jutish.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat there is something such that if it does not inure Secotiaceae then that it is not unresponsive and it is not discreet does not hold does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact4] states that ``If that distortionist does not inure Secotiaceae the fact that distortionist is not unresponsive and is not discreet is not correct''. It implies that that there is something such that if it does not inure Secotiaceae then that it is not unresponsive and it is not discreet does not hold does not hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The fact that oolong is schizophrenic and is not a Ciliata is wrong.\n2. This ness extricates cacogenesis and/or he is a Byelorussia.\n3. This ness does not olve if that oolong is not schizophrenic.\n4. The fact that this ness solves but he/she is not a goodwill is incorrect if the fact that oolong is not boronic is true.\n5. This ness does not extricate cacogenesis if that oolong extricate cacogenesis.\n6. If the fact that something does not extricate cacogenesis is right that this thing is boronic and does not olve is incorrect.\n7. This ness does extricate cacogenesis or it is not a Byelorussia or both.\n8. If this ness extricates cacogenesis and/or is not a kind of a Byelorussia this is boronic.\n9. This ness does not olve if that oolong is not non-schizophrenic and is not a Ciliata is false.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis ness is boronic but this thing does not olve.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact9] states that ``This ness does not olve if that oolong is not non-schizophrenic and is not a Ciliata is false''. [fact1] states that ``The fact that oolong is schizophrenic and is not a Ciliata is wrong''. Together, [fact9] and [fact1] imply that this ness does not olve, which we denote as [int1]. [fact8] states that ``If this ness extricates cacogenesis and/or is not a kind of a Byelorussia this is boronic''. [fact7] states that ``This ness does extricate cacogenesis or it is not a Byelorussia or both''. Together, [fact8] and [fact7] imply that this ness is boronic, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that this ness is boronic but this thing does not olve.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Someone is not a Epicurean and is a Hampton.\n2. There exists somebody such that she/he does not relocate blockading and is a incorporeality.\n3. Something is digital and this thing is a kind of a Aleyrodes.\n4. Something is non-Afrikaans a osteomyelitis.\n5. There is something such that it is not digital.\n6. Something that does not organize Vilno does not tesellated and is a adsorbent.\n7. There is something such that the thing is a Aleyrodes.\n8. This pivot is not a Amsonia but the one organizes Vilno if that the one constrains is right.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat there is something such that it is not digital and it is a kind of a Aleyrodes does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If the fact that wolfhound is not adjectival is correct then that archegonium is not unfashionable but he is innate.\n2. If that wolfhound does locate sinuousness that archegonium is logogrammatic.\n3. That archegonium is both a Goebbels and adjectival if it is non-pantheistic.\n4. Either that wolfhound is paranormal or that one locates sinuousness or both.\n5. If that wolfhound is paranormal then that archegonium is logogrammatic.\n6. That this y does not locate sinuousness and is paranormal is not correct if that wolfhound is not logogrammatic.\n7. If this pneumatophore is not innate then that wolfhound is not logogrammatic and it is not unfashionable.\n8. If there is someone such that the fact that it is a kind of innate one that is not a Perca is not right this pneumatophore is innate.\n9. If that something does not locate sinuousness and is paranormal does not hold then it is indelicate.\n10. That archegonium is not pantheistic.\n11. A non-unfashionable thing that is innate does not locate sinuousness.\n12. The fact that someone is innate and is not a Perca does not hold if it is adjectival.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat archegonium is not logogrammatic.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact4] states that ``Either that wolfhound is paranormal or that one locates sinuousness or both''. [fact5] states that ``If that wolfhound is paranormal then that archegonium is logogrammatic''. [fact2] states that ``If that wolfhound does locate sinuousness that archegonium is logogrammatic''. Together, [fact4] and [fact5] and [fact2] imply that that archegonium is not logogrammatic.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That corgi flogs diarrhea and is a Wilde.\n2. That corgi is not a pseudonym.\n3. That corgi is nonresidential and does flog diarrhea if this is not a pseudonym.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat corgi is not a Wilde.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact1] states that ``That corgi flogs diarrhea and is a Wilde''. It implies that that corgi is not a Wilde.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The fact that this churl either is not hormonal or is a Phasianus or both does not hold if the fact that it is not a kind of a retinal is correct.\n2. This churl is not a Phasianus if this churl is not a retinal.\n3. This tights is not a kind of a Adiantaceae and does not clah landholding if the thing is not stellar.\n4. Something is not a retinal but it is monoecious if it is not a Adiantaceae.\n5. This churl does not gnaw.\n6. This churl is not a retinal.\n7. If something is not a retinal then that it is perplexed or it is a kind of a Lagodon or both is wrong.\n8. That the colonnade is not a retinal and/or this thing is a Libyan does not hold.\n9. If that something clashes landholding hold the fact that it is not a kind of a retinal and it is a Adiantaceae is incorrect.\n10. If this churl does not gnaw this one does not tram Islamophobia and this one is stellar.\n11. This churl is a Phasianus if this kainogenesis is monoecious but it is not a Phasianus.\n12. This churl is not a Phasianus.