Datasets:

---

chiheemwong

/

fldx2_sft_nl

like 0

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. There exists nothing such that the thing is not a Vilna and not a mint.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat there exists nothing such that it is not a Ahab and does not confue podalgia 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. Everything is not a kind of a doss and it does not geture rhymed.\n2. Everything is both not a cryogenics and non-Romanian.\n3. That everything is not a nipping and does not trive indomitability hold.\n4. Everybody is both not a unpalatableness and not dualistic.\n5. Everything is not lucky.\n6. Every person is proconsular and she is not a Flemish.\n7. Everyone does not olemnize fixedness and is not haemorrhagic.\n8. Every person is not a Odobenidae and does not announce rhombus.\n9. If something is not a current then it is not a Klaproth and not an oral.\n10. Every person does not Cere Cyamus.\n11. Everything is not a paramedical and that is not compatible.\n12. Everything is not extradural and this thing is not a Mahabharata.\n13. Something is a Flemish and it is a current if it is non-proconsular.\n14. Every man does not white exodontics and is not a Dubyuh.\n15. Everything is not a Hassel.\n16. Something is not a Bromus and this is not uncastrated if this is a current.\n17. Everything is not an evergreen and it is not a subservience.\n18. Every man is not a palaeoethnography and not malapropos.\n19. Everyone do notuble.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nEverything does not excrete hex and is not a kind of a Hassel.", "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 wineberry is salvific and does not prove unbelief does not tand if this wineberry is allochthonous.\n2. This wineberry is allochthonous.\n3. If the claim that something is salvific thing that does not prove unbelief is invalid that thing intrudes.\n4. This peruke is a kind of a babbling if that this peruke intrudes and is not a primed is false.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis wineberry does not intrude.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact3] states that ``If the claim that something is salvific thing that does not prove unbelief is invalid that thing intrudes''. It implies that this wineberry intrudes if that this wineberry is salvific man that does not prove unbelief holds is false, which we denote as [int1]. [fact1] states that ``That this wineberry is salvific and does not prove unbelief does not tand if this wineberry is allochthonous''. [fact2] states that ``This wineberry is allochthonous''. Together, [fact1] and [fact2] imply that the proposition that this wineberry is salvific person that does not prove unbelief is incorrect, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that this wineberry does not intrude.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Familialness occurs if that neither familialness nor masse occur is false.\n2. The fact that either jiggling BJA or devitalisation or both happens is false if that spaying Dacrydium takes place does not tand.\n3. If rubbering Viborg does not happen the proposition that neither familialness takes place nor masse happens does not tand.\n4. If that citrousness does not happen holds then rubbering Viborg does not take place and masse occurs.\n5. Rubbering Viborg does not happen if not citrousness but deracinating Iseult happens.\n6. That spaying Dacrydium takes place and devitalisation does not occur are caused by familialness.\n7. Spaying Dacrydium does not happen and familialness occurs if rubbering Viborg does not take place.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat jiggling BJA happens and/or devitalisation takes place does not tand.", "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 scenery is not a bravery but a pascal is incorrect this microevolution is analogous.\n2. If something is ethnographical but it is not a mujahedin the fact that it is not Ibsenian is correct.\n3. If something is not awful it is valuable a pascal.\n4. Somebody is not awful but a Ceratophyllaceae if it does not infect Augustus.\n5. This broom is a Pusey.\n6. This microevolution is not a pascal.\n7. This microevolution is ethnographical but that is not a kind of a mujahedin if this magnetograph is not altruistic.\n8. If this broom is a kind of a Pusey then the fact that this broom does not forbear boredom and he/she is not scotomatous does not hold.\n9. If the fact that this microevolution is not a bravery but it is a Cyphomandra does not hold this scenery is analogous.\n10. This microevolution alibis grudge.\n11. Something is not altruistic if it melodizes and is a northern.\n12. If this microevolution is not a pascal that this person is a bravery and this person is a Cyphomandra is right is not correct.\n13. That baulker is insecure if the fact that this broom does not forbear boredom and is not scotomatous is wrong.\n14. That this magnetograph procuresses powdered but it is non-tympanitic is incorrect if this magnetograph is not ponderable.\n15. If that this scenery is not a pascal but she is a kind of a Cyphomandra is not right this microevolution is analogous.\n16. Some person is a kind of a Cyphomandra and that one is a pascal if that one is non-analogous.\n17. If something is not Ibsenian then the fact that the thing is a kind of a provincialism and the thing is not cool does not hold.\n18. This magnetograph is a northern if that it procuresses powdered and it is not tympanitic does not hold.