Datasets:

---

chiheemwong

/

fldx2_sft_nl

like 0

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This breeziness occurs and that specifying segmented occurs.\n2. If the fact that antiquarian does not happen hold both this Episcopalianness and that mini happens.\n3. The fact that this breeziness happens is true.\n4. If that antiquarian does not happen then that both this Episcopalianness and that mini happens is incorrect.\n5. That splashdown occurs if this breeziness occurs.\n6. The Neanderthal occurs and that balsaminess happens.\n7. That inclementness does not happen yields that both that specifying segmented and this breeziness happens.\n8. If that mountaineer does not happen that this snaking Blixen does not occur and/or this apomicticness does not happen is not right.\n9. The fact that inclementness and that specifying segmented occurs does not hold if this breeziness does not occur.\n10. This Episcopalianness happens.\n11. This conspicuousness and this screening happens.\n12. This Hertzianness and that unshadedness happens.\n13. That antiquarian does not occur if the fact that this snaking Blixen does not happen and/or this apomicticness does not occur does not hold.\n14. If that both this Episcopalianness and that mini happens is incorrect the fact that inclementness does not happen hold.\n15. This nonproprietariness happens.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that inclementness and that specifying segmented happens 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 is not a pollinosis if that either the thing is not leonine or the thing is a Crassostrea or both is incorrect.\n2. The fact that Ceci is not impermanent and/or it does belabor melodrama hold if the fact that Ceci is not anaphylactic is right.\n3. Something that does shrug Najd is a kind of a pollinosis.\n4. If Ceci is anaphylactic then Ceci either is permanent or belabors melodrama or both.\n5. The fact that something is not dissuasive and that is not Procrustean does not hold if that is a ranking.\n6. Ceci is either not Aegean or a Maori or both if Ceci is anaphylactic.\n7. Ceci is Machiavellian and/or it is an okey if that Ceci is not germfree is correct.\n8. If some man is not anaphylactic then this one shrugs Najd or this one is not Procrustean or both.\n9. If something is not Procrustean that is not dissuasive and that is not Procrustean.\n10. If Ceci is not a statuary it does not difavor orangeness or it is anaphylactic or both.\n11. There exists something such that if it is a kind of a grind then it is not a Liliaceae and/or is a latest.\n12. If something does not belabor melodrama it does not ambuh hypoproteinemia or is a politesse or both.\n13. If something is not a pollinosis then that is a ranking.\n14. There is something such that if it is not diurnal then it is not Aegean and/or is a statuary.\n15. There exists something such that if that is non-anaphylactic that is impermanent and/or belabors melodrama.\n16. There is something such that if it is anaphylactic it is not impermanent and/or it belabors melodrama.\n17. There exists something such that if it is unequal then it accords Artamidae or diffuses quality or both.\n18. There is some person such that if it does not unveil Haastia it is noncomprehensive and/or it is a kind of a Maori.\n19. If Ceci is not anaphylactic then either Ceci is impermanent or it belabors melodrama or both.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThere exists some man such that if he is not anaphylactic then he is not impermanent and/or he belabors melodrama.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact2] states that ``The fact that Ceci is not impermanent and/or it does belabor melodrama hold if the fact that Ceci is not anaphylactic is right''. It implies that there exists some man such that if he is not anaphylactic then he is not impermanent and/or he belabors melodrama.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If this examinee is a Labiatae then the lorry does not head unequivocalness and muddies sodoku.\n2. If this examinee roams and does not faint orography then this ceratin is a Golgi.\n3. This examinee roams and does not faint orography.\n4. If this examinee is a kind of a Cyrillic then this Garrison is a Cyrillic.\n5. The fact that spoonflower does not jactitate Steinem but it heads unequivocalness does not hold.\n6. That this ceratin is a kind of a Cyrillic or this thing is a Labiatae or both is false if the fact that this thing is not a Golgi is correct.\n7. If this examinee assembles Engraulidae that person jactitates Steinem.\n8. The fact that this Garrison is a kind of a home and it heads unequivocalness is incorrect.\n9. If some man jactitates Steinem and/or he/she heads unequivocalness then he/she is not a Golgi.\n10. If the fact that spoonflower does not jactitate Steinem but it heads unequivocalness does not hold then this ceratin is not a Labiatae.\n11. If this ceratin is not a Labiatae but it is a Golgi this Garrison is not a Cyrillic.\n12. This ceratin faints orography.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis Garrison is not a Cyrillic.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact2] states that ``If this examinee roams and does not faint orography then this ceratin is a Golgi''. [fact3] states that ``This examinee roams and does not faint orography''. Together, [fact2] and [fact3] imply that this ceratin is a Golgi, which we denote as [int1]. [fact5] states that ``The fact that spoonflower does not jactitate Steinem but it heads unequivocalness does not hold''. [fact10] states that ``If the fact that spoonflower does not jactitate Steinem but it heads unequivocalness does not hold then this ceratin is not a Labiatae''. Together, [fact5] and [fact10] imply that this ceratin is not a Labiatae, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that this ceratin is not a Labiatae but a Golgi, which we denote as [int3]. [fact11] states that ``If this ceratin is not a Labiatae but it is a Golgi this Garrison is not a Cyrillic''. Together, [int3] and [fact11] imply that this Garrison is not a Cyrillic.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That not this simplification but that controlling Coccothraustes occurs is false.\n2. That inextricableness does not occur if that the fact that this simplification does not happen but that controlling Coccothraustes happens is right does not hold.\n3. That valedictory does not occur if that incommutableness does not happen and this purr does not occur is wrong.\n4. If this dropping ASL occurs then that this unshelledness does not occur and that agrologicness occurs does not hold.\n5. The fact that this ironing glob does not occur and this boiling Corixidae happens does not hold if this dropping ASL does not occur.\n6. That this unshelledness occurs and that agrologicness happens is wrong if this dropping ASL occurs.\n7. That whistling does not happen is caused by that this totalisticness occurs.\n8. This dropping ASL happens.\n9. That shaving does not happen is caused by that this unshelledness occurs.\n10. If that selflessness does not happen that incommutableness does not occur and this purr does not occur does not hold.\n11. If that controlling Coccothraustes does not occur then that salted and that extricableness occurs is not right.\n12. If that this unshelledness does not occur but that agrologicness occurs is false that shaving does not happen.\n13. The fact that the fact that not the mastery but this amaranthineness happens does not hold hold if the mussitation happens.\n14. The fact that this unshelledness happens and that agrologicness happens is incorrect.\n15. If that incommutableness happens that shaving happens.\n16. That this simplification does not occur and/or that this cenogeneticness does not occur yields that controlling Coccothraustes does not occur.\n17. If that shaving does not happen that valedictory occurs.\n18. The fact that the fact that both the non-untechnicalness and that reach happens is not wrong does not hold.\n19. If that salted but not that inextricableness occurs is false that selflessness does not happen.\n20. That reach but not the downtick occurs if that whistling does not occur hold.\n21. This purr occurs and that incommutableness happens if that selflessness does not occur.\n22. The fact that selflessness does not occur hold if that inextricableness does not occur and that salted does not happen.\n23. If that reach occurs hold this simplification does not happen and/or this cenogeneticness does not happen.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat valedictory occurs.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact4] states that ``If this dropping ASL occurs then that this unshelledness does not occur and that agrologicness occurs does not hold''. [fact8] states that ``This dropping ASL happens''. Together, [fact4] and [fact8] imply that the fact that not this unshelledness but that agrologicness happens is false, which we denote as [int1]. [fact12] states that ``If that this unshelledness does not occur but that agrologicness occurs is false that shaving does not happen''. Together, [int1] and [fact12] imply that that shaving does not happen, which we denote as [int2]. [fact17] states that ``If that shaving does not happen that valedictory occurs''. Together, [int2] and [fact17] imply that that valedictory occurs.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The fact that every man is rigid is correct.\n2. that Hemitripterus does not invigorate panamica.\n3. Some person that Bellows Sunday and is constricted is a Anemia.\n4. This panamica is not an optimism.\n5. That polyurethan is constricted.\n6. If this panamica does not invigorate Hemitripterus then this panamica Bellows Sunday but it is not unconstricted.\n7. This panamica does not invigorate Hemitripterus.\n8. If that mahoe does not invigorate Hemitripterus the fact that mahoe is an ink but it is not pulmonic hold.\n9. This panamica motorizes doomed and is not gracious.\n10. This panamica is not unconstricted.\n11. This panamica is older but it does not retore secrecy.\n12. If the diploid Bellows Sunday and is overt it cases Murdoch.\n13. The semitropics does not Bellow Sunday.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis panamica is a Anemia.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact6] states that ``If this panamica does not invigorate Hemitripterus then this panamica Bellows Sunday but it is not unconstricted''. [fact7] states that ``This panamica does not invigorate Hemitripterus''. Together, [fact6] and [fact7] imply that this panamica Bellows Sunday and is not unconstricted, which we denote as [int1]. [fact3] states that ``Some person that Bellows Sunday and is constricted is a Anemia''. It implies that the fact that this panamica is a Anemia hold if this panamica Bellows Sunday but he is not unconstricted, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that this panamica is a Anemia.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If somebody that does not lick Pygopodidae is epiphyseal it does not teal inconvenience.\n2. Something is a kind of a belief if that it is non-hearable thing that is a filtrate is not right.\n3. That there exists someone such that if that this one does not lick Pygopodidae and is epiphyseal is false then this one is autoecious hold.\n4. If somebody that is not a Ajaia is interlineal then she is not a anomy.\n5. There exists something such that if that does lick Pygopodidae then that is not autoecious.\n6. If that this lectin is non-epiphyseal and a Kisumu is false then this lectin is a kind of a Zaria.\n7. If something does not teal inconvenience it is not autoecious.\n8. If the fact that some person is a kind of non-smoothed person that is a breasted is false it does not depopulate linage.\n9. If something licks Pygopodidae that is not autoecious.\n10. Something does not devaluate if that it is not a Romance and it is a fistmele is incorrect.\n11. If the fact that this lectin is a kind of non-Philistine thing that idealizes is correct does not hold it is not autoecious.\n12. If the fact that something is not a Ajaia and recoups flaw is wrong then it is not disproportionate.\n13. If that this lectin does not lick Pygopodidae and is a Oken is wrong this thing displeases Saigon.\n14. If something licks Pygopodidae then it does not teal inconvenience.\n15. There is somebody such that if the one does not lick Pygopodidae and is epiphyseal then the one is not autoecious.\n16. If the fact that something does not lick Pygopodidae but this is not non-epiphyseal is wrong then this does not teal inconvenience.\n17. That antagonist does not lick Pygopodidae if that antagonist is both not unrestrained and not non-sacral.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that there exists someone such that if that it does not lick Pygopodidae and it is epiphyseal does not hold the fact that it is not autoecious is correct does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact16] states that ``If the fact that something does not lick Pygopodidae but this is not non-epiphyseal is wrong then this does not teal inconvenience''. [fact7] states that ``If something does not teal inconvenience it is not autoecious''. Together, [fact16] and [fact7] imply that if that something does not lick Pygopodidae and is epiphyseal is incorrect it is not autoecious, which we denote as [int1]. It implies that if the fact that this lectin does not lick Pygopodidae and is epiphyseal is false then this is not autoecious, which we denote as [int2]. It implies that the fact that there exists someone such that if that it does not lick Pygopodidae and it is epiphyseal does not hold the fact that it is not autoecious is correct does not hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If some man does not flow Purana then it is rugged and it does not unlearn bottleful.\n2. That nail does not flow Purana and it is not a Byelorussia if that poseuse is not vegetal.\n3. The fact that poseuse is not vegetal but it is a landed if that caboose slurps is true.\n4. If someone is rugged then it is unsafe.\n5. That caboose slurps if the fact that caboose is not Jacobinic but a neighborliness is wrong.\n6. This haricot does not flow Purana if it is a Byelorussia.\n7. If some man is rugged the fact that she is not unsafe is correct.\n8. If someone does not flow Purana that one unlearns bottleful and that one is rugged.\n9. This ploughshare does not veil Spalacidae.\n10. If that poseuse is not a Stael and veils Spalacidae that nail is not unsafe.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat nail is secure.", "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 somebody is not a Spallanzani and does not nure banns does not hold then the one nurse banns.\n2. this housecraft darns eyeshot.\n3. This eyeshot darns housecraft.\n4. That this eyeshot is a Spallanzani is true.\n5. If something does not darn housecraft that it is not a kind of a Spallanzani and it does not nure banns does not hold.\n6. If this eyeshot is a kind of a Spallanzani and it darns housecraft then this misanthropist does not nure banns.\n7. The trunnel is a kind of a adulterant and it darns housecraft.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis misanthropist does not nure banns.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact4] states that ``That this eyeshot is a Spallanzani is true''. [fact3] states that ``This eyeshot darns housecraft''. Together, [fact4] and [fact3] imply that this eyeshot is a kind of a Spallanzani and it darns housecraft, which we denote as [int1]. [fact6] states that ``If this eyeshot is a kind of a Spallanzani and it darns housecraft then this misanthropist does not nure banns''. Together, [int1] and [fact6] imply that this misanthropist does not nure banns.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This freak is not a myogram if that harvester is not a myogram and it is not a Cedrus.\n2. The fact that this lily is a Army is true if that Nayeli is a factor that does not hackle periodontia does not tand.\n3. If that harvester does not faten Dis but the person is corporeal is invalid the person is not polyphonic.\n4. If this lily is directing then Shirley is an indebtedness.\n5. If Shirley is an indebtedness then it is a Army.\n6. The fact that this lily is a Army is right.\n7. That harvester is non-soft.\n8. This lily is directing.\n9. If that this freak diagonalizes microcephalus but it is not a Djiboutian is invalid then the pleximeter is a Djiboutian.\n10. A unsubdivided thing is not categorized as a myogram and is not a Cedrus.\n11. Shirley is a factor and it is a Djiboutian.\n12. That something does not faten Dis and is corporeal is not right if it is not soft.\n13. The fact that Nayeli is a factor that does not hackle periodontia is false if the pleximeter is a Djiboutian.\n14. If somebody is non-polyphonic then he/she is unsubdivided one that waitresses squalor.\n15. If something is not a myogram then that it diagonalizes microcephalus and is not classified as a Djiboutian is incorrect.\n16. If this lily is an indebtedness then Shirley is directing.\n17. A Army is an indebtedness.\n18. Shirley presides.\n19. If a factor hackles periodontia then it is not an indebtedness.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nShirley is a Army.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact4] states that ``If this lily is directing then Shirley is an indebtedness''. [fact8] states that ``This lily is directing''. Together, [fact4] and [fact8] imply that shirley is an indebtedness, which we denote as [int1]. [fact5] states that ``If Shirley is an indebtedness then it is a Army''. Together, [int1] and [fact5] imply that shirley is a Army.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This bareboating occurs.\n2. That this bareboating and this crowning haystack occurs is triggered by that this iodinating understandability does not happen.\n3. That undervaluing Simulium does not occur and this stepping Maine does not happen prevents that this iodinating understandability occurs.\n4. This emersion happens.\n5. That nonmilitariness occurs.\n6. The unhalloweding Pangaea occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that this bareboating does not happen hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact1] states that ``This bareboating occurs''. It implies that the fact that this bareboating does not happen hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Something does not rain Phellodendron if this is not tetrametric.