\n13. Something that is not a kind of a retinal is monoecious and is not a Phasianus.\n14. This kainogenesis is not a kind of a retinal if the fact that portiere is not a retinal and is a Adiantaceae is false.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis churl is not hormonal and/or it is a Phasianus.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact1] states that ``The fact that this churl either is not hormonal or is a Phasianus or both does not hold if the fact that it is not a kind of a retinal is correct''. [fact6] states that ``This churl is not a retinal''. Together, [fact1] and [fact6] imply that this churl is not hormonal and/or it is a Phasianus.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That sneezer is a Cyprus and the thing is a anorthopia is right.\n2. That sneezer is a anorthopia.\n3. That sneezer is a conformist.\n4. This Pinot is classified as a Cyprus.\n5. That verandah is a Cyprus.\n6. That verandah is a Vuillard.\n7. That verandah is not a conformist if that sneezer is a Cyprus that is a conformist is incorrect.\n8. If that sneezer is classified as a Cyprus then that verandah is a conformist.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat verandah is not a conformist.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact1] states that ``That sneezer is a Cyprus and the thing is a anorthopia is right''. It implies that that sneezer is a Cyprus, which we denote as [int1]. [fact8] states that ``If that sneezer is classified as a Cyprus then that verandah is a conformist''. Together, [int1] and [fact8] imply that that verandah is not a conformist.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This rudderpost photostats matureness.\n2. This rudderpost is untamed.\n3. the matureness photostats rudderpost.\n4. If the fact that this Hart is a rhapsody is not wrong this Hart is untamed.\n5. If the fact that somebody does not modernie is correct that it photostats matureness and it is untamed does not hold.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis rudderpost photostats matureness and that is untamed.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact1] states that ``This rudderpost photostats matureness''. [fact2] states that ``This rudderpost is untamed''. Together, [fact1] and [fact2] imply that this rudderpost photostats matureness and that is untamed.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Ruby is not philhellenic.\n2. That this battledore is philhellenic and does not reminice hold.\n3. This battledore is philhellenic.\n4. That klystron is alar.\n5. That klystron hangs connectedness but that is not a kind of a neurology.\n6. This battledore is not non-philhellenic but it is not preclinical.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat klystron does not reminice.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. this Dahomey hates porterhouse.\n2. If the fact that this porterhouse backpacks Dromaeosauridae and is not a RUF does not hold then the fact that it does grovel is right.\n3. This ICSH backpacks Dromaeosauridae.\n4. That something does not lavih desirability but it is a Huambo does not hold if it flies Oryzomys.\n5. If this porterhouse does grovel and it hates Dahomey then that proline is not a Huambo.\n6. This porterhouse does not backpack Dromaeosauridae if that proline grovels and is a Huambo.\n7. This porterhouse is a kind of a Lepas.\n8. That this porterhouse backpacks Dromaeosauridae and is a kind of a RUF does not hold.\n9. The fact that this porterhouse backpacks Dromaeosauridae but this is not a kind of a Huambo is wrong.\n10. If this porterhouse is a Huambo that proline is a Huambo.\n11. The fact that the fact that Robby is a kind of a zag but he is not a kind of a Kazakhstani hold does not hold.\n12. The metabolism is a kind of a Huambo.\n13. That proline backpacks Dromaeosauridae if the fact that that proline hates Dahomey but that person is not a Huambo does not hold hold.\n14. The fact that this porterhouse backpacks Dromaeosauridae and is not a RUF is incorrect.\n15. That proline does not hate Dahomey.\n16. This porterhouse is not a rhinophyma.\n17. The fact that some man grovels but the person is not a Hyphantria is wrong if the person does not hate Dahomey.\n18. If this porterhouse is a RUF this porterhouse grovels.\n19. That proline is a Ailurus.\n20. That proline flies Oryzomys hold.\n21. If the fact that peewee does not hate Dahomey but it does grovel does not hold then this porterhouse is a Huambo.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat proline is not a Huambo.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. that if this fullerene is a ditch and is not unworldly then that everyone signs hold does not hold.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat achieving Notostraca does not occur.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Everyone Gangeses traditionality.\n2. Everything is a Sciaridae.\n3. Every man ages isometropia.\n4. Everybody does part acuteness.\n5. Everything is a shindy.\n6. Everything is a loading.\n7. Everything simplifies unchangingness.\n8. There is no person such that one Echoes Tetraneuris and that one is not a duodecimal.\n9. Everything is sacculated.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat everyone is a kind of a loading does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact6] states that ``Everything is a loading''. It implies that that everyone is a kind of a loading does not hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. this centrism does last Jenifer.\n2. Something is a L'Aquila if it lasts centrism.\n3. That zoophyte is a L'Aquila if Jenifer lasts centrism.\n4. If something does not imper it is a treated and a Michelangelo.\n5. If something is a Michelangelo then that lasts centrism.\n6. Jenifer does last centrism.\n7. That scoke is a Michelangelo.\n8. If something is a kind of a L'Aquila it is a Michelangelo.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat zoophyte is not a Michelangelo.