\n19. That this scenery does not infect Augustus hold if that this microevolution is both a provincialism and not cool is not true.\n20. If that baulker is not secure this magnetograph melodizes.\n21. This scenery is analogous if this microevolution is a bravery.\n22. If some person is a kind of valuable person that is a pascal then it is not analogous.\n23. The fact that this microevolution is not a bravery and is a Cyphomandra is wrong if this microevolution is not a pascal.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis scenery is not analogous.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact23] states that ``The fact that this microevolution is not a bravery and is a Cyphomandra is wrong if this microevolution is not a pascal''. [fact6] states that ``This microevolution is not a pascal''. Together, [fact23] and [fact6] imply that that this microevolution is not a bravery but a Cyphomandra does not hold, which we denote as [int1]. [fact9] states that ``If the fact that this microevolution is not a bravery but it is a Cyphomandra does not hold this scenery is analogous''. Together, [int1] and [fact9] imply that this scenery is not analogous.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If some person is not a afterpains then it is a kind of timbered person that does encapsulate Eb.\n2. If there exists some person such that it is a afterpains then that monocarp is untimbered and encapsulates Eb is incorrect.\n3. That monocarp is not untimbered but it encapsulates Eb does not hold if there exists some man such that it is a afterpains.\n4. If the fact that some man does damage copiousness and is a afterpains is false then that one is not a afterpains.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat monocarp is not untimbered but it encapsulates Eb.", "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 something is not a literalism and not a Jabalpur is false if it does not irrigate Mammut.\n2. That this taskmistress is not a Jabalpur hold.\n3. This taskmistress is not a literalism and that is not a Jabalpur if something does not irrigate Mammut.\n4. There is some person such that it is not a Jabalpur.\n5. There exists something such that it is a Jabalpur.\n6. Something is infinite.\n7. This taskmistress is not a kind of a Jabalpur if there exists something such that it does not irrigate Mammut.\n8. This taskmistress is not sugarless and that one does not oppoe.\n9. There is some man such that it is a literalism.\n10. There is something such that this thing is laryngopharyngeal.\n11. If there is some man such that she/he is not a Jabalpur the sallet does not dethaw and is not a kind of a singular.\n12. There is something such that it is pardonable.\n13. The beekeeper is not a precipitancy and not a Capra.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that this taskmistress is both not a literalism and not a Jabalpur 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. Easterly does not occur if coursing and slapshot happen.\n2. Slapshot does not take place and coursing does not take place if that particulateness does not happen holds.\n3. Muckraking triggers easterly.\n4. The claim that particulateness takes place stands if that not particulateness but gore occurs does not hold.\n5. Muckraking prevents that slapshot does not happen.\n6. Non-Hellenisticalness and slapshot take place if coursing does not happen.\n7. Particulateness takes place.\n8. If diabaticness does not happen nonparticulateness and gore occur.\n9. Particulateness happens and coursing happens.\n10. Hellenisticalness triggers that slapshot occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nEasterly does not occur.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If that feelingsing does not happen and that delving interoception does not happen is not correct this Arminianness does not happen.\n2. If that feelingsing happens then the fact that delving interoception does not occur and this harlequinade happens is incorrect.\n3. The fact that not that downtick but this dekko happens does not hold if that feelingsing does not occur.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat not that delving interoception but this harlequinade happens is not true.", "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 systematization happens hold.\n2. If this widenessing Uralic happens then that ablateding happens.\n3. Both that systematization and the atonalness happens if that binucleateness does not occur.\n4. The Nipping does not happen if this vitiating happens.\n5. Both that procural and the non-binucleateness occurs if that ablateding happens.\n6. That this widenessing Uralic happens and the stratus occurs is triggered by that the Nipping does not occur.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that systematization does not occur is true.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact1] states that ``That systematization happens hold''. It implies that the fact that systematization does not occur is true.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. There exists nobody that is both a Rumohra and not a Fabaceae.\n2. There exists no person such that the one is sisterly and is a ezed.\n3. A non-Western person is both not a Rumohra and packable.\n4. A Fabaceae is not packable.\n5. Some man is not alphabetical if the fact that it is a dracunculiasis and it is not a evangelicalism does not hold.\n6. If the fact that this stibnite is bodily but it does not execute is not right then it is not packable.\n7. That medic is not a kind of a Rumohra.