\n2. That cappelletti does not rain Phellodendron.\n3. If that something does not deplete Cydippida and is tetrametric is false it does not get proprietary.\n4. Somebody that is not tetrametric does not rain Phellodendron and is a biped.\n5. That demoiselle does not get proprietary and is tetrametric if this person does not rain Phellodendron.\n6. That cappelletti does not deplete Cydippida but it is tetrametric is false if it is a kind of a nominative.\n7. That filature is not a nominative and/or is not tetrametric.\n8. That demoiselle does not get proprietary if that cappelletti rains Phellodendron and it is a kind of a biped.\n9. That cappelletti is not tetrametric if that filature is tetrametric.\n10. The fact that demoiselle does not get proprietary is true if that cappelletti does not rain Phellodendron and is a biped.\n11. If something is not a kind of a nominative then this does not get proprietary and is tetrametric.\n12. That cappelletti is not tetrametric if that filature is not a kind of a nominative and/or it is not tetrametric.\n13. If the fact that cappelletti is not tetrametric is right then it does not rain Phellodendron.\n14. Either that filature is not a kind of a nominative or it is tetrametric or both.\n15. That cappelletti is non-tetrametric or it is not a nominative or both.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat demoiselle gets proprietary.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact4] states that ``Somebody that is not tetrametric does not rain Phellodendron and is a biped''. It implies that if that cappelletti is not tetrametric that cappelletti does not rain Phellodendron but it is a biped, which we denote as [int1]. [fact12] states that ``That cappelletti is not tetrametric if that filature is not a kind of a nominative and/or it is not tetrametric''. [fact7] states that ``That filature is not a nominative and/or is not tetrametric''. Together, [fact12] and [fact7] imply that that cappelletti is not tetrametric, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that that cappelletti does not rain Phellodendron and is a biped, which we denote as [int3]. [fact10] states that ``The fact that demoiselle does not get proprietary is true if that cappelletti does not rain Phellodendron and is a biped''. Together, [int3] and [fact10] imply that that demoiselle gets proprietary.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That snuffling does not occur and this antagonizing historicism does not occur if this completingness does not occur.\n2. This clinkering happens.\n3. This completingness does not occur if that the fact that this fisheyeness but not the counterblow occurs does not hold is true.\n4. Either that this baryticness does not happen or the non-Yumanness or both prevents that Yumanness occurs.\n5. That straining occurs and this inadvisableness happens if that Yumanness does not occur.\n6. That this fisheyeness occurs but the counterblow does not occur does not hold if this cartooning happens.\n7. If that this petaloidness does not occur and this cartooning does not happen is wrong then this cartooning occurs.\n8. The sobriety occurs.\n9. The fact that this petaloidness does not occur and this cartooning does not occur does not hold if this inadvisableness happens.\n10. The carnage happens.\n11. This electricalness happens.\n12. Not the algometricalness but this sloping Tecumtha happens.\n13. This clinkering does not occur if that snuffling does not happen.\n14. This express does not occur.\n15. If this stipulation occurs then not this stipulation but this clinkering happens.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that if this stipulation does not occur then this stipulation does not happen but this clinkering occurs is incorrect.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. Let's assume that this stipulation does not occur [assump1]. [fact2] states that ``This clinkering happens''. Together, [assump1] and [fact2] imply that not this stipulation but this clinkering occurs, which we denote as [int1]. Together, [assump1] and [int1] imply that the fact that if this stipulation does not occur then this stipulation does not happen but this clinkering occurs is incorrect.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Something tinkers retentiveness if that thing is a Garrulus is correct.\n2. This authenticator does not dicourage arced and the thing does not hed.\n3. That some man is a rewrite and sluices Hizballah is incorrect if she/he is not a Same.\n4. That if this authenticator is a debauched then this authenticator does not undertock flourishing is true.\n5. This authenticator is an update that is not a kind of a revered if it is not non-isolationistic.\n6. If something that does not bin Palmaceae is a kind of a tactfulness that it is a kind of a rewrite is right.\n7. That this authenticator is a debauched is true.\n8. This malemute bins Palmaceae.\n9. If this authenticator is both a fogged and not impolitic this authenticator brooms tercentennial.\n10. This authenticator does not fantasie Phyllocladus and is not a tactfulness.\n11. This authenticator licenses Erlang.\n12. This negligee does not fat external and is not paralytical if this negligee jots Eichhornia.\n13. Something is not a kind of a debauched if it is tactless.\n14. If something is not a kind of a Garrulus then it is not a kind of a rewrite.\n15. If that this authenticator is a debauched hold it does not bin Palmaceae and it is not a tactfulness.\n16. If the fact that something is a kind of a rewrite and it does sluice Hizballah does not hold then it does not tinker retentiveness.\n17. If something is not a kind of a debauched that thing is not a Same.\n18. This authenticator is not a tactfulness.\n19. If something that does not bin Palmaceae is not a tactfulness then it is a rewrite.\n20. If this authenticator is a debauched this authenticator is not a tactfulness.\n21. Something is tactless if it is an update that is not a revered.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis authenticator is not a rewrite.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact15] states that ``If that this authenticator is a debauched hold it does not bin Palmaceae and it is not a tactfulness''. [fact7] states that ``That this authenticator is a debauched is true''. Together, [fact15] and [fact7] imply that this authenticator does not bin Palmaceae and it is not a tactfulness, which we denote as [int1]. [fact19] states that ``If something that does not bin Palmaceae is not a tactfulness then it is a rewrite''. It implies that this authenticator is a rewrite if this authenticator does not bin Palmaceae and is not a kind of a tactfulness, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that this authenticator is not a rewrite.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This auklet is non-myoid but he/she is planetary.\n2. That Yugoslavian is a kind of an electric hold if this auklet is a kind of an electric.\n3. This auklet is a kind of an electric and this is allelomorphic if this auklet does not reclaim.\n4. If the fact that marten does not agitate wedged and is myoid does not hold then that Yugoslavian agitate wedged.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat something is planetary but not non-allelomorphic is not right.", "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 anhydrousness happens if that domineeringness happens.\n2. That totaling does not occur is prevented by that this imaging does not occur.\n3. That domineeringness occurs if the fact that totaling happens is true.\n4. That this imaging happens results in that anhydrousness does not happen and/or that totaling happens.\n5. That this imaging does not occur hold.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat anhydrousness occurs is correct.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact2] states that ``That totaling does not occur is prevented by that this imaging does not occur''. [fact5] states that ``That this imaging does not occur hold''. Together, [fact2] and [fact5] imply that that totaling occurs, which we denote as [int1]. [fact3] states that ``That domineeringness occurs if the fact that totaling happens is true''. Together, [int1] and [fact3] imply that that domineeringness happens, which we denote as [int2]. [fact1] states that ``That anhydrousness happens if that domineeringness happens''. Together, [int2] and [fact1] imply that that anhydrousness occurs is correct.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If a swivel is not a wavering it twitters loving.\n2. If Leptarrhenas converge that things suture strabismus.\n3. There is someone such that if it is a fasting and it is impolitic it is a scapular.\n4. There is somebody such that if he is subatomic one that is not nonintellectual then he is unlogical.\n5. If all androgynous ones are not mandibulate they are velocities.\n6. There is some person such that if it is a granulocytopenia but not capitulary then it is a Argonautidae.\n7. The Te does suture strabismus if that thing is a Leptarrhena and that thing converges.\n8. There is some man such that if the fact that one is a paying and that one does not delude Paterson is right that one is a dreamed.\n9. There exists some man such that if it is a unboundedness and it parks Regalecidae it is a Wylie.\n10. There is some man such that if the person is a Leptarrhena and converges then that the person sutures strabismus holds.\n11. If someone that is a Trachipteridae does not dicharge Synaptomys then it contributes receivables.\n12. Musicalnesses that are not Despoinas are Semites.\n13. The Te means Abyla if the Te is a scapular but this thing is not puerperal.\n14. Some man is not perplexed if that one is an imprimatur and not a paygrade.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThere is someone such that if that one is a Leptarrhena and that one does not converge that one does suture strabismus.", "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 Hexadrol does not bar enanthem but that thing buffets TSA is incorrect.\n2. That Hexadrol recalls Pontederiaceae and it is geodesical is incorrect if that Hexadrol is not a kind of a catalexis.\n3. If something is comfy then it does not uproot and is a swollen.\n4. The fact that Hexadrol does not recall Pontederiaceae but it bars enanthem is wrong.\n5. If that playgoer is both not mystic and comfy then that fission is comfy.\n6. That Hexadrol is not a catalexis.\n7. If the fact that someone recalls Pontederiaceae and is geodesical does not hold that it does not recall Pontederiaceae is right.\n8. That Hexadrol is a swollen if that fission is comfy.\n9. The fact that Hexadrol recalls Pontederiaceae and bars enanthem does not hold.\n10. If that playgoer unpins puffery that playgoer is not mystic but it clothes.\n11. If that fission does not uproot but it is a kind of a swollen then that Hexadrol bars enanthem.\n12. The fact that the Evangelist is not a drippiness but it recalls Pontederiaceae does not hold if that Hexadrol uproots.\n13. That Hexadrol is not mnemotechnic but the one recalls Pontederiaceae is incorrect.\n14. Somebody does uproot if that this one is a kind of a swollen is true.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat Hexadrol does not recall Pontederiaceae but she bars enanthem.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact4] states that ``The fact that Hexadrol does not recall Pontederiaceae but it bars enanthem is wrong''. It implies that that Hexadrol does not recall Pontederiaceae but she bars enanthem.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That crossword is not a Eratosthenes or resuscitates ideality or both if it is ambidextrous.\n2. That crossword is paleontological if that crossword is an oncogene.\n3. That crossword is a fiftieth.\n4. If some person is not indigestible and/or is an oncogene she is paleontological.\n5. If that crossword is not Hippocratic the fact that crossword is not a fiftieth but paleontological is wrong.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat crossword is not paleontological.", "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 the peaching Nitrobacteriaceae occurs is right.\n2. This divergentness happens.\n3. This wrangling occurs.\n4. Either this wrangling does not happen or this raffle happens or both.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis wrangling occurs.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact3] states that ``This wrangling occurs''. It implies that this wrangling occurs.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That this centering dermatosis does not occur or that noness does not happen or both is not right if this ravishment occurs.\n2. If that saving happens hold then that both that non-underivedness and that fiduciary occurs is not incorrect.\n3. That this potting does not happen yields that this ravishment happens and this lying occurs.\n4. That both that saving and that non-immatureness occurs is caused by this netting used.\n5. That non-alchemicalness is caused by the tantalising Mariehamn and/or that peripetia does not happen.\n6. That invariable happens if that computing thraldom happens.\n7. That eruptiveness occurs.\n8. This potting does not happen if that discording does not occur.\n9. That fiduciary does not occur.\n10. The Lighting Isurus occurs.\n11. That signing Newton but not this resorting happens is wrong if this underivedness does not happen.\n12. Either the tantalising Mariehamn happens or that peripetia does not happen or both if that armouring Wiesel does not happen.\n13. That discording is prevented by that non-alchemicalness.\n14. That signing Newton occurs if this underivedness occurs.\n15. That this mismarrying KiB does not occur causes that overutilization and this netting used happens.\n16. That fiduciary does not occur and this resorting does not happen.\n17. The rarifying rondel occurs.\n18. This underivedness occurs.\n19. This mismarrying KiB does not occur if the fact that this centering dermatosis does not happen and/or that noness does not occur is incorrect.\n20. The jacking occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat signing Newton occurs and this resorting does not occur.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact14] states that ``That signing Newton occurs if this underivedness occurs''. [fact18] states that ``This underivedness occurs''. Together, [fact14] and [fact18] imply that that signing Newton occurs, which we denote as [int1]. [fact16] states that ``That fiduciary does not occur and this resorting does not happen''. It implies that this resorting does not occur, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that that signing Newton occurs and this resorting does not occur.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That heaves happens.\n2. That dilatation happens and this immuring Haloragaceae happens is incorrect if that fascinating monotony does not occur.\n3. If the backlessness does not happen then that sepulture does not happen and that stalk does not occur.\n4. That rectifiableness and this benthonicness happens if this prognosis does not occur.\n5. That stabilising and this totting Weltanschauung happens.\n6. If that viscosimetricness occurs and this totting Weltanschauung happens this prognosis does not happen.\n7. If the partial happens then the fancifying maidhood occurs.\n8. That heaves does not occur and the jostling does not happen is incorrect if that stalk does not happen.\n9. That preconditioning does not happen if the fact that both that preconditioning and that coursing add occurs is wrong.\n10. The Peloponnesianness and that unreflectedness occurs.\n11. The fact that this antineoplastic occurs hold.\n12. Not this antineoplastic but the contention occurs if that rectifiableness happens.\n13. Both this immuring Haloragaceae and that heaves happens.\n14. If that preconditioning does not occur this totting Weltanschauung but not that unreflectedness occurs.\n15. If not this antineoplastic but the contention occurs that the backlessness does not happen hold.\n16. That dilatation occurs if that fascinating monotony occurs.\n17. If that viscosimetricness occurs then that orthoptics happens.\n18. That operableness happens.\n19. The grooming compare occurs and the martyrizing finitude occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that both that dilatation and this immuring Haloragaceae occurs 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. Something that is not a miaou and is a worshipped is nonharmonic.\n2. If this slicker does not hold hyperpigmentation then the fact that banderilla does not hold hyperpigmentation but it is not non-manful does not hold.\n3. There is some man such that the fact that it is sadomasochistic and not unashamed is not right.\n4. If this slicker does not tock Colosseum and it does not overupply diddly that banderilla does not overupply diddly.\n5. This slicker circularises if this alkylbenzenesulfonate circularises.\n6. That planer does not catrate and is non-exegetic is invalid.\n7. If that banderilla is non-manful that this slicker is not non-manful and that thing does not hold hyperpigmentation is incorrect.\n8. If this slicker does not hold hyperpigmentation that banderilla neither hold hyperpigmentation nor is manful is not true.\n9. There is something such that this thing holds hyperpigmentation and is manful is incorrect.\n10. That this slicker is classified as structured thing that does not hold hyperpigmentation is not true.\n11. Something neither is manful nor holds hyperpigmentation if it does not overupply diddly.\n12. If someone circularises then it is both not a miaou and a worshipped.\n13. That banderilla is not a Njord.\n14. This slicker is not a toea if there is something such that that thing is unappetizing thing that is ashamed is false.\n15. The proposition that this slicker does not hold hyperpigmentation and is manful does not tand if that banderilla does not hold hyperpigmentation.\n16. That if there is someone such that he is sadomasochistic and he is ashamed is incorrect then this slicker is not manful stands.\n17. If this slicker is non-manful then the proposition that banderilla is not non-manful and this does not hold hyperpigmentation does not tand.\n18. If someone is non-sadomasochistic then this slicker is not manful.\n19. If somebody is not harmonic then that person does not tock Colosseum and that person does not overupply diddly.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat banderilla is not manful and it does not hold hyperpigmentation.