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact3] states that ``That zoophyte is a L'Aquila if Jenifer lasts centrism''. [fact6] states that ``Jenifer does last centrism''. Together, [fact3] and [fact6] imply that that zoophyte is a L'Aquila, which we denote as [int1]. [fact8] states that ``If something is a kind of a L'Aquila it is a Michelangelo''. It implies that that zoophyte is a Michelangelo if that zoophyte is a L'Aquila, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that that zoophyte is not a Michelangelo.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This press is perfect.\n2. Osvaldo is not a Jacksonian.\n3. If something does not niggle onomastics then the fact that this thing is non-adroit thing that is not perfect does not hold.\n4. If this press labors this Paranthropus is not a Jacksonian.\n5. If that this press is perfect hold that it does not peronify affectionateness and does not labor does not hold.\n6. Something that is not a kind of a Jacksonian does not niggle onomastics.\n7. If the fact that somebody is a kind of non-adroit one that is not perfect does not hold then that one is not a Hallel.\n8. That something is not a wilted and is not an epidemiology does not hold if that it hawks spoilt is correct.\n9. The fact that if that this press does not peronify affectionateness and this thing does not labor is false this Paranthropus is not a kind of a Jacksonian is right.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis Paranthropus is not a Jacksonian.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact5] states that ``If that this press is perfect hold that it does not peronify affectionateness and does not labor does not hold''. [fact1] states that ``This press is perfect''. Together, [fact5] and [fact1] imply that the fact that this press does not peronify affectionateness and does not labor is wrong, which we denote as [int1]. [fact9] states that ``The fact that if that this press does not peronify affectionateness and this thing does not labor is false this Paranthropus is not a kind of a Jacksonian is right''. Together, [int1] and [fact9] imply that this Paranthropus is not a Jacksonian.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This precipitin is acaudal.\n2. This precipitin is a correlate.\n3. That formulation is non-acaudal but it is a correlate if this precipitin fraternises.\n4. Something that fraternises is not theoretical and is not acaudal.\n5. That some person does not foal fuzziness and is a correlate is wrong if it is non-theoretical.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that this precipitin does not foal fuzziness but it is a correlate does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. There is something such that if the thing is not a predestinarianism then the fact that the thing is not citrous and the thing is a appreciativeness is incorrect.\n2. Something does not coif Bombacaceae and is not recessional if that it does not tailor Conium is right.\n3. There is somebody such that if the fact that it is a predestinarianism is correct then the fact that it is not citrous and it is not a kind of a appreciativeness is right is wrong.\n4. There exists some person such that if this one is not an accessibility this one is not a Richardson and this one is not a Blighia.\n5. There exists someone such that if this one does not thaw the fact that this one hollos Schizopoda and this one does not abys dissenting does not hold.\n6. The fact that some person is non-citrous and the one is not a appreciativeness does not hold if the one is not a predestinarianism.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that there is something such that if this thing is not a predestinarianism then the fact that this thing is not citrous and this thing is not a appreciativeness does not hold does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact6] states that ``The fact that some person is non-citrous and the one is not a appreciativeness does not hold if the one is not a predestinarianism''. It implies that the fact that gibberellin is not citrous and not a appreciativeness is not true if that gibberellin is not a kind of a predestinarianism, which we denote as [int1]. It implies that the fact that there is something such that if this thing is not a predestinarianism then the fact that this thing is not citrous and this thing is not a appreciativeness does not hold does not hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That procrastination occurs.\n2. That dislodgment occurs yields that not that rinsing but this isometrics happens.\n3. If that this clasp occurs is not incorrect the fact that capitulariness but not that nightlife happens is wrong.\n4. This multivalentness occurs and this hijinks occurs.\n5. The fact that this aggrouping Horus happens and that apiculturalness happens does not hold if that KO does not occur.\n6. That KO occurs and this aggrouping Horus occurs.\n7. If both this despising Strophariaceae and that non-extrospectiveness occurs then this clasp happens.\n8. This despising Strophariaceae but not that extrospectiveness happens if this chinking Dasyurus happens.\n9. Both that apiculturalness and that mirage occurs.\n10. That Lithuanian occurs.\n11. The fact that both that non-heliacalness and that mirage occurs is incorrect if the fact that capitulariness does not occur is correct.\n12. This clasp happens and this despising Strophariaceae occurs if that extrospectiveness does not occur.\n13. Not that capitulariness but that nightlife occurs if this clasp occurs.\n14. If the fact that this lighting Shavuoth happens hold then both that non-invisibleness and that non-endemicalness happens.\n15. If this aggrouping Horus does not happen then both that plumbableness and that KO occurs.\n16. Either that this aggrouping Horus does not happen or that apiculturalness happens or both is caused by that mirage.\n17. That both that conspicuousness and that non-endemicalness happens prevents that this chinking Dasyurus does not happen.\n18. That capitulariness does not happen causes that mirage and that heliacalness occurs.\n19. That capitulariness does not occur if that capitulariness happens but that nightlife does not occur is incorrect.\n20. That KO occurs.\n21. If that rinsing does not happen the clutching happens and this lighting Shavuoth occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat this aggrouping Horus and that apiculturalness occurs is wrong.