\n8. There is nothing that is a kind of a Petteria that does not execute.\n9. If the fact that this robe is not non-iodinated and does not ew is false it does not deperonalize Aceraceae.\n10. The fact that this robe is a Rumohra and it is a kind of a Fabaceae is true is false.\n11. This robe is not packable if it is a Fabaceae.\n12. If that this robe is both mediate and not a stableness is incorrect this robe is non-packable.\n13. If that the capital is packable and does not rhyme Kline does not hold the capital does not ynchronize bach.\n14. There exists no man such that it is a charter and is non-sportive.\n15. Something is not exogamic if that it fosters and it is not a rooting does not hold.\n16. The capital is not packable.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis robe is not non-packable.", "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. Somebody that does wither is unprovoking one that is not a Mitra.\n2. That this emirate is non-founding holds if the one does wither and/or is a stretchability.\n3. This emirate is a stretchability.\n4. Something that is decisive is both founding and not a stretchability.\n5. This emirate is unprovoking.\n6. This carotene is not a stretchability.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat this emirate is unprovoking but not founding does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact3] states that ``This emirate is a stretchability''. It implies that either this emirate withers or it is a stretchability or both, which we denote as [int1]. [fact2] states that ``That this emirate is non-founding holds if the one does wither and/or is a stretchability''. Together, [int1] and [fact2] imply that this emirate is not founding, which we denote as [int2]. [fact5] states that ``This emirate is unprovoking''. Together, [int2] and [fact5] imply that that this emirate is unprovoking but not founding does not hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That carrotiness does not occur is prevented by this virileness.\n2. That this interjecting does not occur triggers that both this penalty and that sipping Ephestia occurs.\n3. If the fact that carrotiness happens hold then both that inconsolableness and that non-barometricness happens.\n4. The fact that both that non-consolableness and that non-barometricness happens hold yields that this interjecting does not occur.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat sipping Ephestia occurs.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If this OR posits signifier that gable does posits signifier.\n2. All deconstructionist things are not basilar.\n3. That every man is both not a Shebat and not non-tannic holds.\n4. Either somebody is basilar or this person is a backhand or both if this person is deconstructionist.\n5. The fact that some man is not a Shebat but it is tannic is invalid if it is nonarboreal.\n6. That lager is incautious if a non-nonarboreal thing is incautious.\n7. That gable posits signifier if this OR is a Bitis.\n8. This OR does not wend.\n9. If that bag reconverts is not wrong then this OR is not a psychobabble.\n10. This OR does not wend and is incautious.\n11. Something is not a Cork if that it is a backhand is true.\n12. This OR is not a psychobabble if that bag is a psychobabble.\n13. If this OR is not a psychobabble then the underfur does not urf Susa.\n14. This OR is deconstructionist if it does not wend and is incautious.\n15. This blastocyst is deconstructionist.\n16. If something is not incautious then it does not enclothe.\n17. If the underfur does not urf Susa then this OR is not incautious but she is a Goniopteris.\n18. If that gable posits signifier either that bag reconverts or it is a psychobabble or both.\n19. That somebody is nonarboreal and not a Goniopteris is not right if this one is deconstructionist.\n20. If this OR does wend and is incautious then this OR is deconstructionist.\n21. That some person is not incautious but it is a Goniopteris is wrong if it is not a Cork.\n22. Something posits signifier and/or is a Bitis if it does not enclothe.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis OR is not deconstructionist.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact14] states that ``This OR is deconstructionist if it does not wend and is incautious''. [fact10] states that ``This OR does not wend and is incautious''. Together, [fact14] and [fact10] imply that this OR is not deconstructionist.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Gina is a prototype.\n2. The singultus is a kind of a Kuwaiti.\n3. That cyclostyle is sarcolemnous.\n4. That princewood is a kind of a prototype.\n5. The fact that Gina is a Kuwaiti and non-ameban is not correct if that princewood is not a prototype.\n6. If that something is not a Kuwaiti and it is not sarcolemnous is wrong then it is a Kuwaiti.\n7. This humankind is a green and annoys Vulpecula.\n8. If that princewood is a kind of a proficiency that this one is both not sarcolemnous and not a Karakoram is false.\n9. That swaggie is a kind of a full if that swaggie diffuses hold.\n10. That princewood is unmerciful.\n11. If Gina is a rouge it is percutaneous.\n12. Something is percutaneous if the fact that it is both not geodetic and not epidemic is incorrect.\n13. Gina is non-ameban.\n14. If the fact that Gina is not ameban hold then the fact that princewood is not a Kuwaiti and not sarcolemnous does not hold.\n15. That Gina is a kind of uninjured thing that surroundingses monetarism does not hold if Gina does not color.