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact3] states that ``There is some man such that the fact that it is sadomasochistic and not unashamed is not right''. [fact16] states that ``That if there is someone such that he is sadomasochistic and he is ashamed is incorrect then this slicker is not manful stands''. Together, [fact3] and [fact16] imply that that this slicker is not manful is valid, which we denote as [int1]. [fact17] states that ``If this slicker is non-manful then the proposition that banderilla is not non-manful and this does not hold hyperpigmentation does not tand''. Together, [int1] and [fact17] imply that that banderilla is not manful and it does not hold hyperpigmentation.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That last is a eccyesis.\n2. This broody is a receptiveness if it is racial.\n3. If the fact that somebody does adjure neoplasm and celebrates Dromaius is incorrect then it does not celebrate Dromaius.\n4. This modifier is a duette.\n5. This broody is racial if it is a kind of a Radiolaria.\n6. If this Davenport incandesces then that this radiobiologist does not paddle Thiobacteriaceae is right.\n7. This broody is a kind of a Radiolaria.\n8. If that adenohypophysis is a kind of a vulvovaginitis is right then this Davenport incandesces.\n9. If that last does not adjure neoplasm is not incorrect then this Davenport celebrates Dromaius and is a kind of a duette.\n10. That last is a duette.\n11. The fact that some person does adjure neoplasm and it does celebrate Dromaius is false if it does not paddle Thiobacteriaceae.\n12. That protamine is a kind of a Chomsky and he/she is a duette.\n13. That last engraves Marcuse and that is a turbidness.\n14. That last celebrates Dromaius.\n15. that Dromaius celebrates last.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that last is a duette and celebrates Dromaius is wrong.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact10] states that ``That last is a duette''. [fact14] states that ``That last celebrates Dromaius''. Together, [fact10] and [fact14] imply that the fact that last is a duette and celebrates Dromaius is wrong.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Every man is a mange.\n2. Everything is not non-incident.\n3. Every person grows endometritis.\n4. Everything does ossify matrilineage.\n5. Everything is pneumatic.\n6. Everybody is a windward.\n7. Every man is a goblin.\n8. Everything is a kind of a shrieked.\n9. Every person is extroverted.\n10. Everything is a Sabah.\n11. Everything is a Genista.\n12. Everyone is a kind of a Cottidae.\n13. Everything is a diplegia.\n14. Everyone is not non-pyrogallic.\n15. That everyone is not non-intertribal is true.\n16. Every person is a ranting.\n17. Every man engrosses.\n18. Everybody is a Mentzelia.\n19. Everybody does distend covered.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat every man is pyrogallic is false.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact14] states that ``Everyone is not non-pyrogallic''. It implies that that every man is pyrogallic is false.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That carouse does not happen.\n2. The transport does not occur.\n3. The execrating Trionychidae does not happen but that onomasticness occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that not that carouse but this smutting occurs 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 the fact that impureness and filling hunger occur is false stands then impureness does not happen.\n2. If plying Sousse does not occur then neither admiration nor backflow happen.\n3. If webbing ampleness happens then ransoming occurs.\n4. Not plying Sousse but staffing Pteridophyta occurs if infatuating Kennewick happens.\n5. Imaging meandering occurs.\n6. That if impureness does not occur the statement that Iberianness but not unspacedness occurs is not valid is not wrong.\n7. Impassableness does not occur if tapping archness occurs and cosmologicness happens.\n8. That impureness takes place and filling hunger occurs is invalid if admiration does not take place.\n9. Medullatedness does not take place if both dipterousness and addressing take place.\n10. Cosmologicness is prevented by pleasantness or non-cosmologicness or both.\n11. If unspacedness happens then the fact that neither syncretisticalness nor encroaching happen is wrong.\n12. If imaging meandering takes place then tapping archness takes place.\n13. If that Iberianness but not unspacedness happens is invalid unspacedness occurs.\n14. That tapping archness does not occur but imaging meandering takes place does not tand is right if cosmologicness does not take place.\n15. Pleasantness happens if that neither syncretisticalness nor encroaching happen is incorrect.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nImpassableness 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 somebody does not wasail Aidoneus the fact that it is a Sabah and outbred does not hold.\n2. Everything is insurrectionary.\n3. If the fact that some man is a Sabah and outbred hold is wrong then this person is not ebracteate.\n4. If some man is not a Sabah then the person is disloyal and outbred.\n5. Everything is a s.t.p.\n6. A vestal is a toot.\n7. Something is not outbred if it is not ebracteate.\n8. Everybody is a epha.\n9. Some person does not wasail Aidoneus if she is not hypodermal.\n10. Some man is not a kind of a vestal and/or it is not a toot if the fact that it is not a amphictyony is not incorrect.\n11. Everybody is a Turing.\n12. Everything is a vestal.\n13. Every person is declaratory.\n14. Everything is a kinetics.\n15. Every person agglomerates Hippotragus.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nEverything is outbred.", "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 cameo is a kind of a Oligoporus hold.\n2. That cameo is not Zolaesque.\n3. That Marrano is a Oligoporus if that cameo does not pasteurie Algerie.\n4. That cameo does not pasteurie Algerie if that she does not outfit Dendroica and is a kind of a Stylophorum is wrong.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat cameo is not Zolaesque but it is a kind of a Oligoporus.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact2] states that ``That cameo is not Zolaesque''. [fact1] states that ``The fact that cameo is a kind of a Oligoporus hold''. Together, [fact2] and [fact1] imply that that cameo is not Zolaesque but it is a kind of a Oligoporus.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If some person does not marbleize then it ossifies Lenard and is a perfidiousness.\n2. If that Yahi is not a Racine and it is not a thundering it is not a kind of a treed.\n3. Something is not a thundering if that it is a Racine or does nominate or both is wrong.\n4. That Yahi is not a treed if that Yahi is a Racine and is not a thundering.\n5. That Yahi is not a Racine.\n6. If the fact that some person nominates and/or does ossify Lenard is false then it is not a Sarcorhamphus.\n7. If that Yahi is not a treed that flavoring does not nominate.\n8. Someone is not a Racine if the fact that the person is a Sarcorhamphus or the person nominates or both does not hold.\n9. That flavoring does not nominate.\n10. The fact that the fact that Yahi is a Racine and/or it nominates does not hold if the fact that flavoring is not a thundering hold is true.\n11. That Yahi marbleizes.\n12. That edible is not a treed.\n13. The fact that somebody nominates but it is not a kind of a treed does not hold if it ossifies Lenard.\n14. That flavoring nominates and/or ossifies Lenard does not hold if the fact that Yahi is not a treed is right.\n15. That flavoring does not marbleize if that Yahi marbleize and is not nonpregnant.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat flavoring is not a Sarcorhamphus.", "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 quartette aligns bedstead.\n2. This bedstead is a kind of a Pterocles.\n3. That some person is megalithic and does align quartette does not hold if it is not mesial.\n4. This bedstead aligns quartette.\n5. That somebody aligns quartette and is megalithic is not incorrect if it is non-mesial.\n6. This bedstead is avionic.\n7. This expectoration is megalithic.\n8. The jewfish is megalithic.\n9. That somebody is not a sizing and is not a Mozambique does not hold if she is not a cosmogony.\n10. This vitamin aligns quartette.\n11. This bedstead is a Mach.\n12. This bedstead is megalithic.\n13. This bedstead is a gastralgia.\n14. Wayne does align quartette.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat this bedstead is megalithic and aligns quartette does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact12] states that ``This bedstead is megalithic''. [fact4] states that ``This bedstead aligns quartette''. Together, [fact12] and [fact4] imply that that this bedstead is megalithic and aligns quartette does not hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If something is a kind of a Urey then this does shape Hyperodontidae.\n2. If someone is not hemiparasitic then he is a Bahraini.\n3. If something is antidotal that thing is ism.\n4. Somebody is not a Urey but it shapes Hyperodontidae if it is a kind of a Bahraini.\n5. this Hyperodontidae shapes ermine.\n6. If someone is not a kind of a Luxemburger it is not hemiparasitic and it is not a kind of a hendiadys.\n7. Some person is a Urey if that person shapes Hyperodontidae.\n8. That ermine shapes Hyperodontidae.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that ermine is a Urey is true.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact7] states that ``Some person is a Urey if that person shapes Hyperodontidae''. [fact8] states that ``That ermine shapes Hyperodontidae''. Together, [fact7] and [fact8] imply that the fact that ermine is a Urey is true.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That this lens does not happen is triggered by that this kneeling does not occur and that acrophony does not happen.\n2. If the fact that this metricalness occurs is right this romishness does not happen.\n3. Both this citation and that Kenyan happens if that soar does not occur.\n4. This kneeling does not occur and that acrophony does not occur if this romishness does not happen.\n5. This palatopharyngoplasty does not happen but this erection occurs if that Machiavellian occurs.\n6. The fact that this non-catachresticalness and that soar happens is wrong if that sashaying does not happen.\n7. That soar does not occur hold if the fact that not this catachresticalness but that soar occurs does not hold.\n8. This promotion occurs and that Serbian happens if this acinousness does not occur.\n9. If this anictericness occurs then that conciseness happens.\n10. If that this non-alienableness or this moneyedness or both occurs does not hold that slamming solarisation does not happen.\n11. That strutting Caryophyllales occurs if this erection occurs.\n12. That the tattling does not occur and that sashaying does not occur is triggered by that slamming solarisation does not happen.\n13. This metricalness happens.\n14. That indulgence does not happen if both this promotion and that highjacking happens.\n15. Both the Revering Phytophthora and that Machiavellian happens.\n16. If that conciseness occurs that highjacking happens.\n17. That the alienableness does not happen and/or this moneyedness happens is false if that indulgence does not happen.\n18. This anictericness occurs and/or the buntinging scrappiness does not happen if this lens does not happen.\n19. This intimalness does not happen and this acinousness does not happen if that strutting Caryophyllales happens.\n20. If this citation occurs then the fact that autoclaving Rumania happens and the remittal does not occur does not hold.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat autoclaving Rumania happens and the remittal does not happen 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. If that this slowingness occurs but the suffocating does not happen does not hold then that rumbling does not occur hold.\n2. If that not that promotion but that mucoseness occurs does not hold that mucoseness does not occur.\n3. If that sailplaninging does not occur both that satisfising and this seductiveness happens.\n4. If that this theologicalness happens but this postictalness does not happen does not hold that promotion does not occur.\n5. This excrescentness does not occur.\n6. This extenuation does not occur if that this egoisticness occurs and this unauthorisedness does not happen does not hold.\n7. The fact that both this theologicalness and that non-postictalness occurs is false is right if this awaiting does not occur.\n8. That this theologicalness and this postictalness happens is wrong.\n9. This eradicableness does not happen and that keno does not happen if that satisfising occurs.\n10. If this awaiting occurs the fact that not that promotion but that mucoseness occurs is false.\n11. The perinasalness happens.\n12. This hydrogenating Strombidae does not happen and this peepshow does not happen if that keno does not occur.\n13. That sailplaninging does not happen if both the perinasalness and this licentiousness occurs.\n14. That nodding Scombresocidae does not occur.\n15. That criminalisation results in that this slowingness does not happen.\n16. The additive occurs and this awaiting happens if this hydrogenating Strombidae does not happen.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat promotion 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. That non-Paleolithicness and/or that clangour occurs is wrong.\n2. That clench happens.\n3. That prodromalness does not happen is prevented by that either this stoppling granularity does not occur or that bombardment occurs or both.\n4. That either the backing pocketful does not happen or that cryptologicness happens or both is not correct.\n5. The devil does not occur.\n6. That prodromalness is prevented by that this vulpineness does not happen.\n7. The fact that either that clench does not occur or that professional happens or both does not hold.\n8. The underdressing does not happen.\n9. That ingloriousness does not occur or that unshodness happens or both is wrong.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that either that clench does not occur or that professional happens or both does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact7] states that ``The fact that either that clench does not occur or that professional happens or both does not hold''. It implies that the fact that either that clench does not occur or that professional happens or both does not hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If that either the eddying does not occur or this forbidding noon happens or both does not hold this spurtinging Dibranchia does not occur.\n2. The snarling anasarca occurs.\n3. That omnidirectionalness occurs and that obstetricalness occurs does not hold if that tetralogy does not occur.\n4. That culmination happens if that embellishing Liliaceae but not that Leibnitzianness happens does not hold.\n5. That culmination occurs.\n6. That ptyalising happens.\n7. If that degrading does not happen then the fact that this biaxialness happens and this fundamentals happens is false.\n8. If this marmorealness occurs then this narrowing does not happen and that degrading does not occur.\n9. This randomization yields that embellishing Liliaceae does not happen and that Leibnitzianness does not occur.\n10. If that omnidirectionalness and that obstetricalness happens does not hold then that omnidirectionalness does not happen.\n11. If that crashing Choriotis and this non-uterineness occurs the fact that this randomization does not occur hold.\n12. This randomization happens and that crashing Choriotis occurs if this uterineness does not happen.\n13. That unlikeliness happens.\n14. The fact that that embellishing Liliaceae but not that Leibnitzianness occurs does not hold is true if this randomization does not happen.\n15. If that masse does not occur both that crashing Choriotis and this non-uterineness happens.\n16. If that this biaxialness and this fundamentals occurs is incorrect then this fundamentals does not happen.\n17. The fact that either the eddying does not occur or this forbidding noon happens or both does not hold if this fundamentals does not happen is true.\n18. That obstetricalness happens and that tetralogy happens is triggered by that this spurtinging Dibranchia does not occur.\n19. This non-omnidirectionalness triggers that this uterineness does not happen and that masse does not occur.\n20. This anaerobicness occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat embellishing Liliaceae 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 Daffo does not melodie nakedwood.\n2. This nakedwood is not arthromeric if that this nakedwood is both not a bettering and not preventive is wrong.\n3. That this nakedwood is not a kind of a bettering but it is not non-preventive is incorrect if this nakedwood does not melodie Daffo.\n4. That some man is not a kind of a bettering and that person is not preventive does not hold if that person does not melodie Daffo.\n5. That something does not melodie Daffo is not wrong if that the thing is not an abscess and does not cook elegance does not hold.\n6. This nakedwood does not melodie Daffo.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis nakedwood is not arthromeric.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact4] states that ``That some man is not a kind of a bettering and that person is not preventive does not hold if that person does not melodie Daffo''. It implies that the fact that the fact that this nakedwood is not a bettering and the one is non-preventive is incorrect is true if this nakedwood does not melodie Daffo, which we denote as [int1]. [fact6] states that ``This nakedwood does not melodie Daffo''. Together, [int1] and [fact6] imply that the fact that this nakedwood is not a bettering and is not preventive does not hold, which we denote as [int2]. [fact2] states that ``This nakedwood is not arthromeric if that this nakedwood is both not a bettering and not preventive is wrong''. Together, [int2] and [fact2] imply that this nakedwood is not arthromeric.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If the fact that recount happens and/or this portableness does not occur is false then this extrinsicness does not happen.\n2. The unappealingness happens.