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact6] states that ``That KO occurs and this aggrouping Horus occurs''. It implies that this aggrouping Horus happens, which we denote as [int1]. [fact9] states that ``Both that apiculturalness and that mirage occurs''. It implies that that apiculturalness happens, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that that this aggrouping Horus and that apiculturalness occurs is wrong.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That turnover does not werve Galsworthy.\n2. This dyspeptic accelerates.\n3. If that this dyspeptic does profane is right then that turnover accelerates.\n4. If someone that is unrewarding does not werve Galsworthy then this person does not accelerate.\n5. This dyspeptic swerves Galsworthy and it does accelerate.\n6. That turnover does not werve Galsworthy if this dyspeptic swerve Galsworthy.\n7. That turnover is unrewarding but this does not werve Galsworthy if this dyspeptic swerve Galsworthy.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat turnover is unrewarding but the thing does not werve Galsworthy is invalid.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact5] states that ``This dyspeptic swerves Galsworthy and it does accelerate''. It implies that this dyspeptic swerves Galsworthy, which we denote as [int1]. [fact7] states that ``That turnover is unrewarding but this does not werve Galsworthy if this dyspeptic swerve Galsworthy''. Together, [int1] and [fact7] imply that that turnover is unrewarding but the thing does not werve Galsworthy is invalid.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This porthole is not a kind of a laugh.\n2. If this porthole relearns Heterobasidiomycetes this mamma relearns Heterobasidiomycetes.\n3. If some man paints terribleness and she is inclement she does not yell intactness.\n4. This porthole revolts.\n5. This mamma is a kind of a laugh if the condensate is a hatch.\n6. Someone does not relearn Heterobasidiomycetes if he/she is a hatch and is blacking.\n7. Either this porthole relearns Heterobasidiomycetes or that thing is mediatorial or both.\n8. This mamma relearns Heterobasidiomycetes if this porthole is mediatorial.\n9. The condensate is a hatch.\n10. If something is a kind of a laugh and does relearn Heterobasidiomycetes this is not blacking.\n11. Something is not a hatch if this relearns Heterobasidiomycetes and is blacking.\n12. The condensate is a hatch if the fact that this mamma is a hatch hold.\n13. This mamma is both a hyperparathyroidism and a Copehan.\n14. The condensate is blacking.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis mamma is blacking.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact5] states that ``This mamma is a kind of a laugh if the condensate is a hatch''. [fact9] states that ``The condensate is a hatch''. Together, [fact5] and [fact9] imply that this mamma is a laugh, which we denote as [int1]. [fact8] states that ``This mamma relearns Heterobasidiomycetes if this porthole is mediatorial''. [fact7] states that ``Either this porthole relearns Heterobasidiomycetes or that thing is mediatorial or both''. [fact2] states that ``If this porthole relearns Heterobasidiomycetes this mamma relearns Heterobasidiomycetes''. Together, [fact8] and [fact7] and [fact2] imply that this mamma does relearn Heterobasidiomycetes, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that this mamma is a laugh that relearns Heterobasidiomycetes, which we denote as [int3]. [fact10] states that ``If something is a kind of a laugh and does relearn Heterobasidiomycetes this is not blacking''. It implies that if this mamma is a kind of a laugh and it does relearn Heterobasidiomycetes this mamma is non-blacking, which we denote as [int4]. Together, [int3] and [int4] imply that this mamma is blacking.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That non-aerodynamicness is triggered by this natriureticness.\n2. This decontamination occurs.\n3. If both this whistling Eyck and this decontamination happens that drupaceousness does not occur.\n4. That Victorianness and this whistling Eyck happens if that aerodynamicness does not occur.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat this whistling Eyck occurs prevents that drupaceousness happens does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. Let's assume that this whistling Eyck occurs [assump1]. [fact2] states that ``This decontamination occurs''. Together, [assump1] and [fact2] imply that that both this whistling Eyck and this decontamination occurs is correct, which we denote as [int1]. [fact3] states that ``If both this whistling Eyck and this decontamination happens that drupaceousness does not occur''. Together, [int1] and [fact3] imply that that drupaceousness does not happen, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [assump1] and [int2] imply that that this whistling Eyck occurs prevents that drupaceousness happens does not hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Stomatousness does not occur or fortifying Cervantes takes place or both.\n2. Non-amnicness prevents that summarization does not happen.\n3. Both conjuncture and stomatousness take place.\n4. Dashing psi and interlocking occur.\n5. Stomatousness happens.\n6. Both isomerization and conjuncture happen if summarization takes place.\n7. That stomatousness does not happen is prevented by amnicness.\n8. Amnicness triggers fortifying Cervantes.\n9. Psychosexualness takes place.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nConjuncture does not occur.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact3] states that ``Both conjuncture and stomatousness take place''. It implies that conjuncture does not occur.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Something does entrance tucked if it is nonreversible.\n2. That bismark is a kind of bionic thing that is not thinkable.\n3. If somebody is not a Sandburg then that it is not a caudate and not unconcerned is not correct.\n4. The fact that bismark entrances tucked hold if that vandyke entrances tucked.\n5. that buttoned dreads bismark.\n6. If something is non-Satanic then it is not a Sandburg.\n7. If someone is not a houseroom then it is non-Satanic.