\n16. The fact that botanical is a Kuwaiti is correct.\n17. If something does not surrounding monetarism the fact that it is sarcolemnous and it is not ameban does not hold.\n18. The Blackburn is inoffensive but it is not a kind of a pentatone.\n19. If that princewood is a kind of a unwariness that princewood is epidemic.\n20. The fact that some person is percutaneous and is a Kuwaiti is incorrect if that one is not a kind of a prototype.\n21. If the Blackburn is both inoffensive and not a pentatone then Gina does not color.\n22. The fact that princewood is not holophytic and it is not epidemic does not hold.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat princewood is percutaneous and that is a Kuwaiti is not true.", "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 genesis occurs the physiatrics happens.\n2. That this secreting Thames does not happen triggers that both that ruckling excellence and this crooning jackpot happens.\n3. That blurring triggers either that intensifying quadrantanopia does not happen or that this containment does not happen or both.\n4. This expending rethink or that outrunning Bucuresti or both happens.\n5. If that appalling does not happen then that glimmering happens.\n6. That epiphany does not happen and the spacing Gavialis occurs if that outrunning Bucuresti occurs.\n7. That this provencalness does not happen hold.\n8. This Skinnerian does not occur if the fact that this secondary does not happen and/or this crooning jackpot occurs is wrong.\n9. That ruckling excellence does not happen if either this Skinnerian or this secondary or both occurs.\n10. That this miscarriage occurs is prevented by that either that intensifying quadrantanopia does not occur or this containment does not happen or both.\n11. This anointing Onobrychis results in this reversal.\n12. The phreaticness occurs.\n13. This Skinnerian happens if that appalling occurs.\n14. That ruckling excellence is prevented by that this secondary occurs.\n15. That appalling does not happen if this secondary but not this Skinnerian occurs.\n16. That if this reversal happens not that naming ketoacidosis but that tetanicness occurs is correct.\n17. That patriarchalness happens leads to this deferment.\n18. That splitsville happens.\n19. That burnish is triggered by that not that naming ketoacidosis but that tetanicness occurs.\n20. Not this secreting Thames but this homologising happens if this miscarriage does not occur.\n21. That appalling happens.\n22. That epiphany does not happen triggers that both this anointing Onobrychis and this Bayesianness happens.\n23. That burnish happens triggers that blurring.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that ruckling excellence does not occur is true.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact13] states that ``This Skinnerian happens if that appalling occurs''. [fact21] states that ``That appalling happens''. Together, [fact13] and [fact21] imply that that this Skinnerian happens is correct, which we denote as [int1]. It implies that either this Skinnerian happens or this secondary happens or both, which we denote as [int2]. [fact9] states that ``That ruckling excellence does not happen if either this Skinnerian or this secondary or both occurs''. Together, [int2] and [fact9] imply that the fact that ruckling excellence does not occur is true.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This saviour does not deputize Christchurch.\n2. Something is not typographic if it does not deputize Christchurch.\n3. The fact that this saviour is a Rumansh that does not flavoring does not hold if that cannon is not developmental.\n4. If that cannon deputizes Christchurch that telpher is developmental.\n5. That binoculars is most and it does deputize Christchurch.\n6. That this saviour is a Rumansh but it does not flavoring is false.\n7. this Christchurch deputizes cannon.\n8. The fact that cannon is a Rumansh but she does not deputize Christchurch does not hold if this saviour is not developmental.\n9. That this saviour manufactures anomie and does not flavoring does not hold.\n10. That cannon is awake.\n11. That mavin is an arresting and developmental.\n12. Something is a Rumansh if it is not non-awake.\n13. This polemonium deputizes Christchurch.\n14. That cannon conceptualises.\n15. That this saviour is not a Rumansh and flavorings is false.\n16. If that cannon is not developmental then the fact that this saviour is not a Rumansh and flavorings does not hold.\n17. The scupper is developmental.\n18. If some person that is awake does deputize Christchurch it is not developmental.\n19. That cannon deputizes Christchurch.\n20. That cannon does flavoring.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that this saviour is not a Rumansh and does not flavoring is false.", "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 if the fact that that aquiferousness does not happen and this Texan does not occur is incorrect is not incorrect this Texan occurs is right.\n2. The synapticness happens.\n3. That surficialness or this apomicticalness or both happens.\n4. That radiotherapy occurs or the uranalysis occurs or both.\n5. That this yapping E.S.P. happens prevents that the leadership does not occur.\n6. This Blackness happens if that aquiferousness happens.\n7. That the degrading episcleritis does not occur is prevented by that the primateship occurs.\n8. That both that non-Blackness and that non-unnoticedness happens brings about that morning does not occur.\n9. If that unfortunate happens the fact that the guessing Hoffmann occurs is right.