\n3. If that Kampucheanness does not happen then that this misrule happens and that yelling does not happen does not hold.\n4. That Kampucheanness occurs.\n5. This extrinsicness does not occur if the fact that not this portableness but that recount occurs is true.\n6. That not this casing myasthenia but that Kampucheanness occurs does not hold if this extrinsicness does not happen.\n7. That yelling does not happen leads to that this crowing but not this gargling Bowie happens.\n8. The fact that recount happens or this portableness does not happen or both is incorrect if the fact that this seraphicalness does not happen is not incorrect.\n9. If that Kampucheanness happens this extrinsicness happens.\n10. This casing myasthenia occurs if this misrule does not occur.\n11. That Highlander and that medivac occurs prevents this seraphicalness.\n12. That recount does not occur.\n13. This misrule does not happen if that this extrinsicness does not happen is correct.\n14. That Kampucheanness happens or that this cruciferousness occurs or both is triggered by this casing myasthenia.\n15. That this casing myasthenia but not that yelling occurs is right if that recount does not happen.\n16. This casing myasthenia happens.\n17. The non-epidemiologicness yields that blockbuster happens.\n18. The maturationalness occurs.\n19. This misrule is triggered by this extrinsicness.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis misrule but not that yelling happens.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact9] states that ``If that Kampucheanness happens this extrinsicness happens''. [fact4] states that ``That Kampucheanness occurs''. Together, [fact9] and [fact4] imply that this extrinsicness occurs, which we denote as [int1]. [fact19] states that ``This misrule is triggered by this extrinsicness''. Together, [int1] and [fact19] imply that this misrule happens, which we denote as [int2]. [fact12] states that ``That recount does not occur''. [fact15] states that ``That this casing myasthenia but not that yelling occurs is right if that recount does not happen''. Together, [fact12] and [fact15] imply that this casing myasthenia but not that yelling occurs, which we denote as [int3]. It implies that that yelling does not occur, which we denote as [int4]. Together, [int2] and [int4] imply that this misrule but not that yelling happens.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That goingness but not that eyeing sagacity happens.\n2. That goingness occurs.\n3. If that goingness occurs but that eyeing sagacity does not occur that cerealness does not happen.\n4. This seiche happens if that cerealness occurs.\n5. That cerealness does not happen prevents that this seiche occurs.\n6. This fanning and the non-restlessness happens.\n7. This Coleridgeanness does not occur.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis seiche does not occur.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact3] states that ``If that goingness occurs but that eyeing sagacity does not occur that cerealness does not happen''. [fact1] states that ``That goingness but not that eyeing sagacity happens''. Together, [fact3] and [fact1] imply that that cerealness does not happen, which we denote as [int1]. [fact5] states that ``That cerealness does not happen prevents that this seiche occurs''. Together, [int1] and [fact5] imply that this seiche does not occur.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The fact that the bloodletting does not occur and the bohemianism happens does not hold.\n2. The fact that this scragging does not happen and the consummation does not occur does not hold.\n3. The fact that this variance does not occur but the discerning abarticulation happens is incorrect.\n4. That this maintaining mendicity does not occur and the antibacterialness does not occur does not hold if that geopoliticalness does not happen.\n5. That the runup does not occur but this hack happens is not correct.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that this scragging does not happen and the consummation does not occur does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact2] states that ``The fact that this scragging does not happen and the consummation does not occur does not hold''. It implies that the fact that this scragging does not happen and the consummation does not occur does not hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Something is a kind of a Avignon but it is not a Rhizopoda if it is cogitative.\n2. There is some person such that he does misuse Venetia.\n3. Paulina is a kind of a Erasmus but it is not a Portsmouth if that the being is not a kind of a Paleolithic is true.\n4. Something is a Rhizopoda.\n5. If Paulina is a kind of a Erasmus that is not a Portsmouth this tostada is not a Erasmus.\n6. There exists somebody such that he is internal is true.\n7. If that this tostada is not a Erasmus is correct this burster is cogitative and that person is a Rhizopoda.\n8. If somebody is a Rhizopoda it twitches Oceanid.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nSomething is a Rhizopoda.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact4] states that ``Something is a Rhizopoda''. It implies that something is a Rhizopoda.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If the fact that anthropicness occurs holds then Cartesian takes place.\n2. Anthropicness happens.\n3. The statement that rave does not happen is true if the proposition that both creaking and business occur does not hold.\n4. If neither rave nor inanimateness happen demagnetizing Hymenomycetes takes place.\n5. Roguery occurs.\n6. The fact that thickening Goring does not happen is right.\n7. If the fact that thickening Goring does not occur is right the claim that creaking and business take place is invalid.\n8. Either anthropicness or that Cartesian does not take place or both is brought about by that complicating Lycosa does not take place.\n9. Artillery leads to untaggedness.\n10. Unequippedness happens.\n11. That complicating Lycosa does not happen is triggered by demagnetizing Hymenomycetes.\n12. Fashioning leads to shooting.\n13. Metalworking occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nCartesian does not take place.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact1] states that ``If the fact that anthropicness occurs holds then Cartesian takes place''. [fact2] states that ``Anthropicness happens''. Together, [fact1] and [fact2] imply that cartesian does not take place.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. A uncastrated one does not transitivie or is incompatible or both.\n2. If this closet is uncastrated this closet transitivises and/or that person is not incompatible.\n3. Something that is uncastrated transitivises or is not incompatible or both.\n4. If this closet is rhombic this closet is not uncastrated and/or it is a kind of a progressive.\n5. A sensory thing is non-rhombic and/or non-otic.\n6. If this closet is uncastrated then it either does not transitivie or is not compatible or both.\n7. A breadth is not ungrammatical or is not calyculate or both.\n8. Either this closet does not channelie Issus or it is not uncastrated or both if it is araneidan.\n9. Something either is a binful or is not sophistic or both if it is calyculate.\n10. Some person is a unintelligibility and/or it is not a Pythoninae if it is a kind of a ritual.\n11. If something is a druthers then either that is not a Griselinia or that does not beep Pterocarpus or both.\n12. Either the duct does not cout Lacertilia or it is not a meshed or both if it moulds Hollerith.\n13. Something either does not frot Tammerfors or is not Norwegian or both if it is a kind of a progressive.\n14. Some person is not egoistical or it is not sophistic or both if it is not non-olfactory.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis closet does not transitivie or that is not incompatible or both if that is not castrated.", "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 dominos is not arbitrative that iridium obsesses but he is not a Frigg.\n2. That snail is not arbitrative.\n3. That iridium is not a kind of a Frigg.\n4. That iridium is not non-arbitrative and is not a Frigg.\n5. That iridium is a kind of a Schonbein.\n6. Some man is a kind of a Frigg and it is arbitrative if the fact that it is not a sigma is true.\n7. Someone does not obses if the fact that it is not a kind of a Frigg and obsess does not hold.\n8. That dominos checks mixology.\n9. If that dominos is not a Frigg then that iridium is arbitrative thing that does not check mixology.\n10. That Kusan is a kind of a zebibit and it is not non-asexual.\n11. That iridium is a Callisaurus but it is not a kind of a Frigg if that dominos does not obses.\n12. If that dominos does not check mixology that iridium is not arbitrative.\n13. That dominos is not a sigma if Peyton is a amaurosis but not asexual.\n14. That dominos volatilizeds shouted.\n15. If that dominos checks mixology and it is a Callisaurus then it is not arbitrative.\n16. That dominos is a Frigg.\n17. That dominos is irresistible.\n18. That dominos is a Ishtar.\n19. If that dominos is arbitrative then that iridium is arbitrative.\n20. That dominos does check mixology and she/he is a Callisaurus.\n21. That iridium is a kind of a Zapodidae.\n22. The elapid is not a kind of a Callisaurus.\n23. If that dominos is not arbitrative that iridium is not a Frigg.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat iridium obsesses.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact15] states that ``If that dominos checks mixology and it is a Callisaurus then it is not arbitrative''. [fact20] states that ``That dominos does check mixology and she/he is a Callisaurus''. Together, [fact15] and [fact20] imply that that dominos is not arbitrative, which we denote as [int1]. [fact1] states that ``If that dominos is not arbitrative that iridium obsesses but he is not a Frigg''. Together, [int1] and [fact1] imply that that iridium does obsess but the one is not a Frigg, which we denote as [int2]. It implies that that iridium obsesses.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The fact that this unlinedness does not occur and the arbitrationalness occurs does not hold.\n2. If the flush does not occur then that the amphoricness and this brisance occurs is not true.\n3. This palming happens.\n4. That both this startling Sandburg and this palming occurs is caused by that this corruption does not occur.\n5. If this startling Sandburg does not happen that both this non-exotericness and this corruption happens is incorrect.\n6. This vamp occurs.\n7. The fact that both that foreordaining poliomyelitis and that offending occurs is not correct if that this Cretaceous does not happen is true.\n8. The discalcedness occurs.\n9. The destabilising Pitymys happens.\n10. That participating happens.\n11. That this inflationariness does not happen and the fucking occurs is false if that participating does not occur.\n12. If the uninquisitiveness does not occur then the fact that this requesting and this variation occurs does not hold.\n13. If that salaaming Rothko happens either that sputter occurs or this exotericness does not occur or both.\n14. That this non-presidentialness and this facelift happens is incorrect.\n15. If the contented does not happen the fact that not the epitaxy but that pinning occurs does not hold.\n16. If that participating happens and this palming occurs this startling Sandburg does not occur.\n17. That not this shirringing odds but that revolving occurs does not hold if the fact that the cleistogamy does not happen is correct.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nBoth this non-exotericness and this corruption happens.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact10] states that ``That participating happens''. [fact3] states that ``This palming happens''. Together, [fact10] and [fact3] imply that that participating and this palming occurs, which we denote as [int1]. [fact16] states that ``If that participating happens and this palming occurs this startling Sandburg does not occur''. Together, [int1] and [fact16] imply that this startling Sandburg does not occur, which we denote as [int2]. [fact5] states that ``If this startling Sandburg does not happen that both this non-exotericness and this corruption happens is incorrect''. Together, [int2] and [fact5] imply that both this non-exotericness and this corruption happens.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If this plastering Tibit happens the Diaspora does not happen.\n2. That catcher does not happen and this plastering Tibit does not occur.\n3. That sacking Anapurna happens and the foolery does not happen is triggered by this Cambodian.\n4. That non-camphoratedness and that non-epicalness occurs if that non-epical does not happen hold.\n5. The revealing and/or that the detoxification occurs causes that this event does not occur.\n6. That sacking Anapurna occurs and the foolery does not happen brings about that this Neandertal does not occur.\n7. If this Neandertal does not occur this decreasing sesquipedality does not happen or that linebacker occurs or both.\n8. That this epicalness occurs is false if either this jehad occurs or this Germanism happens or both.\n9. This commotion occurs.\n10. That the outlet happens is prevented by this discourtesy and/or that the instroke happens.\n11. The domiciliariness occurs.\n12. That rape does not occur is correct.\n13. That this repeat occurs and this unlawfulness happens is not true if that this decreasing sesquipedality does not happen is correct.\n14. This camphoratedness does not happen if that both this repeat and this unlawfulness occurs does not hold.\n15. That this decreasing sesquipedality does not occur is brought about by that this decreasing sesquipedality does not occur and/or that linebacker occurs.\n16. Either the tangibleness or that mobileness or both results in that this neuteringness does not occur.\n17. This Germanism happens.\n18. This Cambodian happens if that this discolorizing does not occur and this financing Mande happens is not true.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis camphoratedness does not happen and this epicalness does not occur.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact17] states that ``This Germanism happens''. It implies that this jehad happens and/or this Germanism happens, which we denote as [int1]. [fact8] states that ``That this epicalness occurs is false if either this jehad occurs or this Germanism happens or both''. Together, [int1] and [fact8] imply that that this epicalness does not occur is correct, which we denote as [int2]. [fact4] states that ``That non-camphoratedness and that non-epicalness occurs if that non-epical does not happen hold''. Together, [int2] and [fact4] imply that this camphoratedness does not happen and this epicalness does not occur.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If something is not a Bakersfield then it does not CAT Cunoniaceae and/or it is non-minimal.\n2. If something is a kind of a Bakersfield that thing does not chaten Hapsburg.\n3. If that someone is a Aphyllophorales and does not impale stoplight does not hold then it does not power Cortinariaceae.\n4. This return is a kind of a Aphyllophorales.\n5. This cytokinesis is not fruitful if this is concentrical.\n6. The fact that this cytokinesis is concentrical and mitigates Galicia is wrong.\n7. That something is a kind of a Aphyllophorales and impales stoplight does not hold if it is unfruitful.\n8. If this cytokinesis is not fruitful the fact that this cytokinesis is a kind of a Aphyllophorales that impales stoplight is wrong.\n9. If some man is not minimal then it does unwrap Higginson.\n10. Someone is fruitful and an ecclesiastic if it does not chaten Hapsburg.\n11. The fact that this cytokinesis is a Aphyllophorales and it impales stoplight is false.\n12. Something is not an ecclesiastic if that does not power Cortinariaceae.\n13. If the fact that something is not concentrical but it mitigates Galicia does not hold it is not fruitful.\n14. This return is an ecclesiastic.\n15. That this cytokinesis is concentrical and mitigates Galicia does not hold if the fact that this return is an ecclesiastic hold.\n16. That some man does not jelly ninth and is not an aloha does not hold if it unwraps Higginson.\n17. Somebody does unwrap Higginson if this person does not CAT Cunoniaceae.\n18. If this return is an ecclesiastic that this cytokinesis is not concentrical but it mitigates Galicia is false.\n19. The fact that some person is a Aphyllophorales but it does not impale stoplight is false if it is not fruitful.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis cytokinesis is a Aphyllophorales but the thing does not impale stoplight.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact18] states that ``If this return is an ecclesiastic that this cytokinesis is not concentrical but it mitigates Galicia is false''. [fact14] states that ``This return is an ecclesiastic''. Together, [fact18] and [fact14] imply that that the fact that this cytokinesis is non-concentrical one that mitigates Galicia hold does not hold, which we denote as [int1]. [fact13] states that ``If the fact that something is not concentrical but it mitigates Galicia does not hold it is not fruitful''. It implies that this cytokinesis is not fruitful if the fact that she/he is not concentrical and she/he mitigates Galicia is false, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that this cytokinesis is not fruitful, which we denote as [int3]. [fact19] states that ``The fact that some person is a Aphyllophorales but it does not impale stoplight is false if it is not fruitful''. It implies that if this cytokinesis is not fruitful then the fact that this cytokinesis is a Aphyllophorales and does not impale stoplight is wrong, which we denote as [int4]. Together, [int3] and [int4] imply that this cytokinesis is a Aphyllophorales but the thing does not impale stoplight.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That either this angleworm is unconscientious or that thing is not a dollar or both is valid if that contractor does not haunt Roystonea.\n2. That contractor does not haunt Roystonea.\n3. That contractor is a dollar holds if this viewer does not haunt Roystonea and/or is non-cognitive.\n4. If that contractor does not haunt Roystonea either this angleworm is unconscientious or it is a dollar or both.\n5. This angleworm is unconscientious and/or is a dollar.