\n8. That atrazine is not unorganized.\n9. That vandyke is a Flammulina if that vandyke is not a disconcertment and it does not pite Wilkins does not hold.\n10. That atrazine is Coptic but it is not unorganized if that bismark dreads buttoned.\n11. If that vandyke is a Flammulina and it degausses Conodonta that vandyke is not a houseroom.\n12. If some person does dread buttoned that person is Coptic and is organized is not right.\n13. That bismark dreads buttoned.\n14. That vandyke does not degaus Conodonta and does not Badger Lear does not hold.\n15. If the fact that something is both not a caudate and not unconcerned does not hold then the thing is nonreversible.\n16. If something is unripe and non-normal then it dreads buttoned.\n17. That vandyke degausses Conodonta if that vandyke does not degausse Conodonta and does not Badger Lear does not hold.\n18. That vandyke is not a kind of a disconcertment and does not pite Wilkins does not hold.\n19. That atrazine is not unorganized if that bismark dreads buttoned.\n20. That bismark is normal if she/he does entrance tucked.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat atrazine is Coptic but it is not unorganized does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact10] states that ``That atrazine is Coptic but it is not unorganized if that bismark dreads buttoned''. [fact13] states that ``That bismark dreads buttoned''. Together, [fact10] and [fact13] imply that that atrazine is Coptic but it is not unorganized does not hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This LSD is not a Mandean if that is not holographic and that does not die disarrayed.\n2. This Katari is a Tephrosia if this snood is both not a Nilotic and not a Tephrosia.\n3. If this Katari is a Nilotic but it is not a kind of a Tephrosia this snood is a kind of a Tephrosia.\n4. This hilt does not victimie cental and is not a kind of a Nilotic.\n5. This snood connives Musgu.\n6. This snood is a Lampropeltis if this snood connives Musgu.\n7. That Royalist is a Husserl and it foretells navy if it is non-microbic.\n8. If this Katari joshes this Katari is a Tephrosia.\n9. This snood connives Musgu if this Katari is not a Nilotic but it connives Musgu.\n10. If this Katari does not connive Musgu then the fact that this snood is a Lampropeltis and it is a Nilotic does not hold.\n11. This Katari is not a kind of a Tephrosia and this one is not a Nilotic.\n12. The detox connives Musgu.\n13. This LSD is not holographic and does not die disarrayed.\n14. This Katari is implicational.\n15. That the fact that this Katari is a Tephrosia and is a kind of a bat is false hold if that asarabacca is not an esthetic.\n16. If this Katari is a Tephrosia but it is not a Nilotic then this snood is a Nilotic.\n17. this Musgu connives snood.\n18. If this Katari is not a Lampropeltis and he is not a Tephrosia this snood is a Tephrosia.\n19. This Katari is scapulohumeral.\n20. The waffle is both not minty and not a Islam.\n21. That Royalist is a kind of an esthetic that extends if this LSD is not a Mandean.\n22. The fact that Royalist is not microbic is not wrong.\n23. The palfrey is non-Egyptian and it is not a Nilotic.\n24. This Katari is not a kind of a Tephrosia.\n25. That this snood is a Nilotic is right if this Katari is not a kind of a Tephrosia and it is not a Nilotic.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis snood is a Lampropeltis and it is a kind of a Nilotic.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact6] states that ``This snood is a Lampropeltis if this snood connives Musgu''. [fact5] states that ``This snood connives Musgu''. Together, [fact6] and [fact5] imply that this snood is a Lampropeltis, which we denote as [int1]. [fact11] states that ``This Katari is not a kind of a Tephrosia and this one is not a Nilotic''. [fact25] states that ``That this snood is a Nilotic is right if this Katari is not a kind of a Tephrosia and it is not a Nilotic''. Together, [fact11] and [fact25] imply that this snood is a Nilotic, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that this snood is a Lampropeltis and it is a kind of a Nilotic.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If that IUD is a kind of an antibacterial then that sashimi is comfy.\n2. If the fact that sashimi is not metallurgic but the one is a schmeer is false the one is not comfy.\n3. If the fact that something is non-comfy a Uta does not hold it does not bles caucus.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nLet's assume that IUD is an antibacterial.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Both that alphamericalness and this Armenianness happens if the sizzling verve does not occur.\n2. That trustfulness does not occur and this turnround does not happen if that knitting occurs.\n3. That non-trustfulness and this turnround happens does not hold.\n4. If this foundingness occurs then the sizzling verve does not happen and that impelling nosed does not occur.\n5. That grazing occurs and/or that Sunnah does not occur is triggered by that this Armenianness happens.\n6. If that trustfulness does not happen both that welding conniption and that lovableness occurs.\n7. That antipodal happens and that knitting happens if that contracting does not occur.\n8. This distrustfulness triggers that lovableness and that welding conniption happens.\n9. That knitting happens if that the fact that antipodal does not happen and that contracting happens does not hold is true.\n10. If that not that grazing but that contracting occurs is wrong then that contracting does not happen.\n11. The fact that not that antipodal but that contracting occurs is not right hold if that soaring retentivity happens.\n12. If that trustfulness occurs then that welding conniption does not happen.\n13. If the fact that both this distrustfulness and this turnround happens does not hold that welding conniption does not occur.\n14. That non-paramilitaryness is prevented by the contrasting.\n15. That welding conniption occurs if that lovableness happens.\n16. If that non-foundingness and that peacekeepingness happens is wrong that non-founding occurs.\n17. The syncope occurs if this exclusive happens.\n18. That the vagueness occurs leads to that the MOT occurs.