\n10. The admittance happens.\n11. If that morning happens then this Blackness occurs.\n12. The ruggedness triggers that nonstop.\n13. This conservancy happens and/or this aneroidness happens.\n14. If the fact that morning does not occur is correct then the fact that aquiferousness does not occur and this Texan does not occur does not hold.\n15. That ripening XC occurs if this predictableness occurs.\n16. Either that morning occurs or that aquiferousness happens or both.\n17. The changing Byblos happens if this falling Physostigma happens.\n18. That this Blackness does not happen and that unnoticedness does not happen is caused by that this overfeeding happens.\n19. That morning does not happen and this Blackness does not happen if that aquiferousness occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis Blackness does not happen.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact16] states that ``Either that morning occurs or that aquiferousness happens or both''. [fact11] states that ``If that morning happens then this Blackness occurs''. [fact6] states that ``This Blackness happens if that aquiferousness happens''. Together, [fact16] and [fact11] and [fact6] imply that this Blackness does not happen.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This synthetic leans.\n2. Yajaira is pecuniary.\n3. That sandblaster is uxorial if the fact that one leans is right.\n4. That sandblaster leans.\n5. Something capitalizes bursitis if this thing is uxorial.\n6. This synthetic does not lean if that sandblaster is undescended.\n7. Yajaira is not undescended.\n8. This synthetic does not flicker thanatophobia and is not non-undescended if Yajaira is pecuniary.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat sandblaster is not a Viverridae but that person capitalizes bursitis is false.", "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 person that does not annul franchise is not a kind of a stinging and/or is not a kind of a Lichtenstein.\n2. If that counterwoman is a Tarsioidea that does not criticize then Norman is not a Tarsioidea.\n3. The fact that if something is not a stinging and/or it is not a kind of a Lichtenstein it is not axiological is right.\n4. Fidel is not a kind of a Manda and does not fear Cotingidae.\n5. Some man is a Tarsioidea that does not criticize if this one is non-axiological.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that Fidel is not a Manda and it does not fear Cotingidae is false.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact4] states that ``Fidel is not a kind of a Manda and does not fear Cotingidae''. It implies that the fact that Fidel is not a Manda and it does not fear Cotingidae is false.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That immortalness does not happen if that narration does not occur but that rappeling happens.\n2. If the fact that both that narration and this deigning occurs is not correct the fact that narration does not happen is true.\n3. That rappeling happens and that tumult happens.\n4. That rappeling happens.\n5. If that narration does not happen both that obligatoriness and that immortalness happens.\n6. That narration occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat immortalness 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. This chinaberry is a kind of a twaddle.\n2. If a non-perfected one does dream ill then it is a acaridiasis.\n3. Becca does not branch sextet if that Ceftin is not octal.\n4. This chinaberry is not a twaddle if the fact that that Ceftin is not non-Carolean and/or that is not octal is incorrect is right.\n5. That Ceftin is not a speechlessness.\n6. This chinaberry is meritocratic if the fact that either that Ceftin is a kind of a mammalian or that is not meritocratic or both hold is wrong.\n7. If some person is meritocratic then the fact that it is not perfected and it dreams ill is true.\n8. Some person is a acaridiasis if she dreams ill.\n9. That something is not octal and does not branch sextet does not hold if the thing is a acaridiasis.\n10. That Becca is not octal and the thing does not branch sextet hold if that Ceftin is octal.\n11. That Becca is non-octal and this person does not branch sextet is not incorrect is false if that this chinaberry is a kind of a acaridiasis is not false.\n12. That this chinaberry is Carolean or this is not a twaddle or both is wrong.\n13. If the fact that this chinaberry is Carolean or it is not a twaddle or both does not hold then that Ceftin is not octal.\n14. Becca does not branch sextet.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nBecca is a kind of non-octal thing that does not branch sextet.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact13] states that ``If the fact that this chinaberry is Carolean or it is not a twaddle or both does not hold then that Ceftin is not octal''. [fact12] states that ``That this chinaberry is Carolean or this is not a twaddle or both is wrong''. Together, [fact13] and [fact12] imply that that Ceftin is non-octal, which we denote as [int1]. [fact10] states that ``That Becca is not octal and the thing does not branch sextet hold if that Ceftin is octal''. Together, [int1] and [fact10] imply that becca is a kind of non-octal thing that does not branch sextet.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If that baneberry is not a sway or grapelike or both this one is not a Algonquin.\n2. If some person is not a Crocodylidae and/or ships Tyto then this person is not bibliothecal.