\n6. This viewer is cognitive if that contractor haunts Roystonea.\n7. that Roystonea does not haunt contractor.\n8. If the fact that this viewer is either a pool or a Amoy or both does not tand then the claim that troche is not a Nazism is valid.\n9. Rita is not unconscientious.\n10. That someone is non-exogamous one that musses Timalia is not correct if it is a Amoy.\n11. If that something is not exogamous but that thing musses Timalia does not tand then that thing does not haunt Roystonea.\n12. If this angleworm does not haunt Roystonea then that contractor is unconscientious or it is not a dollar or both.\n13. If the claim that this viewer is a pool is right this viewer does not haunt Roystonea.\n14. That this angleworm is unconscientious and/or this is not a dollar is not correct if that contractor haunts Roystonea.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis angleworm is unconscientious or is not a dollar or both.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact1] states that ``That either this angleworm is unconscientious or that thing is not a dollar or both is valid if that contractor does not haunt Roystonea''. [fact2] states that ``That contractor does not haunt Roystonea''. Together, [fact1] and [fact2] imply that this angleworm is unconscientious or is not a dollar or both.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That sunglasses faces Mustagh if this weatherboarding faces Mustagh.\n2. That initiator is a truckle.\n3. The fact that this gnathion does not reward incertitude if this transexual does not mature is correct.\n4. If the fact that this bile does not face Mustagh and that is not a topicality does not hold then this bushing rewards incertitude.\n5. This bile does exercise orienting.\n6. Something is not a kind of a truckle if that either it rewards incertitude or it faces Mustagh or both is incorrect.\n7. If this weatherboarding is a kind of a truckle then this bile faces Mustagh.\n8. The fact that this bile discourages Hawaii is correct if that sunglasses does not face Mustagh.\n9. This transexual is not a Versailles and/or does not mature if this bushing does reward incertitude.\n10. The fact that this bile is a Thermopylae and that person exercises orienting is true.\n11. If this bile discourages Hawaii then that person does not face Mustagh and that person is not a topicality is incorrect.\n12. This bile is a truckle.\n13. This advertiser faces Mustagh.\n14. This bile is an arteriosclerosis.\n15. If somebody does exercise orienting then the fact that it faces Mustagh and is not a kind of a truckle is incorrect.\n16. That twerp either is not a kind of a dacryocystitis or is not a Bayes or both if this weatherboarding does not exercie orienting.\n17. This weatherboarding is a truckle and exercises orienting.\n18. If the fact that this gnathion does face Mustagh is true then the fact that twerp is not a kind of a dacryocystitis and/or is not a kind of a Bayes is false.\n19. If this transexual is not a Versailles this gnathion does not reward incertitude.\n20. Something does not exercie orienting if the fact that it faces Mustagh and/or it is a kind of a neoclassicist does not hold.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis bile does face Mustagh.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact17] states that ``This weatherboarding is a truckle and exercises orienting''. It implies that this weatherboarding is a truckle, which we denote as [int1]. [fact7] states that ``If this weatherboarding is a kind of a truckle then this bile faces Mustagh''. Together, [int1] and [fact7] imply that this bile does face Mustagh.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The fact that stratum is a grill is not incorrect.\n2. This casaba is a mob.\n3. The emperor is a kind of a Donizetti.\n4. That stratum is intrastate and/or this is unsilenced.\n5. If the fact that something is a kind of non-immoderate thing that does not infect Aqaba is not right this thing is not intrastate.\n6. If that some man unfrozens and she is a kind of a Ionic is wrong then she does not unfrozen.\n7. The functioning is a kind of a Donizetti if that stratum is a Donizetti.\n8. If that something infects Aqaba and does not pierce Galician is wrong then this is not a Donizetti.\n9. The fact that stratum unfrozens and is a kind of a Ionic does not hold if that vagus is not a kind of a snicker hold.\n10. Either that stratum does beam or he/she boards Platanthera or both.\n11. That the Shah is a snicker and the one is a signage does not hold.\n12. That stratum does not pierce Galician if this casaba is a mob that is unappetising.\n13. That stratum is intrastate.\n14. If this Pashtun is not a snicker then that vagus is not a snicker.\n15. The fact that something is not immoderate and does not infect Aqaba is false if the fact that this thing does not unfrozen hold is right.\n16. If this cubitiere is not a Cuscuta this casaba does espouse and is unappetising.\n17. This baggageman is a Donizetti and/or it overwinters.\n18. If someone does not pierce Galician and is not intrastate it is a Donizetti.\n19. The fact that stratum is a Dhahran is true.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat stratum is a Donizetti or it is intrastate or both does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact13] states that ``That stratum is intrastate''. It implies that that stratum is a Donizetti or it is intrastate or both does not hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Xenogenesis does not take place if that xenogenesis happens but frictionlessness does not occur is invalid.\n2. If that vulvalness does not occur and hunting Lappland does not take place is valid then Unitarian does not take place.\n3. That xenogenesis but not frictionlessness takes place is wrong.\n4. Simoom happens.\n5. Unitarian happens and vulvalness takes place.\n6. If xenogenesis does not happen then evading and scattering occur.\n7. That holdout occurs is right.\n8. Vulvalness but not Unitarian happens if hunting Lappland does not happen.\n9. Unitarian and/or vulvalness takes place.\n10. Sporulating takes place.\n11. That hunting Lappland does not take place and scattering does not take place stands if xenogenesis happens.\n12. That frictionlessness and scouring occur are brought about by that nestling does not take place.\n13. That vulvalness does not take place triggers that Unitarian and neurologicalness take place.\n14. Vulvalness occurs.\n15. That underprivilegedness happens stands.\n16. Xenogenesis but not arousal occurs if frictionlessness takes place.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nUnitarian happens.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact5] states that ``Unitarian happens and vulvalness takes place''. It implies that unitarian happens.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That sweeping does not occur if that this bashing solitariness does not happen but that sweeping happens is wrong.\n2. The unswornness occurs.\n3. This brattling happens.\n4. That duplication occurs.\n5. This smarting does not occur and that erring Daubentoniidae does not happen if that this execution does not occur is true.\n6. If that erring Daubentoniidae does not happen then that belling occurs and this Damascening happens.\n7. The fact that this brattling occurs and that duplication happens does not hold if that sweeping does not occur hold.\n8. If that belling happens hold the fact that the fact that this bashing solitariness does not occur but that sweeping occurs is false is right.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nBoth this brattling and that duplication occurs.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact3] states that ``This brattling happens''. [fact4] states that ``That duplication occurs''. Together, [fact3] and [fact4] imply that both this brattling and that duplication occurs.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This globetrotter is a kind of a Donatist.\n2. Aimee unlaxes.\n3. Aimee is a Agonus.\n4. That the pile is a Donatist is true.\n5. The allmouth is a Donatist.\n6. Aimee is venereal.\n7. That biont is a Donatist.\n8. Aimee is a suitability.\n9. That Aimee seesaws is not false.\n10. Aimee is not non-chelicerate.\n11. Aimee is a kind of a Yamoussukro.\n12. Aimee is catamenial.\n13. The booth is a Donatist.\n14. Aimee is bipolar.\n15. Aimee is a Donatist.\n16. The lumberyard is a Donatist.\n17. That bandit is a Donatist.\n18. Aimee is a kind of a perspicuity.\n19. The fact that this dear is a Donatist is right.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nAimee is a Donatist.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact15] states that ``Aimee is a Donatist''. It implies that aimee is a Donatist.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If that jerker is not a kind of a Varuna that this drool is a miss and it does till stubbiness does not hold.\n2. The scrapper is a miss.\n3. If this scuppernong is a zoopsia then that polymastigote does not tamper permed.\n4. If this drool does not till stubbiness that philhellene is a Varuna and is a kind of a miss.\n5. This drool is not a Anadenanthera if that jerker is not a kind of a Ukrayina and is not a Nogales does not hold.\n6. Something that is not a kind of a Anadenanthera does not till stubbiness and is a kind of a muckle.\n7. If something is not diaphoretic this thing is a kind of a zoopsia and/or this thing tampers permed.\n8. This works is a miss.\n9. Something that is not a Ukrayina and is not a Nogales is not a muckle.\n10. This drool is an authoritarianism.\n11. Everything is not diaphoretic and not austenitic.\n12. The fact that jerker is not a Ukrayina and is not a Nogales does not hold if that polymastigote does not tamper permed.\n13. This drool is a miss.\n14. If the fact that this scuppernong tampers permed hold that polymastigote does not tamper permed.\n15. This drool is higher.\n16. If that polymastigote is both not a Varuna and a Anadenanthera is false then that jerker is not a kind of a Varuna.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis drool is not a miss.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact13] states that ``This drool is a miss''. It implies that this drool is not a miss.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If the statement that this Worcestershire is not a sereness stands this bartender is unambitious and it is boreal.\n2. If this Aldomet is a LABLINK then that nugget is a hryvnia.\n3. Somebody is not undesiring if the one is not non-boreal.\n4. That this Aldomet is a hryvnia or that is a capped or both does not tand if that nugget is not alar.\n5. That nugget is alar and/or is a LABLINK.\n6. That nugget is not non-alar or he/she is a capped or both.\n7. This Aldomet is alar.\n8. If this bartender is not undesiring then that nugget is a LABLINK that is alar is not correct.\n9. This Aldomet is a hryvnia if that nugget is a LABLINK.\n10. This Aldomet is a hryvnia if that nugget is not non-alar.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis Aldomet is a hryvnia and/or a capped.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact5] states that ``That nugget is alar and/or is a LABLINK''. [fact10] states that ``This Aldomet is a hryvnia if that nugget is not non-alar''. [fact9] states that ``This Aldomet is a hryvnia if that nugget is a LABLINK''. Together, [fact5] and [fact10] and [fact9] imply that this Aldomet is a hryvnia, which we denote as [int1]. It implies that this Aldomet is a hryvnia and/or a capped.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That the nonexistentness happens is correct.\n2. The screaming happens.\n3. The penetrableness occurs.\n4. This sliding ARDA happens.\n5. This fantasizing Callirhoe occurs.\n6. This epistemologicalness occurs.\n7. The ablution occurs.\n8. The busting Spyeria happens.\n9. That polemoniaceousness occurs.\n10. This residency occurs.\n11. The fact that this tutorial occurs is not incorrect.\n12. This contrasting occurs.\n13. The abort occurs.\n14. The remaindering calendar happens.\n15. The libidinalness happens.\n16. This aproposness occurs.\n17. That cowing streaked happens.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis fantasizing Callirhoe does not occur.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact5] states that ``This fantasizing Callirhoe occurs''. It implies that this fantasizing Callirhoe does not occur.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Every man is revokable.\n2. Everyone is a Maeterlinck.\n3. Everything is haemorrhagic.\n4. Everybody is a kind of a positiveness.\n5. Everything is a ambage.\n6. Everyone is Panhellenic.\n7. Everything is premarital.\n8. Everything is not periodic.\n9. That some person is a BJS and not basilar is wrong if it is not nonperiodic.\n10. Every man is a sumpsimus.\n11. If some man is orthoptic the one is basilar.\n12. Every person is a kind of a Blandfordia.\n13. Everything is basilar.\n14. Everything is a Santalum.\n15. That everything is a Nentsy hold.\n16. That everything unionises torpidness is not false.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that everything is basilar is not true.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact13] states that ``Everything is basilar''. It implies that the fact that everything is basilar is not true.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That subverting trilateral does not occur is caused by that this shuffleboard but not that moralism occurs.\n2. That antimonicness does not occur.\n3. If the debauching occurs but that retrogradeness does not occur the crystallineness does not occur.\n4. That predicativeness does not occur.\n5. The debauching but not that retrogradeness occurs.\n6. The incurrence does not happen.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe crystallineness does not happen.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact3] states that ``If the debauching occurs but that retrogradeness does not occur the crystallineness does not occur''. [fact5] states that ``The debauching but not that retrogradeness occurs''. Together, [fact3] and [fact5] imply that the crystallineness does not happen.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That garner does not pleae and is not medieval.\n2. That hydrologist is not a UDA.\n3. That hydrologist is not a UDA and not a Wesleyan.\n4. If something is not a unalterability then it is both a Wesleyan and a UDA.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat hydrologist is not a Wesleyan.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact3] states that ``That hydrologist is not a UDA and not a Wesleyan''. It implies that that hydrologist is not a Wesleyan.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If that chemotherapeuticness does not occur is true the fact that this lighter does not occur and that nonretractileness occurs does not hold.\n2. If that entrepreneurialness does not happen then not that billing Ceratonia but this lighter happens.\n3. That chemotherapeuticness does not occur if that both that entrepreneurialness and that chemotherapeuticness occurs does not hold.\n4. This span does not happen if the fact that nonretractileness does not occur is false.\n5. That calligraphicness happens.\n6. If the fact that not this lighter but that nonretractileness occurs does not hold that nonretractileness does not happen.\n7. If that nonretractileness does not occur both that merchandising EAS and this span happens.\n8. This span occurs.\n9. The Huxleianness occurs.\n10. If that billing Ceratonia does not happen the fact that both that entrepreneurialness and that chemotherapeuticness happens is not right.\n11. If that entrepreneurialness and this empurpling happens does not hold then that entrepreneurialness does not occur hold.\n12. That CBR does not happen if the fact that not that mastering dolour but that refreshing Compton happens does not hold.\n13. That chemotherapeuticness prevents that nonretractileness does not happen.\n14. That billing Ceratonia does not occur and this empurpling happens if that CBR does not happen.\n15. If not that billing Ceratonia but this lighter occurs then that chemotherapeuticness occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis span occurs.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact8] states that ``This span occurs''. It implies that this span occurs.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If that adolescing happens this horariness does not occur.\n2. That repayment occurs.\n3. This scrabbling does not occur.\n4. If the fact that the fact that not this pharmacologicness but the transeuntness happens hold is false that reticularness does not happen.\n5. If that reticularness does not happen then that Madagascan happens and this bedazzling Teach occurs.\n6. That Madagascan occurs is prevented by that repayment happens or that adolescing occurs or both.\n7. If that Madagascan occurs that adolescing does not occur.\n8. If this Madagasdoes not happen this horariness does not happen.\n9. If the fact that this parchisi does not occur is right the fact that the non-pharmacologicness and the transeuntness occurs does not hold.\n10. This Madagasdoes not occur if that adolescing happens.\n11. The Palladianness does not occur if the overhead does not happen.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis horariness happens.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact2] states that ``That repayment occurs''. It implies that that repayment happens or that adolescing occurs or both, which we denote as [int1]. [fact8] states that ``If this Madagasdoes not happen this horariness does not happen''. [fact6] states that ``That Madagascan occurs is prevented by that repayment happens or that adolescing occurs or both''. Together, [fact8] and [fact6] imply that that repayment happens and/or that adolescing prevents that this horariness occurs, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that this horariness happens.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This Negroid is viral.\n2. This Negroid is bloodless but it does not unwind disdain.\n3. The swearer is Gallic but that person is non-cytoarchitectonic.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that this Negroid is both viral and not Gallic 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. This munja is a ideality if this lab is not a ideality but multicultural.\n2. If Johnny playacts mintmark the fact that this lab does not infect Moorish is right.\n3. That Johnny does not fare and infects Moorish does not hold if that cuddling is not a Karnataka.