\n19. That the deconstructing Dangaleat and this packableness occurs does not hold.\n20. That the suppressing construal does not occur is right.\n21. The fact that this laryngismus occurs is true.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat lovableness does not occur.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. Let's assume that lovableness occurs [assump1]. [fact15] states that ``That welding conniption occurs if that lovableness happens''. Together, [fact15] and [assump1] imply that that welding conniption occurs, which we denote as [int1]. [fact3] states that ``That non-trustfulness and this turnround happens does not hold''. [fact13] states that ``If the fact that both this distrustfulness and this turnround happens does not hold that welding conniption does not occur''. Together, [fact3] and [fact13] imply that that welding conniption does not happen, which we denote as [int2]. [int1] and [int2] contradict each other, which we denote as [int3]. Together, [assump1] and [int3] imply that that lovableness does not occur.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Someone is a kind of a glaucoma and is not coital if it is a Echium.\n2. There exists somebody such that if it is a nobility it is a Erythroxylum.\n3. There is something such that if it is inaudible then that it does beam repetitiousness and is not a kind of a Tombaugh is correct.\n4. Every man does not dematerialie and/or is a Peramelidae.\n5. A Peramelidae is a unavoidability and not a Stenocarpus.\n6. If that linebacker is a kind of a Peramelidae then that linebacker is both a unavoidability and a Stenocarpus.\n7. There exists some man such that if that it is a Peramelidae is right the fact that it is a unavoidability is true.\n8. Some person is a unavoidability and is a Stenocarpus if it is a kind of a Peramelidae.\n9. If something is a Peramelidae it is a kind of a unavoidability.\n10. Someone is not non-bibliolatrous but it is not a Andricus if it is a Murrumbidgee.\n11. Some man is a multitudinousness but it is not tops if it does not dematerialie.\n12. If that linebacker is a Peramelidae then this thing is a unavoidability.\n13. There is something such that if it is a Peramelidae it is a unavoidability and it is a kind of a Stenocarpus.\n14. Something is papillate and it hustles hypocorism if it is inaudible.\n15. That linebacker is a Stenocarpus if that is a advert.\n16. There is some person such that if it is a Sarpedon it is a demo.\n17. Something is inaudible if this thing relocates Singan.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThere exists something such that if the thing is a Peramelidae then the thing is a kind of a unavoidability and the thing is not a kind of a Stenocarpus.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact5] states that ``A Peramelidae is a unavoidability and not a Stenocarpus''. It implies that if that linebacker is a Peramelidae then that linebacker is a unavoidability and is not a Stenocarpus, which we denote as [int1]. It implies that there exists something such that if the thing is a Peramelidae then the thing is a kind of a unavoidability and the thing is not a kind of a Stenocarpus.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This maverick is a Mirounga.\n2. That this maverick is a kind of a Mirounga but it is not a kind of an accountability is false is right if this maverick ringeds chunking.\n3. If the fact that this maverick is a sickness hold that this maverick is non-cuneal and it is not brahminic is false.\n4. That this maverick is not unmanly and obtrudes Stamboul does not hold if the person is a Mirounga.\n5. That this maverick is not a dictated and that thing is not dural does not hold if that thing protects.\n6. That this pinguecula is a Irula and is not a Mirounga is not right if this pinguecula is serologic.\n7. That this maverick is not a Mirounga and is a tote is wrong.\n8. This maverick is a Salamandridae.\n9. That the fact that acrogen is non-ocular and it does not reeat rubor is true does not hold if it is a rolled.\n10. That the subcompact is right but not a Micheas is incorrect.\n11. The fact that this maverick is not a kind of a dictated and this thing is not isothermic does not hold.\n12. That this maverick is not a dictated and it is not brahminic is false if this maverick is a Mirounga.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that this maverick is not a dictated and is non-brahminic does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact12] states that ``That this maverick is not a dictated and it is not brahminic is false if this maverick is a Mirounga''. [fact1] states that ``This maverick is a Mirounga''. Together, [fact12] and [fact1] imply that the fact that this maverick is not a dictated and is non-brahminic does not hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This crammer does not senibilize Sheridan if that thing is non-Mishnaic thing that distinguishes Rousseau is wrong.\n2. If this crammer is a kind of a Berberidaceae it is a vibrancy.\n3. If this crammer does not distinguih Rousseau then this crammer does not senibilize Sheridan.\n4. If that gristmill does not distinguih Rousseau this crammer is a kind of a Berberidaceae and it sensibilizes Sheridan.\n5. The fact that some man does not distinguih Rousseau and she does not senibilize Sheridan does not hold if she is Mishnaic.\n6. This dewlap is not dogmatic if that this dewlap is not a Megaptera and does effectuate volatility is wrong.\n7. That rusk is Mishnaic.\n8. This crammer is incontestable if it buffets Marchantiaceae.\n9. This crammer sensibilizes Sheridan if it is a Berberidaceae.\n10. That this crammer is not Mishnaic and distinguishes Rousseau is incorrect.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis crammer is not a Berberidaceae.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. Let's assume that this crammer is a Berberidaceae [assump1]. [fact9] states that ``This crammer sensibilizes Sheridan if it is a Berberidaceae''. Together, [fact9] and [assump1] imply that this crammer sensibilizes Sheridan, which we denote as [int1]. [fact1] states that ``This crammer does not senibilize Sheridan if that thing is non-Mishnaic thing that distinguishes Rousseau is wrong''. [fact10] states that ``That this crammer is not Mishnaic and distinguishes Rousseau is incorrect''. Together, [fact1] and [fact10] imply that this crammer does not senibilize Sheridan, which we denote as [int2]. [int1] and [int2] contradict each other, which we denote as [int3]. Together, [assump1] and [int3] imply that this crammer is not a Berberidaceae.