\n3. That baneberry is not a kind of a pinioned if that thing is not malign or that thing is a kind of a Algonquin or both.\n4. There is somebody such that if she/he is a sway and/or she/he is grapelike she/he is not a Algonquin.\n5. If that plastique does not threaten wideness and/or it is a sway the fact that it is not a Lemnos hold.\n6. If that baneberry is not a sway is right then the fact that is not a kind of a Algonquin is true.\n7. There is something such that if that is not a Collocalia that is not a Haemoproteus.\n8. That hurdle is not a Antarctica is correct if that hurdle is not a sway or specializes fairytale or both.\n9. There exists something such that if it either is not a sway or is grapelike or both it is a Algonquin.\n10. If that baneberry does not ic ligne or it votes blocked or both then that baneberry is non-grapelike.\n11. If either that baneberry is not leptosporangiate or it is a sway or both then that baneberry is a legerity.\n12. There is somebody such that if that this one is schismatical and/or a Meyerbeer is correct the fact that this one does not marble Bihari is correct.\n13. If that this witch is not unselfish and/or this thing is a Houttuynia hold then this witch is not a Redding.\n14. If that crap is not a kind of a resort or the person is a kind of a Colombo or both then the person does not threaten wideness.\n15. There exists some man such that if he/she is a Rubiaceae or is a Haemoproteus or both then he/she is not a Hibbertia.\n16. There exists something such that if it is not a sway then it is not a Algonquin.\n17. If that baneberry is not a mosaicism and/or it is interplanetary then it is not a sway.\n18. There exists some person such that if it is grapelike then it is not a Algonquin.\n19. If that baneberry is not a sway and/or is grapelike that baneberry is a Algonquin.\n20. There is something such that if that thing is not a kind of an infancy or that thing reprises cruelness or both then the fact that thing slenderizes Kamarupan hold.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat there exists some man such that if that person is not a sway and/or that person is grapelike then that person is not a Algonquin does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact1] states that ``If that baneberry is not a sway or grapelike or both this one is not a Algonquin''. It implies that that there exists some man such that if that person is not a sway and/or that person is grapelike then that person is not a Algonquin does not hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That counterpart is not a shouldered if Raquel is not aortic and not non-macaronic.\n2. If something is not a kind of a shouldered then that it is both a Guiana and autosomal is incorrect.\n3. Raquel does not poture coprolalia if the fact that the fact that nanna does not poture coprolalia but it is angiomatous does not hold is true.\n4. That filet is non-positionable.\n5. Some person is a shouldered if the one is not non-bacteriophagous.\n6. If something is not a kind of a hypochondriasis the fact that it does not poture coprolalia and is angiomatous is not correct.\n7. Raquel does posture coprolalia if Raquel is a hypochondriasis.\n8. That nanna is gaseous.\n9. That Raquel is aortic but it is not a Guiana is wrong if it is non-autosomal.\n10. Something is a Guiana and is not autosomal if it is not aortic.\n11. If Raquel is not a Boston that Raquel is a kind of a dearness but this is not a Guiana is false.\n12. Someone is not a hypochondriasis if it is gaseous.\n13. A angiomatous man that does not pend overemphasis is a kind of a hypochondriasis.\n14. Raquel is macaronic.\n15. If that filet is not positionable that filet is bacteriophagous and does not compart season.\n16. If that there is someone such that he is bacteriophagous is right that asparagus spends overemphasis or he is bacteriophagous or both.\n17. If something is not autosomal then the thing is a kind of a shouldered and/or the thing is not non-aortic.\n18. If Raquel does not poture coprolalia but this person is bacteriophagous then that counterpart is bacteriophagous.\n19. The fact that someone is non-macaronic but not non-aortic does not hold if she/he is a kind of a shouldered.\n20. If some man postures coprolalia then it is not bacteriophagous but a Guiana.\n21. If something is both not bacteriophagous and a Guiana then that thing is not autosomal.\n22. If that asparagus spends overemphasis then Raquel is bacteriophagous.\n23. That somebody is a Guiana but it is not autosomal is wrong if that it is not a shouldered hold.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat counterpart is a Guiana and not autosomal.", "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 there is something such that it is Moorish this swift exists and it is schismatical.\n2. The whitlavia is schismatical.\n3. Something does not recognize scented if it is Eritrean and is not an international.\n4. If there exists something such that the thing is a qualm then that carangid is Moorish and the thing is corporeal.\n5. Something is not missional if the fact that it is missional and does not cloe is wrong.\n6. If there is some person such that the fact that it does unfit is correct that medfly is not a misused and it is not a enthrallment.\n7. Something is oracular if this is a neuritis.\n8. That carangid does exist.\n9. Some person that is a kind of Moorish person that exists is not an international.\n10. Something does not recognize scented if that thing is not an international.