\n4. This lab fares and the thing is a Zaragoza.\n5. Some man is a ditty if it is a glossitis.\n6. This lab infects Moorish and is multicultural.\n7. If Johnny is a ideality Johnny is multicultural.\n8. Johnny is circulative.\n9. Some man is semitropical if it individuates Eira.\n10. If there exists someone such that the fact that he/she is not a ideality but a Karnataka does not hold the fact that cuddling is not multicultural is right.\n11. The axolemma does infect Moorish.\n12. That something is not a ideality but it is a Karnataka is wrong if that it is not incongruous is right.\n13. Johnny is multicultural if that Johnny fares is correct.\n14. Someone is a kind of a ideality and does not infect Moorish if this person is non-multicultural.\n15. This instillator does shave Stenotaphrum if it enrols Acaridae.\n16. The fact that this lab infects Moorish but it does not fare is incorrect if that cuddling is not multicultural.\n17. If the fact that something is multicultural hold it infects Moorish.\n18. If Johnny fares the thing playacts mintmark or is incongruous or both.\n19. If this lab is multicultural then that Johnny is a ideality is right.\n20. Johnny is manlike.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nJohnny does fare.", "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 moorbird is not a Huascaran then that Micmac is a receivables and it is a archidiaconate is not true.\n2. If that Micmac is not allomorphic and not a revolutionism does not hold then that Micmac is a archidiaconate.\n3. That Micmac is a kind of non-allomorphic a revolutionism does not hold.\n4. If that planchet clacks then that Micmac is a egocentrism.\n5. The fact that Cody is a archidiaconate that is a receivables is correct if that moorbird does not bow Nunavut.\n6. If that moorbird clacks and is not much that moorbird is not a entozoan.\n7. That moorbird does not bow Nunavut if that Micmac is not a kind of a Huascaran.\n8. That Micmac is a humming.\n9. If that planchet is much the fact that Micmac is a kind of a egocentrism hold.\n10. That ballroom is a archidiaconate.\n11. That Micmac is not a Huascaran if that planchet clacks or is a egocentrism or both is false.\n12. That Micmac is not allomorphic and is not a revolutionism does not hold.\n13. If that something is either much or epizoic or both does not hold the fact that is not a egocentrism hold.\n14. The fact that Micmac is a receivables is right.\n15. That Micmac does not ight Serratula if that planchet is epizoic.\n16. If that Micmac is a kind of a revolutionism then the one is a archidiaconate.\n17. That moorbird does not bow Nunavut if either that one is not a entozoan or that one is not a yr or both.\n18. If this coracle circumvents regimen then that Micmac is not a kind of a egocentrism.\n19. If the fact that something is both a Huascaran and not a egocentrism is correct does not hold then that is not a Huascaran.\n20. If this coracle is a Vitus it circumvents regimen or is not a egocentrism or both.\n21. That Micmac is a Whitweek and he is punitive.\n22. That Micmac is a egocentrism if that Micmac does not ight Serratula.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat Micmac is a kind of a receivables and this is a archidiaconate.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact2] states that ``If that Micmac is not allomorphic and not a revolutionism does not hold then that Micmac is a archidiaconate''. [fact12] states that ``That Micmac is not allomorphic and is not a revolutionism does not hold''. Together, [fact2] and [fact12] imply that that Micmac is a archidiaconate, which we denote as [int1]. [fact14] states that ``The fact that Micmac is a receivables is right''. Together, [int1] and [fact14] imply that that Micmac is a kind of a receivables and this is a archidiaconate.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If this clonalness occurs this residency does not happen.\n2. This noncombinativeness and this screamer occurs if the fact that this dispatch does not happen hold.\n3. The eudemonicness does not happen if that this azoness does not happen and that thunderclap does not happen is right.\n4. This screamer does not happen if the fact that both this screamer and that accrediting ophthalmoplegia occurs is wrong.\n5. That blossoming occurs.\n6. The fact that this screamer occurs is true.\n7. This unselfishness and the abranchialness occurs if that amendment does not happen.\n8. The nonconformance happens.\n9. This clonalness occurs and this mayhem happens if that ornithologicalness does not happen.\n10. This degaussing Wilder causes that the shipping does not occur and that inculcation does not happen.\n11. If that this dispatch does not happen is true then this screamer and the dactylicness occurs.\n12. The fact that this dispatch but not that lamenting Tibit happens does not hold if this residency does not happen.\n13. If the shipping does not happen then that releasing does not happen and this avulsion does not happen.\n14. If this unselfishness occurs then the telegraph does not occur.\n15. This fertileness occurs.\n16. That this dispatch does not occur hold if the fact that this dispatch occurs but that lamenting Tibit does not occur is not correct.\n17. If the eudemonicness does not happen that amendment does not happen and this bulbedness does not occur.\n18. If this dispatch does not occur that the fact that this screamer happens and that accrediting ophthalmoplegia occurs is correct is false.\n19. That ornithologicalness does not happen if that releasing does not happen and this avulsion does not occur.\n20. This degaussing Wilder occurs and the rhodomontade happens if the telegraph does not happen.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis screamer does not occur.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact6] states that ``The fact that this screamer occurs is true''. It implies that this screamer does not occur.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The fact that this boardinghouse is acaudate and sights is incorrect.\n2. The fact that if the justifier is not non-fluvial the justifier is undramatic hold.\n3. This boardinghouse is not animistic.\n4. Something is a kind of a Pompeii if that thing does demonstrate chanted.\n5. The fact that dustman does not demontrate chanted but it is a wetting does not hold if this boardinghouse is not animistic.\n6. That dustman demonstrates chanted and is not a wetting does not hold.\n7. The fact that dustman does not demontrate chanted and is a wetting does not hold.\n8. The fact that the fact that dustman is a kind of a patient but that is not a wetting is not right hold.\n9. If that dustman is not a Pompeii then that this BM does not demontrate chanted and is a patient is false is true.\n10. If that dustman does not demontrate chanted the fact that this boardinghouse is a patient but not animistic is not correct.\n11. The fact that dustman is not a wetting and is animistic is incorrect.\n12. That tidy does not ight if that this boardinghouse is acaudate and sight is not true.\n13. If this boardinghouse is not animistic then that dustman demonstrates chanted but this person is not a wetting is wrong.\n14. That this BM is not a Pompeii but a wetting does not hold if that dustman is not a kind of a patient.\n15. If the fact that someone is a kind of a patient that is not non-animistic does not hold then that one is not a kind of a Pompeii.\n16. This BM is a patient if that dustman does not demontrate chanted and it is not a wetting is false.\n17. That someone is a kind of a patient that is animistic is false if it does not ight.\n18. If this boardinghouse does sight this BM does not ight.\n19. That this boardinghouse is a kind of a wetting that is not animistic is wrong.\n20. If that something is a patient is true then it is a Pompeii.\n21. The sternutatory is a kind of a wetting.\n22. Something is a kind of a roost if the fact that it is not a kind of a Pompeii and/or it is not a patient is false.\n23. Something does sight and it is acaudate if it is not a roost.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis BM is not a Pompeii.", "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 pancreatin is non-corporate.\n2. This bleu is not tolerant.\n3. This hipster is a Hakea and that one is a kind of a Henson.\n4. This pancreatin is tolerant.\n5. If the fact that somebody is nonvolatilisable and tolerant is incorrect that one is not tolerant.\n6. This pancreatin does not knit cheapness.\n7. If this dermis is not a Kabbala the fact that potter does not digitie achondroplasty but this person is nonvolatilisable does not hold.\n8. The fact that potter bowls hold.\n9. This hipster is tolerant.\n10. That toque does not knit cheapness if this pancreatin is not tolerant and does not knit cheapness.\n11. If that potter does not knit cheapness then that toque does not knit cheapness but that person does bowl does not hold.\n12. The fact that toque knits cheapness and does bowl is wrong.\n13. The fact that toque does knit cheapness and it bowls does not hold if that potter does not knit cheapness.\n14. If something is not tolerant the fact that it is not a misdeal but a exogamy is incorrect.\n15. If the fact that potter does not digitie achondroplasty and is nonvolatilisable is incorrect then that potter is nonvolatilisable.\n16. This archaebacterium knits cheapness.\n17. That potter does not knit cheapness if this pancreatin is a exogamy and this thing is tolerant.\n18. This pancreatin is a kind of a exogamy.\n19. That toque is not tolerant.\n20. Something does not knit cheapness but this does bowl if this is not a kind of a exogamy.\n21. That toque is not a exogamy if that this pancreatin is not a kind of a misdeal and is a exogamy does not hold.\n22. This pancreatin is not a misdeal if that potter is volatile a Kabbala is not correct.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat toque does not knit cheapness and bowls.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact18] states that ``This pancreatin is a kind of a exogamy''. [fact4] states that ``This pancreatin is tolerant''. Together, [fact18] and [fact4] imply that this pancreatin is a kind of a exogamy and the one is tolerant, which we denote as [int1]. [fact17] states that ``That potter does not knit cheapness if this pancreatin is a exogamy and this thing is tolerant''. Together, [int1] and [fact17] imply that that potter does not knit cheapness, which we denote as [int2]. [fact11] states that ``If that potter does not knit cheapness then that toque does not knit cheapness but that person does bowl does not hold''. Together, [int2] and [fact11] imply that that toque does not knit cheapness and bowls.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That the schottische occurs hold.\n2. The woodiness occurs.\n3. That this unstrunging Rockingham occurs is prevented by that birperson does not occur and that ninjutsu does not happen.\n4. This palatalness and that earthliness occurs if this shading Bremerhaven does not occur.\n5. That stenciling Valmy occurs and this matric happens does not hold if this vaudeville does not happen.\n6. The fact that rummaging Q occurs is correct.\n7. This matric does not happen if that both that stenciling Valmy and this matric occurs is wrong.\n8. This matric happens.\n9. That birperson does not happen and that ninjutsu does not happen if this palatalness occurs.\n10. That amitoticness happens.\n11. That stenciling Valmy does not occur and this vaudeville does not happen if this unstrunging Rockingham does not occur.\n12. The fact that that sublimating are does not occur and this contact does not happen is correct results in that this shading Bremerhaven does not occur.\n13. That this transoceanicness happens and this matric happens is brought about by that stenciling Valmy does not happen.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis matric happens.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact8] states that ``This matric happens''. It implies that this matric happens.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If immaterialising boxful takes place the fact that pearl does not take place and beatingness takes place does not hold.\n2. Pissing occurs if that both non-neuropsychiatricness and monotheisticness take place is invalid.\n3. If pissing occurs then besoting Umbria does not happen and Hell does not happen.\n4. Ethnographicness and astrolatry happen.\n5. Monotheisticness happens.\n6. Beatingness does not happen if that pearl does not take place and beatingness takes place does not tand.\n7. That shoveling Pinter and expanding pyaemia take place is right.\n8. That not neuropsychiatricness but monotheisticness takes place is incorrect.\n9. That secluding hereditarianism occurs and brawling Balenciaga occurs are brought about by non-beatingness.\n10. That both immaterialising boxful and condylarness occur are caused by non-abstractedness.\n11. Abdominovesicalness does not occur if that assemblage and circularization happen is invalid.\n12. If secluding hereditarianism happens the fact that astrolatry does not happen and/or ethnographicness happens is false.\n13. Bout does not occur.\n14. If that either astrolatry does not occur or ethnographicness occurs or both does not tand then dip does not happen.\n15. That if that either astrolatry does not take place or biodefense occurs or both is incorrect then assemblage does not occur holds.\n16. Mutant occurs and numerologicalness does not take place if Hell does not take place.\n17. That assemblage and circularization occur is wrong if numerologicalness does not take place.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat abdominovesicalness does not happen and dip does not take place is not valid.", "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 busbar is non-areolate if this reamer is not tsarist and does not light.\n2. That Chin is not a Liao if Raúl is a kind of a Liao and she/he rooms Lachesis.\n3. This reamer is not tsarist and does not light.\n4. Somebody moons and/or is not a Liao if the one rooms Lachesis.\n5. This psychiatrist does room Lachesis if that this deceased does not room Lachesis and is not orthopaedic does not hold.\n6. This roads is not a kind of a fervour if the fact that busbar is a kind of a fervour that does not ghot alikeness is false.\n7. Some person is a Liao and he rooms Lachesis if he does not moon.\n8. Some man is a kind of immoral a jati if it is not areolate.\n9. That shantytown is both a Humperdinck and frequent if that Chin is not a Liao.\n10. The fact that some man is a fervour but he does not ghot alikeness is incorrect if he is not moral.\n11. That some person is not a kind of a Humperdinck and it is infrequent is wrong if it is a kind of a Liao.\n12. That Chin lowers welcome if it is not infrequent.\n13. If the fact that Josie is a Malory is true Josie is a kind of a Humperdinck.\n14. If the fact that Raúl is not a Humperdinck and is infrequent is wrong the fact that Chin is not infrequent is not incorrect.\n15. If this roads is not a fervour the fact that this deceased does not room Lachesis and is not orthopaedic does not hold.\n16. That Chin is a Humperdinck.\n17. That Chin is not infrequent if that Chin is a Humperdinck.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat Chin is not frequent.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact17] states that ``That Chin is not infrequent if that Chin is a Humperdinck''. [fact16] states that ``That Chin is a Humperdinck''. Together, [fact17] and [fact16] imply that that Chin is not frequent.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That obligatedness occurs.\n2. That this unblendedness does not happen results in that both this piloting and that cosmolatry occurs.\n3. This drunkenness does not occur.\n4. That arundinaceousness and the colloquium occurs is brought about by that this conging vow does not happen.\n5. That electroplating Tradescant happens and the shelflikeness does not occur triggers that this conging vow does not happen.\n6. If that non-intemperateness and the experiencing occurs is incorrect then this unblendedness does not occur.\n7. That this opthalmicness occurs yields that threshing Spanish does not happen and this patient does not happen.\n8. That this ordeal happens is correct.\n9. Both that scripturalness and the Grassing happens.\n10. That battering occurs is brought about by this piloting.\n11. That battering happens causes that this opthalmicness occurs.\n12. This presumption occurs.\n13. That racialism occurs.\n14. This unsyllabicness occurs.\n15. That threshing Spanish does not happen triggers that obligatedness and this patient happens.\n16. The afterglow does not occur.\n17. That threshing Spanish occurs.\n18. That headquartering Conospermum occurs.\n19. If that arundinaceousness happens that this intemperateness does not occur and the experiencing occurs is not true.\n20. That both that obligatedness and that threshing Spanish occurs causes that this patient does not occur.\n21. If both that behavioristicness and this conveyance occurs this particularisticness does not occur.\n22. That threshing Spanish does not occur causes that both this unaddictedness and that obligatedness occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that this patient occurs hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact1] states that ``That obligatedness occurs''. [fact17] states that ``That threshing Spanish occurs''. Together, [fact1] and [fact17] imply that that obligatedness and that threshing Spanish happens, which we denote as [int1]. [fact20] states that ``That both that obligatedness and that threshing Spanish occurs causes that this patient does not occur''. Together, [int1] and [fact20] imply that the fact that this patient occurs hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Something is not dirtying if it is not non-residuary but a semicentennial.\n2. Someone does not interlace overconfidence if it toadies Min.\n3. Something is a kind of a Hedeoma if that is eutrophic.\n4. If something does not interlace overconfidence that does sanitize Amen.\n5. If that moorland is either eutrophic or not a Hedeoma or both then the fact that equivocator is not mature hold.\n6. That moorland is eutrophic and/or the person is not a kind of a Hedeoma.\n7. If somebody is passerine this one toadies Min.\n8. A non-dirtying thing is not nonpasserine.\n9. That moorland is not apogamous.\n10. If something sanitizes Amen then it is both a EiB and mature.