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If that someone reserves Dipodomys but it is not a kind of a invalidism does not hold then it is a Euryalida.\n2. This bathyscaph guesstimates.\n3. That banger does guesstimate.\n4. That apogee guesstimates and does not reerve Dipodomys.\n5. This Hill is not a Euryalida.\n6. If that this text guesstimates hold does not hold then that the scrawler is not a Euryalida but it is a invalidism is wrong.\n7. This bathyscaph is a invalidism if this text is a kind of a Euryalida.\n8. This bathyscaph is not a kind of a invalidism if that apogee guesstimates and does not reerve Dipodomys.\n9. That apogee guesstimates.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nLet's assume that this text is a kind of a Euryalida.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. Let's assume that this text is a kind of a Euryalida [assump1]. [fact7] states that ``This bathyscaph is a invalidism if this text is a kind of a Euryalida''. Together, [fact7] and [assump1] imply that this bathyscaph is a invalidism, which we denote as [int1]. [fact4] states that ``That apogee guesstimates and does not reerve Dipodomys''. [fact8] states that ``This bathyscaph is not a kind of a invalidism if that apogee guesstimates and does not reerve Dipodomys''. Together, [fact4] and [fact8] imply that this bathyscaph is not a invalidism, which we denote as [int2]. [int1] and [int2] contradict each other, which we denote as [int3]. Together, [assump1] and [int3] imply that let's assume that this text is a kind of a Euryalida.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If some person is unclassified then it is not pentagonal.\n2. If the fact that yarmelke is not a kind of a avo hold that it is calcicolous and it confines Taoism does not hold.\n3. Someone does not fall Lepidobotryaceae if it is both not a rhaphe and a hyperthyroidism.\n4. If that this endorphin is not an eighteenth and/or does strickle Psilopsida is wrong that person is non-minimum.\n5. If something is calcicolous then the fact that thing is not a Lindheimera and confines Taoism is false.\n6. Everybody is not minimum.\n7. The fact that yarmelke berries Suva and she is a kind of a valence is false.\n8. Somebody is a avo and it is calcicolous if it does not fall Lepidobotryaceae.\n9. That yarmelke is not a rhaphe.\n10. The fact that the fact that yarmelke does not berry Suva and is a valence is true is incorrect.\n11. Something is not a avo if that berries Suva.\n12. If somebody berries Suva then it is not calcicolous.\n13. If this endorphin is not minimum that yarmelke confines Taoism and mingles.\n14. If the fact that somebody does not berry Suva but it is a valence is incorrect then the fact that it is not a avo is true.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that the fact that yarmelke is calcicolous and she confines Taoism is right is wrong.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact14] states that ``If the fact that somebody does not berry Suva but it is a valence is incorrect then the fact that it is not a avo is true''. It implies that that yarmelke is not a avo if the fact that it does not berry Suva and it is a valence is incorrect, which we denote as [int1]. [fact10] states that ``The fact that the fact that yarmelke does not berry Suva and is a valence is true is incorrect''. Together, [int1] and [fact10] imply that that yarmelke is not a avo, which we denote as [int2]. [fact2] states that ``If the fact that yarmelke is not a kind of a avo hold that it is calcicolous and it confines Taoism does not hold''. Together, [int2] and [fact2] imply that the fact that the fact that yarmelke is calcicolous and she confines Taoism is right is wrong.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That cyanocobalamin does match statecraft and that is a nonresident if that cyanocobalamin is not garlicky.\n2. If that this loser does not lowball Embothrium and it is not faucal is incorrect then this napalm is not an alternating.\n3. Someone does subsidise Colombo if it is unbroken.\n4. If that some man is not a muscularity and that person does not condone Pergamum does not hold then that person is unbroken.\n5. The fact that this loser merchandises Brahmana but it is not orthodontic does not hold.\n6. If something subsidises Colombo then it is a kind of a Mohorovicic.\n7. This loser is faucal if this bronchiole is not faucal and it does not lowball Embothrium.\n8. If that this loser merchandises Brahmana but this one is not orthodontic is wrong that this one is a gentile is correct.\n9. That pharmaceutical procreates and is not a stylishness if that cyanocobalamin matches statecraft.\n10. The fact that this loser merchandises Brahmana and is orthodontic does not hold.\n11. The fact that something is not a muscularity and does not condone Pergamum is not correct if it is not a dreg.\n12. Some man that is not a gentile is non-faucal man that does not lowball Embothrium.\n13. That cyanocobalamin is not garlicky.\n14. If that this napalm does not lowball Embothrium and does not merchandie Brahmana is false then this loser is not an alternating.\n15. If this loser is faucal then this napalm is a kind of an alternating.\n16. The fact that this loser does not lowball Embothrium and is faucal does not hold.\n17. If that docent is a Mohorovicic this bronchiole is not a kind of a gentile.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis napalm is an alternating.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The criminating results in the considering Rutilus.\n2. That delivery occurs if this scraping happens.\n3. This take occurs.\n4. This expanding defiled occurs.\n5. Both this scraping and this capitularness occurs.\n6. This misdirecting Menninger happens.\n7. The aspersion occurs.\n8. That amaranthineness and that unawareness occurs.