\n11. The fact that that carangid is not a ICC and the person is not a qualm hold is not right if that educationalist is Eritrean.\n12. That medfly is a kind of a neuritis if that medfly is not a misused and not a enthrallment.\n13. Somebody is Moorish and it does exist if it is not corporeal.\n14. Some person is both Eritrean and not an international if it is not missional.\n15. A oracular thing is a Cebuella.\n16. If that carangid exists then it is schismatical.\n17. There is something such that it unfits.\n18. If that medfly is a Cebuella the fact that foulard is missional but it does not cloe is false.\n19. Someone is a kind of a qualm if the fact that either that one wheedles vermilion or that one is not a ICC or both does not hold.\n20. Something does not wheedle vermilion if that it does not recognize scented hold.\n21. Some man is not corporeal if that one is not a kind of a ICC and that one is not a qualm does not hold.\n22. The fact that educationalist wheedles vermilion or is not a kind of a ICC or both is false if that foulard does not recognize scented.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat carangid is schismatical.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact16] states that ``If that carangid exists then it is schismatical''. [fact8] states that ``That carangid does exist''. Together, [fact16] and [fact8] imply that that carangid is schismatical.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That this typographicness and the mecopterousness happens does not hold.\n2. If the fact that marriage does not happen hold then the Vietnameseness does not occur.\n3. This multimedia does not happen.\n4. If this rationalising Desmodus occurs then that both this non-Vietnameseness and this multimedia occurs does not hold.\n5. If that this insectanness and that permission occurs does not hold then that recovering Haematobia does not happen.\n6. The constraining gilded does not occur.\n7. If the Vietnameseness does not occur that homozygousness occurs.\n8. The fact that both the disengagement and this sentientness happens is incorrect.\n9. The Vietnameseness does not occur if the fact that lienalness occurs and that marriage occurs is false.\n10. If the fact that this multimedia does not happen hold then that both that lienalness and that marriage occurs is incorrect.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat homozygousness happens.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact10] states that ``If the fact that this multimedia does not happen hold then that both that lienalness and that marriage occurs is incorrect''. [fact3] states that ``This multimedia does not happen''. Together, [fact10] and [fact3] imply that that lienalness and that marriage occurs is false, which we denote as [int1]. [fact9] states that ``The Vietnameseness does not occur if the fact that lienalness occurs and that marriage occurs is false''. Together, [int1] and [fact9] imply that the Vietnameseness does not occur, which we denote as [int2]. [fact7] states that ``If the Vietnameseness does not occur that homozygousness occurs''. Together, [int2] and [fact7] imply that that homozygousness happens.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The fact that this bandelette is both a peradventure and not a brocaded is false if this bandelette is a pore.\n2. That this bandelette is adventuristic but he is not a alopecia does not hold if he does undeceive Cavendish.\n3. The fact that this bandelette does not undeceive Cavendish and does not revive Kichaga does not hold if that this bandelette is a brocaded is correct.\n4. The fact that the laird is not a Scholasticism and the person does not proelytize Roridulaceae is incorrect if the person is a brocaded.\n5. This bandelette is a brocaded.\n6. That the fact that Jack is a kind of a Culicidae and does not undeceive Cavendish is true does not hold if Jack shrinks Livistona.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that there exists something such that that thing does not undeceive Cavendish and that thing does not revive Kichaga is incorrect does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact3] states that ``The fact that this bandelette does not undeceive Cavendish and does not revive Kichaga does not hold if that this bandelette is a brocaded is correct''. [fact5] states that ``This bandelette is a brocaded''. Together, [fact3] and [fact5] imply that that this bandelette does not undeceive Cavendish and she does not revive Kichaga is wrong, which we denote as [int1]. It implies that the fact that there exists something such that that thing does not undeceive Cavendish and that thing does not revive Kichaga is incorrect does not hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If that aether happens that cleaning does not happen and that unfixedness does not happen.\n2. If that refloating doctrine does not happen then that this citing Mohria occurs is right.\n3. That refloating doctrine does not occur.\n4. The fact that this reactance does not occur hold if that unbarring diplomacy and this postdiluvian occurs.\n5. The anathemizing does not occur.\n6. If that scaring liturgiology does not occur not that replication but that reverseness happens.\n7. The hydrophobicness does not happen.\n8. This enucleation does not happen.\n9. That rejecting Pastinaca and this postdiluvian happens if that Arabicness does not happen.\n10. If this house does not happen but this citing Mohria happens then that amalgamativeness occurs.\n11. That this house does not happen but this citing Mohria happens is brought about by that refloating doctrine does not happen.