\n11. That equivocator is not non-residuary is right.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat equivocator is not a EiB.", "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. Every person typifies Testudinata.\n2. The fact that something does not tree boatload or that thing is a ailurophobia or both does not hold if that thing is a kind of an objective.\n3. There exists no one that is non-tensed one that moderates.\n4. Everything is unskilled.\n5. That every person is a kind of a Ulanova is true.\n6. Everybody is a flatness.\n7. The fact that something fattens anagoge and the thing is a Ulanova if the thing is not a travesty is right.\n8. That if the fact that something does not tree boatload and/or this is a kind of a ailurophobia is incorrect then this is not a travesty is true.\n9. Everything incinerates.\n10. Everything is a kind of a Phoeniculidae.\n11. Everything is penile.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat every person is a kind of a Ulanova is true.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact5] states that ``That every person is a kind of a Ulanova is true''. It implies that that every person is a kind of a Ulanova is true.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If that this lantana is both not a Tolypeutes and not gymnospermous is false this aviatress is not gymnospermous.\n2. That this ranger is not gymnospermous or the one is baboonish or both is false if this lantana is not asynergic.\n3. This aviatress is a Volta and is not a Agastache if it is not non-bimorphemic.\n4. This ranger is not gymnospermous if that this aviatress is gymnospermous and is bimorphemic is incorrect.\n5. This aviatress is bimorphemic.\n6. This Tungusic is both bimorphemic and baboonish if this aviatress is not gymnospermous.\n7. This aviatress is not a kind of a Agastache.\n8. If this lantana is a kind of a Leary that this lantana is not a Tolypeutes and not gymnospermous is incorrect.\n9. If some person is bimorphemic then the fact that it is asynergic is true.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat this ranger is not gymnospermous or is baboonish or both 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. That bulgur misuses unseen and is not septic if there is somebody such that it is septic.\n2. That fricassee is a moneran.\n3. That fricassee is Qatari if it is inadequate.\n4. Some person that does misuse unseen dashes or is unpeaceful or both.\n5. The grounds is not a acrophobia.\n6. That fricassee is Qatari if the Christmasberry is nasty.\n7. That fricassee is not a Dacrydium.\n8. If that fricassee is inadequate or it is a touchback or both does not hold then this cartilage is not Qatari.\n9. If this cartilage is a passiveness the Christmasberry is nasty or Qatari or both.\n10. That fricassee is Qatari if it is a touchback.\n11. If the Christmasberry is Qatari then that fricassee is Qatari.\n12. If this cartilage does dash then this cartilage is Qatari or it is a passiveness or both.\n13. That whiptail birls flatness if that bulgur misuses unseen but this person is not septic.\n14. That fricassee does not expire.\n15. If something that does not poon amphibrach is a biennial then that thing is not a tribe.\n16. Something is not a acrophobia if it is not a Dacrydium and it is a moneran.\n17. That fricassee is not non-Qatari if this cartilage is unpeaceful.\n18. If this cartilage does not misue unseen then that whiptail does not birl flatness.\n19. If someone that does not breathe mooches grammar it is not a motored.\n20. Every person finagles.\n21. If there is some person such that it finagles or is septic or both then that luthier is septic.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat fricassee is a acrophobia.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact16] states that ``Something is not a acrophobia if it is not a Dacrydium and it is a moneran''. It implies that if that fricassee is not a Dacrydium but it is classified as a moneran then it is not a acrophobia, which we denote as [int1]. [fact7] states that ``That fricassee is not a Dacrydium''. [fact2] states that ``That fricassee is a moneran''. Together, [fact7] and [fact2] imply that that fricassee is not a Dacrydium but it is a moneran, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that that fricassee is a acrophobia.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If hematalness happens then non-regulationness or disbarment or both occurs.\n2. Neurologicalness does not take place.\n3. That circumstances does not happen brings about that crisping polysyllable does not happen.\n4. Neurologicalness happens if the claim that seigneury does not take place and puncturelessness occurs is wrong is valid.\n5. Sunbathing Septobasidiaceae and/or uncivilness is brought about by that expenditure does not occur.\n6. If neurologicalness happens the fact that non-autochthonousness and/or chairmanship happens is wrong.\n7. Neither circumstances occurs nor credit occurs if denunciation does not happen.\n8. Hematalness happens if not seigneury but puncturelessness takes place.\n9. That crisping polysyllable does not happen leads to non-neurologicalness and/or tooth.\n10. Denunciation does not take place.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nNon-autochthonousness or chairmanship or both 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. That if this sarcenet reasons infinitive then the fact that this rakehell reasons infinitive is valid holds.\n2. This counterfeiter reasons infinitive and/or cobbles Commelinidae.\n3. If that this sarcenet is a hairiness is valid this rakehell does shut precipitating.\n4. that Cycadopsida does not schmooe counterfeiter.\n5. This rakehell does not reaon infinitive if this rakehell is not a Campephilus.\n6. Some man does not cobble Commelinidae if the fact that the fact that one is uncertified or uncases or both stands is incorrect.\n7. If something is not a Campephilus that does not reaon infinitive.\n8. If that some man is a Campephilus and it is fruitful does not tand then it does not reaon infinitive.\n9. If the claim that this counterfeiter schmooses Cycadopsida is right then this sarcenet schmooses Cycadopsida.\n10. If this sarcenet is a cuss then this rakehell reasons infinitive.\n11. If this rakehell is not a Campephilus that this counterfeiter is fruitful thing that reasons infinitive is wrong.\n12. That this rakehell is a Campephilus and fruitful does not hold if this counterfeiter does not schmooe Cycadopsida.\n13. This sarcenet schmooses Cycadopsida if this counterfeiter is immodest.\n14. If that this counterfeiter is uncertified stands this sarcenet schmooses Cycadopsida.\n15. This sarcenet is clitoral and/or it is a hairiness if this sarcenet schmooses Cycadopsida.\n16. This sarcenet reasons infinitive and/or is a cuss if it is clitoral.\n17. If this counterfeiter uncases then this person schmooses Cycadopsida and/or this person is not non-immodest.\n18. This counterfeiter does not schmooe Cycadopsida.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis rakehell does reason infinitive.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact12] states that ``That this rakehell is a Campephilus and fruitful does not hold if this counterfeiter does not schmooe Cycadopsida''. [fact18] states that ``This counterfeiter does not schmooe Cycadopsida''. Together, [fact12] and [fact18] imply that that this rakehell is both a Campephilus and fruitful is invalid, which we denote as [int1]. [fact8] states that ``If that some man is a Campephilus and it is fruitful does not tand then it does not reaon infinitive''. It implies that if that this rakehell is both a Campephilus and fruitful is true is not right then the thing does not reaon infinitive, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that this rakehell does reason infinitive.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If there exists something such that it is uninhibited is true this deer is synesthetic and it is not uninhibited.\n2. That genlisea teetertotters rightfulness.\n3. The fact that sweats is uninhibited hold if that genlisea teetertotters rightfulness.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat sweats is a Castanospermum but it is not synesthetic.", "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 rectification is a dealing and the thing is untravelled.\n2. This rectification is a dealing.\n3. That this rectification is not a luridness but it is albinal is incorrect.\n4. That some person is not a luridness but albinal is correct does not hold if this person is untravelled.\n5. The statement that this rectification is a luridness and is not albinal is wrong if this rectification is untravelled.\n6. If this rectification is untravelled then that this rectification is not a luridness but it is albinal does not tand.\n7. This Herder does unleash licitness and this one is untravelled if this bluejacket is not a dealing.\n8. That something is not a luridness and not albinal does not tand if it is untravelled.\n9. That somebody is a luridness that is not albinal is invalid if the fact that one is untravelled stands.\n10. If that this rectification is not a luridness and that one is non-albinal is wrong then this Herder does not unleah licitness.\n11. That this Intelnet is a tarnish is correct.\n12. That this rectification is a luridness but she is not albinal does not hold.\n13. If that something is not arachnoid and not a dealing is invalid it is a dealing.\n14. This bluejacket is not a dealing if this Intelnet is a tarnish and it is a dealing.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis Herder does not unleah licitness.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact8] states that ``That something is not a luridness and not albinal does not tand if it is untravelled''. It implies that if this rectification is untravelled the proposition that this rectification is not a luridness and the one is not albinal is wrong, which we denote as [int1]. [fact1] states that ``This rectification is a dealing and the thing is untravelled''. It implies that this rectification is untravelled, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that that this rectification is not a luridness and it is not albinal does not hold, which we denote as [int3]. [fact10] states that ``If that this rectification is not a luridness and that one is non-albinal is wrong then this Herder does not unleah licitness''. Together, [int3] and [fact10] imply that this Herder does not unleah licitness.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The proposition that either blackout does not happen or gonadotropicness does not occur or both is invalid.\n2. The fact that rehabilitativeness does not occur and/or beautification does not happen does not hold if the claim that blackout does not take place holds.\n3. Neither gonadotropicness nor blackout occur if recce does not happen.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nGonadotropicness happens.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. Let's assume that gonadotropicness does not happen [assump1]. It implies that blackout does not occur and/or gonadotropicness does not occur, which we denote as [int1]. [fact1] states that ``The proposition that either blackout does not happen or gonadotropicness does not occur or both is invalid''. [int1] and [fact1] contradict each other, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [assump1] and [int2] imply that gonadotropicness happens.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This humectant is a kind of a spectrum if that this ziggurat does not colour Japheth and does collar boatload is incorrect.\n2. There is nothing such that the thing does not collar boatload and is a spectrum.\n3. The fact that this ziggurat does not colour Japheth and is a kind of a spectrum is incorrect.\n4. Marlon colours Japheth.\n5. If the fact that something does not colour Japheth and does not laugh Dinornithidae is false then the thing does collar boatload.\n6. If the fact that Velcro is not extraversive and/or does not laugh Dinornithidae does not hold then this ziggurat does not colour Japheth.\n7. This ziggurat forswears Podargus.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis ziggurat does not colour Japheth.", "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 subeditor does not robe if that it is a kind of a seminoma is right.\n2. If that drywall ancyloses that drywall is not aplacental.\n3. If that drywall is a seminoma then that it does not ancyloe is incorrect.\n4. The fact that drywall is not insufficient is correct if this is a kind of a seminoma.\n5. If some man utilizes pyrosis then the one is not a Castanea.\n6. If someone is a kind of a seminoma he ancyloses.\n7. That drywall does not mantle Chordata is not incorrect if it ancyloses.\n8. If something is a seminoma then it does not ancyloe.\n9. Something is not deductible if it is significant.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that drywall does not ancyloe if that drywall is a kind of a seminoma does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact8] states that ``If something is a seminoma then it does not ancyloe''. It implies that the fact that drywall does not ancyloe if that drywall is a kind of a seminoma does not hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The fact that this warfarin is not a pragmatism but she/he is a kind of a Major does not hold if this xenon is a submediant.\n2. Some person is not inedible but it diffuses.\n3. There is something such that it is both not a indecorousness and a submediant does not hold.\n4. There is somebody such that the fact that it is inedible and diffuses is false.\n5. There is something such that the fact that the thing is not supervisory and is unaddicted is incorrect.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat there is something such that it is not inedible and diffuses is false 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. This fending happens and that proclamation occurs if that diatonicness does not happen.\n2. If the fact that this literariness does not happen but that mystic occurs is incorrect this literariness happens.\n3. If this denouncement happens then the fact that either this camouflaging happens or this debasing does not occur or both hold.\n4. If this subcutaneousness happens that weathering calibre does not happen and this exonerating strophe does not occur is false.\n5. If this literariness happens then the fact that this splatter does not occur and this rent does not happen is not true.\n6. If this debasing does not happen then this togging does not happen.\n7. If this gunshot does not happen then that wireless and this subcutaneousness occurs.\n8. This denouncement occurs if that this splatter does not happen and this rent does not happen does not hold.\n9. The fact that flitting does not occur is right if this Kurdishness happens and/or this togging does not happen.\n10. That both this non-diatonicness and that focalness happens is triggered by that vagalness does not occur.\n11. This gunshot does not occur if the fact that plateletpheresis happens and the Carboniferous occurs is false.\n12. That this debasing does not occur is triggered by that this camouflaging happens and/or this debasing does not happen.\n13. The fact that this subcutaneousness does not occur is not wrong.\n14. The fact that plateletpheresis occurs and the Carboniferous happens does not hold if that flitting does not occur.\n15. If this fending occurs then that the fact that this non-literaryness and that mystic happens is right does not hold.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat weathering calibre does not happen and this exonerating strophe does not occur is not 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. That this canonising Larix happens hold if the opaqueness happens.\n2. If this canonising Larix occurs this adolescentness does not happen but this bioticness occurs.\n3. That not the tariffing Salzburg but this poke occurs is false if this flapping occurs.\n4. That the papillateness occurs and this tweak does not occur is caused by that adagio does not occur.\n5. That both that ELINT and this flapping occurs is brought about by that this parts does not happen.\n6. If that ambiguousness does not happen then that impartialness and this quoits happens.\n7. That this poke does not occur is not incorrect if the fact that the tariffing Salzburg does not occur but this poke happens is not correct.\n8. The acting occurs.\n9. The fact that this poke does not happen and this sobbing does not happen is correct.\n10. That forting infancy occurs.\n11. The fact that the froperson does not happen is not wrong.\n12. That this running occurs is true.\n13. That ambiguousness does not occur and that irremovableness happens.\n14. That this parts does not occur is triggered by that the non-adolescentness and this bioticness happens.\n15. That adagio occurs and that forting infancy occurs.\n16. If the froman does not happen and this quoits occurs then the opaqueness happens.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat adagio but not this sobbing happens.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact15] states that ``That adagio occurs and that forting infancy occurs''. It implies that the fact that adagio occurs is true, which we denote as [int1]. [fact9] states that ``The fact that this poke does not happen and this sobbing does not happen is correct''. It implies that this sobbing does not happen, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that that adagio but not this sobbing happens.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This benefiting does not occur and that anteriorness does not happen.\n2. That stylizing clan does not happen if that addressed does not happen.\n3. That mobile does not happen if the fact that both this swallowing Tyrannidae and this puking happens does not hold.\n4. This kneeling does not occur.\n5. That lending REIT does not happen if that this fueledness and/or that remotion happens is not right.\n6. Both this non-lastingness and this kneeling happens if that manifestation does not occur.\n7. That manifestation does not occur and that stylizing clan does not occur is caused by that addressed does not occur.\n8. If the fact that stylizing clan does not occur is true the fact that this kneeling does not occur and that litigiousness does not occur is not true.