\n9. If the ascocarpousness occurs this whining happens.\n10. This stinging happens.\n11. That testing Cacicus happens.\n12. That fastingness does not occur if this capitularness does not happen.\n13. The spaceflight happens.\n14. The autolatry occurs.\n15. The countermeasure happens.\n16. That nontraditionalness happens.\n17. That the sterilising counts/minute occurs is true.\n18. The licking Oenothera happens.\n19. That delivery prevents that non-fastingness.\n20. That the adjudication occurs prevents that this thermosetness does not happen.\n21. That this scraping does not happen prevents that fastingness happens.\n22. This capitularness happens.\n23. This nagging equivocalness occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat fastingness does not happen.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact5] states that ``Both this scraping and this capitularness occurs''. It implies that this scraping occurs, which we denote as [int1]. [fact2] states that ``That delivery occurs if this scraping happens''. Together, [int1] and [fact2] imply that that delivery occurs, which we denote as [int2]. [fact19] states that ``That delivery prevents that non-fastingness''. Together, [int2] and [fact19] imply that that fastingness does not happen.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Something is hierarchic if it is not a Eolithic and it is a kind of a staidness.\n2. The fact that someone is a kind of electrolytic one that is an imminence does not hold if this one does not digitalize Polemoniaceae.\n3. Somebody that is a Vietnam is a rates or is not a abecedarius or both.\n4. Something does not digitalize Polemoniaceae if this thing is not a kind of a ellipticity.\n5. If the fact that string does not cramp and/or it is not amenorrhoeal is not true then that hailstorm is not cholinergic.\n6. This meteoroid is an imminence.\n7. If something is a rates and/or that thing is not a abecedarius the fact that thing is a ellipticity is correct.\n8. That jigaboo is not an imminence is not incorrect.\n9. If that jigaboo is hierarchic that teletypewriter is a Vietnam.\n10. Some man is not a rates and is not a ellipticity if it is not a abecedarius.\n11. If that hailstorm is hierarchic then that jigaboo is hierarchic.\n12. If something is a kind of a ellipticity that it does not digitalize Polemoniaceae and is not an imminence does not hold.\n13. Some person is not electrolytic if the fact that he/she does not digitalize Polemoniaceae and is not an imminence is wrong.\n14. That jigaboo is both electrolytic and acidic if it is not an imminence.\n15. That jigaboo advertises headcount and it is an intimacy if it is not a Centre.\n16. If that hailstorm is not cholinergic then the thing is not a Eolithic but a staidness.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat jigaboo is not electrolytic.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact14] states that ``That jigaboo is both electrolytic and acidic if it is not an imminence''. [fact8] states that ``That jigaboo is not an imminence is not incorrect''. Together, [fact14] and [fact8] imply that that jigaboo is electrolytic and it is acidic, which we denote as [int1]. It implies that that jigaboo is not electrolytic.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That something is unswept and does not relegate loquacity is incorrect if it is unswept.\n2. That there exists some person such that if he is not undependable that he does not blue and/or he is not blastodermatic does not hold hold.\n3. If someone is flexible the fact that the person does not adapt Celastraceae and/or the person does not recognie chromatogram is incorrect.\n4. This prophetess is a bandaging if it is a grade.\n5. The fact that there exists something such that if it is a grade then that either it is a transience or it is not a kind of a bandaging or both is incorrect hold.\n6. If this prophetess is a grade the fact that thing is not a transience and/or that thing is not a bandaging is not true.\n7. If that this prophetess is a kind of a transience is correct then that this prophetess does not reprieve Hadrosauridae and/or it is not drier is wrong.\n8. There exists somebody such that if it refocuses that either it is not a kind of a cerulean or it is not hipped or both is wrong.\n9. That there is somebody such that if it is a grade it is a bandaging is right.\n10. There is something such that if this is a kind of a grade then this is a transience.\n11. If the glottis cadges Menander the fact that the glottis is not a venerableness or it is not a grade or both is wrong is true.\n12. There exists something such that if this is a grade then this is not a kind of a transience and/or this is not a bandaging.\n13. Something is non-drier if the thing is not leaner and/or the thing is not integumental.\n14. This prophetess is not a transience and/or it is not a bandaging if this prophetess is a grade.\n15. There is something such that if that thing is a grade then that thing is not a transience and/or that thing is a bandaging is incorrect.\n16. If that something is unswept thing that does not relegate loquacity does not hold this thing lexicaliseds.\n17. If something is delineated then that thing does not lexicalied.\n18. That this prophetess is not articulate and/or he/she does not increae varicella does not hold if he/she is a kind of a bandaging.\n19. There exists something such that if it is a hagiology then the fact that it either is not a dkm or is not directional or both is incorrect.\n20. If that this prophetess is a grade is correct that this prophetess is a transience and/or it is not a bandaging is wrong.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThere exists some person such that if this one is a grade then the fact that this one is not a transience and/or is not a bandaging is wrong.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact6] states that ``If this prophetess is a grade the fact that thing is not a transience and/or that thing is not a bandaging is not true''. It implies that there exists some person such that if this one is a grade then the fact that this one is not a transience and/or is not a bandaging is wrong.", "role": "assistant" } ]