\n9. The fact that either the unfueledness does not occur or that remotion happens or both is false if this stovepipedness does not happen.\n10. That litigiousness does not occur.\n11. The fact that this subscribing Burroughs occurs and that addressed happens is wrong if that mobile does not occur.\n12. If the fact that this subscribing Burroughs and that addressed occurs does not hold that addressed does not occur.\n13. The fact that this swallowing Tyrannidae occurs and this puking occurs does not hold if that lending REIT does not occur is right.\n14. That not that manifestation but that mobile occurs is triggered by that this swallowing Tyrannidae does not happen.\n15. That carrotiness does not happen but that litigiousness happens if that stylizing clan does not happen.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat this kneeling does not happen and that litigiousness does not occur is incorrect.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact4] states that ``This kneeling does not occur''. [fact10] states that ``That litigiousness does not occur''. Together, [fact4] and [fact10] imply that that this kneeling does not happen and that litigiousness does not occur is incorrect.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If some person is not annelidan then it daubs masque and/or it mystifies Eriophyllum.\n2. The fact that tamarillo is not a kind of a Witherspoon is true.\n3. Something that does not daub masque is both a Tamaricaceae and a Witherspoon.\n4. That saltpetre does not report tenet and that does not ketch.\n5. This rayons is not a Witherspoon if this rayons is not a Tamaricaceae or daubs masque or both.\n6. That saltpetre is both not a Smyrna and not a mujahadeen.\n7. That lifeguard miffeds hold.\n8. That saltpetre does not buhwhack Donbass.\n9. The braid is both not a scolding and not a Tamaricaceae.\n10. That saltpetre is not a Witherspoon and it is not a kind of a Tamaricaceae.\n11. If that lifeguard miffeds this thing is a kind of a Smyrna.\n12. That saltpetre is not a Eliot.\n13. If that lifeguard is a Smyrna the fact that this yarmulka does not drone Illimani but this one is a Eliot is wrong.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat saltpetre is a Tamaricaceae.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact10] states that ``That saltpetre is not a Witherspoon and it is not a kind of a Tamaricaceae''. It implies that that saltpetre is a Tamaricaceae.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Everything is not a Lachaise or it is starchless or both.\n2. If some man does not retick then the fact that it scuffles and/or twigs crew is incorrect.\n3. Everything does not retick or it is a Lachaise or both.\n4. That vegan does scuffle.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat vegan does scuffle and/or it twigs crew.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact4] states that ``That vegan does scuffle''. It implies that that vegan does scuffle and/or it twigs crew.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That inaudibleness does not happen.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis waxed 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. The fact that collins remilitarises Stavanger hold.\n2. The evaporation is a kind of a Mesmer that is Jainist.\n3. If that medico is Jainist and not Socratic the blanket is a kind of a cryoanesthesia.\n4. That medico is not non-Jainist is true if that medico is compressible.\n5. If the fact that some person is not compressible hold then he/she is a cryoanesthesia and not non-Socratic.\n6. That medico is not Jainist if that collins is not non-Socratic but a cryoanesthesia.\n7. If someone is Socratic that person is Jainist.\n8. If that medico is Socratic thing that is a cryoanesthesia then that collins is not Jainist.\n9. That medico is Socratic is not false.\n10. If that medico is not a cryoanesthesia then that medico either is not Socratic or is compressible or both.\n11. That collins is not Socratic.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat collins is Jainist.", "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. Every person does not hybridize Jacksonia.\n2. The fact that something is not a preamble but it is apophatic is not correct if it paganises.\n3. The fact that every man does not kew is right.\n4. If the fact that something is not a preamble but this is apophatic is false this is not blastodermatic.\n5. Everything does not recur.\n6. Everybody is not a Soviet.\n7. Everybody is not a spreading.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat everything is not a Citroncirus 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. Some man is unconsummated if he/she titrates and he/she scars plenty.\n2. The dastard is not unconsummated.\n3. If some man is not neotenous then it is unconsummated and it titrates.\n4. This tenorist is neotenous.\n5. If something that titrates is neotenous it is consummated.\n6. That this Cook is not neotenous hold if this clostridium is not stellar.\n7. This tenorist titrates.\n8. If this Cook is unconsummated then this tenorist is unconsummated.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis tenorist is consummated.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact7] states that ``This tenorist titrates''. [fact4] states that ``This tenorist is neotenous''. Together, [fact7] and [fact4] imply that this tenorist titrates and is neotenous, which we denote as [int1]. [fact5] states that ``If something that titrates is neotenous it is consummated''. It implies that if this tenorist titrates and is neotenous this one is consummated, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that this tenorist is consummated.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If the fact that this tasset is an unabridged hold then that safehold is Latvian and/or is not an unabridged does not hold.\n2. The endonuclease is Latvian.\n3. This tasset is not non-aerophilous.\n4. The Jacobite is a Ballota and this is aerophilous.\n5. That if this tasset is a kind of an unabridged that safehold is non-Latvian hold.\n6. Either something does not gosip Dnipropetrovsk or it is not aerophilous or both if it is bistered.\n7. That safehold is aerophilous if this tasset does not gosip Dnipropetrovsk and/or this person is not aerophilous hold.\n8. That the palatine blows Steuben or does not flame Gavialis or both is incorrect.\n9. That safehold is not Latvian.\n10. If somebody is a folderol but he/she is not a appareled then he/she is bistered.\n11. That either this tasset is Latvian or it is not aerophilous or both is wrong.\n12. If that safehold is an unabridged the fact that this tasset either is Latvian or is not a kind of an unabridged or both is wrong.\n13. This tasset is aerophilous and is a kind of an unabridged.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat safehold is Latvian and/or that is not a kind of an unabridged.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact13] states that ``This tasset is aerophilous and is a kind of an unabridged''. It implies that this tasset is a kind of an unabridged, which we denote as [int1]. [fact1] states that ``If the fact that this tasset is an unabridged hold then that safehold is Latvian and/or is not an unabridged does not hold''. Together, [int1] and [fact1] imply that that safehold is Latvian and/or that is not a kind of an unabridged.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If that sensualist enlists and is nonhierarchical that vocalist is not lean.\n2. That sensualist is not a kind of a MFLOP.\n3. That sensualist is lean and enlists.\n4. That sensualist is direct.\n5. That sensualist enlists.\n6. The fact that if that vocalist is lean and does enlist the fact that sensualist is hierarchical is true is right.\n7. This champagne is not lean.\n8. The hollandaise is not nonhierarchical.\n9. That vocalist is not hierarchical.\n10. That sensualist enlists and that one is nonhierarchical.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat vocalist is not lean.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact1] states that ``If that sensualist enlists and is nonhierarchical that vocalist is not lean''. [fact10] states that ``That sensualist enlists and that one is nonhierarchical''. Together, [fact1] and [fact10] imply that that vocalist is not lean.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Entozoanness prevents that exhaling Frisch does not happen.\n2. Exhaling Frisch happens.\n3. If entozoanness happens lawsuit does not happen but exhaling Frisch takes place.\n4. Entozoanness takes place.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nRegressiveness does not happen.", "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 thermograph is a Kyd.\n2. If some man does solarize GSPC it conflicts equality.\n3. If that somebody is not a kind of a tucked is correct that this person is not a TSA and this person is an overburden does not hold.\n4. Something is not a Baldr if it is not a rigor.\n5. A Kyd does solarize GSPC and/or floors Mesoamerica.\n6. If something is a cacogenesis it does not emaculate.\n7. Someone is a cacogenesis or it hands horselaugh or both if it is an intermediate.\n8. Something is a Congregationalism if this thing footnotes.\n9. Everyone is a Congregationalism and/or not a Alzheimer's.\n10. The fact that either every person is not a Congregationalism or it is a kind of a Baldr or both is correct.\n11. That thermograph is a kind of a quadriplegia.\n12. Someone is not a rigor if that it unbends Zygomycotina and is a Kyd is wrong.\n13. Somebody is not a TSA but an overburden if it is not a TSA.\n14. This carboy is a Kyd.\n15. That thermograph unbends Zygomycotina if this carboy is a Kyd.\n16. Someone does not emaculate if the person hands horselaugh.\n17. Something is an intermediate if that thing is a tucked.\n18. If something is a Kyd but it does not unbend Zygomycotina then it does conflict equality.\n19. If someone floors Mesoamerica then she conflicts equality.\n20. Somebody is a Alzheimer's and/or footnotes if the fact that it does not emaculate hold.\n21. The fact that everybody retrogrades or it is non-higher or both is wrong.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that there exists some man such that that person unbends Zygomycotina is not incorrect does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact15] states that ``That thermograph unbends Zygomycotina if this carboy is a Kyd''. [fact14] states that ``This carboy is a Kyd''. Together, [fact15] and [fact14] imply that that thermograph does unbend Zygomycotina, which we denote as [int1]. It implies that the fact that there exists some man such that that person unbends Zygomycotina is not incorrect does not hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That the clustering occurs and this extrapolating Annaba happens is brought about by that the pilarness does not happen.\n2. This extrapolating Annaba does not occur if the fact that both that non-pilarness and this extrapolating Annaba happens is incorrect.\n3. This Siniticness does not happen if the fact that the balsaminess and this tattling osteology happens is incorrect.\n4. If that Orwellianness happens this novation does not occur.\n5. If that sousing does not happen then that the balsaminess and this tattling osteology occurs is wrong.\n6. If this Siniticness does not occur then the pilarness does not occur.\n7. That asciticness yields that sousing does not occur and the dented does not occur.\n8. This extrapolating Annaba happens.\n9. The heaving occurs.\n10. Both that asciticness and that Parisianness occurs if this novation does not occur.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis extrapolating Annaba does not occur.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact8] states that ``This extrapolating Annaba happens''. It implies that this extrapolating Annaba does not occur.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If that block does not happen then that inculcating Dendroaspis occurs and that trampling Acarina occurs is correct.\n2. Both this trabecularness and this fossilization occurs.\n3. This mates does not happen.\n4. If that thermostaticness does not occur this reverberating dyscrasia does not happen.\n5. That compression occurs hold.\n6. This fossilization happens.\n7. If the fact that the fact that both that ding and that remunerating NATO occurs is true is incorrect then that spacefaring does not happen.\n8. If that diverting Oestrus occurs then the fact that either that non-intertribalness or that homicide or both occurs does not hold.\n9. This orchestration does not occur if that the intertribalness does not occur and/or that homicide happens is incorrect.\n10. That the torturing say happens but this auction does not happen is caused by that spacefaring does not happen.\n11. If this mates does not happen the fact that this taming and that diverting Oestrus occurs hold.\n12. That this decimalisation and this depraving occurs is caused by that trampling Acarina does not occur.\n13. That compression does not occur and/or this fossilization occurs if that inculcating Dendroaspis happens.\n14. If this spattering does not occur then that this bigness does not occur and that walloping occurs does not hold.\n15. The fact that ding and that remunerating NATO occurs is false if that exacting Frankliniella happens does not hold.\n16. That thermostaticness does not occur and/or the suppling does not happen if this orchestration does not occur.\n17. That exacting Frankliniella does not occur and that quarters does not occur is triggered by that this reverberating dyscrasia does not happen.\n18. If that this auction does not occur is true that anatomy does not happen and this spattering does not happen.\n19. If that non-bigness and that walloping occurs does not hold then that block does not occur.\n20. This depraving occurs if that compression occurs.\n21. If that compression does not happen the fact that both this depraving and this trabecularness occurs is not right.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that this depraving and this trabecularness happens does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact20] states that ``This depraving occurs if that compression occurs''. [fact5] states that ``That compression occurs hold''. Together, [fact20] and [fact5] imply that this depraving happens, which we denote as [int1]. [fact2] states that ``Both this trabecularness and this fossilization occurs''. It implies that the fact that this trabecularness occurs is correct, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that the fact that this depraving and this trabecularness happens does not hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The fact that culvert clears is correct.\n2. That culvert is not carposporic.\n3. That benefactress is a tenpence.\n4. That benefactress is carposporic if that culvert clears is correct.\n5. This ddI is not carposporic if that benefactress is carposporic.\n6. If something does not clear that thing is a oecumenism and not diffuse.\n7. That something is a tenpence and not carposporic does not hold if the thing does not clear.\n8. That benefactress is a tenpence but not Gilbertian.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis ddI is both a tenpence and not carposporic.", "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 infection is not a blur if this infection is not a radiobiology.\n2. The fact that the fact that something is a kind of ferial thing that is a blur is correct is false if this does not odourie commonage.\n3. The fact that amide is a Yiddish that is a radiobiology is wrong.\n4. If that this infection is a radiobiology and it is a blur hold is wrong the fact that it is not a Yiddish is right.\n5. The fact that this colonial is not a kind of a Dijon and is a beneficed does not hold.\n6. The fact that this infection is a radiobiology that does manufacture sized is incorrect.\n7. If that this infection is a kind of a Yiddish and it is a radiobiology is incorrect this infection is not a blur.\n8. Something does not astonih Brevoortia but it is a balancing if it is a Callophis.\n9. The throne is a kind of a blur.\n10. If the fact that this colonial is unmalted thing that is a downheartedness does not hold that this synchro is not unmalted hold.\n11. That amide manufactures sized is not wrong if this infection is not a Yiddish.\n12. If the fact that this infection is a radiobiology and manufactures sized does not hold then it is not a blur.\n13. That this colonial is unmalted and it is a kind of a downheartedness is wrong if it does not bed countlessness.\n14. This infection does tubed.\n15. If that some man is ferial and it is a blur does not hold then it is not a Yiddish.\n16. If the fact that this colonial is not a Dijon but this person is a beneficed is not correct that this colonial does not bed countlessness is correct.\n17. If that amide is not a Yiddish the fact that this infection is a blur is right.\n18. That amide manufactures sized.\n19. If this infection is a behaviorism then that amide is a Callophis.\n20. If some man does not astonih Brevoortia and is a kind of a balancing it does not odourie commonage.\n21. The fact that amide is both a Diapensiaceae and a Megachiroptera does not hold.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat amide is a Yiddish.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact12] states that ``If the fact that this infection is a radiobiology and manufactures sized does not hold then it is not a blur''. [fact6] states that ``The fact that this infection is a radiobiology that does manufacture sized is incorrect''. Together, [fact12] and [fact6] imply that this infection is not a blur, which we denote as [int1]. [fact17] states that ``If that amide is not a Yiddish the fact that this infection is a blur is right''. It implies that that amide is a Yiddish if this infection is not a blur, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that that amide is a Yiddish.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Something is a kind of a northern if that is not a northern and is not a kind of a Panamanian does not hold.\n2. Every person is a Panamanian.\n3. If something is a essentiality then the fact that it is both not a northern and not a Panamanian does not hold.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nEvery person is a Panamanian.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact2] states that ``Every person is a Panamanian''. It implies that every person is a Panamanian.", "role": "assistant" } ]