\n12. If the fact that both that attracting grumpiness and that non-compoundness happens is false then that aether occurs.\n13. That unbarring diplomacy happens if this swelling Neosho occurs.\n14. The fact that attracting grumpiness occurs and that compoundness does not occur is incorrect if this reactance does not happen.\n15. This exam does not happen if that cleaning does not occur.\n16. This citing Mohria happens.\n17. That both this swelling Neosho and the airstream occurs is triggered by that this enucleation does not occur.\n18. That this exam does not occur triggers that refloating doctrine occurs and that amalgamativeness does not happen.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat amalgamativeness occurs.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact11] states that ``That this house does not happen but this citing Mohria happens is brought about by that refloating doctrine does not happen''. [fact3] states that ``That refloating doctrine does not occur''. Together, [fact11] and [fact3] imply that this house does not happen but this citing Mohria occurs, which we denote as [int1]. [fact10] states that ``If this house does not happen but this citing Mohria happens then that amalgamativeness occurs''. Together, [int1] and [fact10] imply that that amalgamativeness occurs.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Everything is a Kwa.\n2. Everyone is pneumococcal.\n3. If something is not a western then it is a Dagan.\n4. If something is not ethnographic then it tints Crius and it is not non-Hitlerian.\n5. Everything flows.\n6. Something is leonine if that is ethnographic.\n7. Something is ethnographic if that thing is Uzbekistani.\n8. The fact that some person is Hitlerian and does not tint Crius does not hold if it is leonine.\n9. If something situates Heterodon then it is ethnographic.\n10. There exists nothing that is not a Dagan and is ethnographic.\n11. Someone is effectual if she is a western.\n12. Either every person is not a kind of a Dagan or this person breaks forgetfulness or both.\n13. If someone is valetudinarian then it is Uzbekistani.\n14. If something is not non-effectual then that thing is Hitlerian and does not tint Crius.\n15. That everything is incombustible hold.\n16. Everything does appall.\n17. Every man is Hitlerian.\n18. If something is a Kwa then this thing situates Heterodon and/or is valetudinarian.\n19. Everything is aurorean.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat everyone is Hitlerian is wrong.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact17] states that ``Every man is Hitlerian''. It implies that that everyone is Hitlerian is wrong.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That this Monitoring codon occurs and this regressing does not occur causes this Marring sixteenth.\n2. That amebicness happens and the Stoning happens if that this rollover does not happen hold.\n3. This rollover does not occur.\n4. This quavering otitis does not happen.\n5. That this quavering otitis does not occur yields that this Monitoring codon happens and this regressing does not occur.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat this Marring sixteenth and that amebicness happens is false.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact5] states that ``That this quavering otitis does not occur yields that this Monitoring codon happens and this regressing does not occur''. [fact4] states that ``This quavering otitis does not happen''. Together, [fact5] and [fact4] imply that this Monitoring codon but not this regressing happens, which we denote as [int1]. [fact1] states that ``That this Monitoring codon occurs and this regressing does not occur causes this Marring sixteenth''. Together, [int1] and [fact1] imply that this Marring sixteenth happens, which we denote as [int2]. [fact3] states that ``This rollover does not occur''. [fact2] states that ``That amebicness happens and the Stoning happens if that this rollover does not happen hold''. Together, [fact3] and [fact2] imply that that amebicness occurs and the Stoning occurs, which we denote as [int3]. It implies that that amebicness happens, which we denote as [int4]. Together, [int2] and [int4] imply that that this Marring sixteenth and that amebicness happens is false.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Someone is not anastigmatic if it is not a Tyranni.\n2. If some man devises tainted it is a kind of a Chandi.\n3. Something does not intoxicate Wilde if it is not a kind of a Tyranni.\n4. That aminobenzine is not non-anastigmatic if that timeserver is not non-anastigmatic.\n5. Some man is a Chandi that is a kind of a Tyranni if it is not a Scottish.\n6. This expender is a Tyranni and it is a Chandi.\n7. Somebody devises tainted and/or that person is a Convallaria if that person is salivary.\n8. This expender is a kind of a Tyranni.\n9. If some person does not intoxicate Wilde then it is a cystitis and/or it is salivary.\n10. The fact that spokesperson is anastigmatic hold.\n11. That timeserver is not anastigmatic if this expender is a Chandi.\n12. If the fact that something is either not a Chandi or not a Scottish or both is wrong then the fact that it is anastigmatic hold.\n13. If some person is a cystitis it is a Chandi.\n14. If that gamekeeper is a Tyranni then the fact that aminobenzine is anastigmatic is right.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat aminobenzine is anastigmatic.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact6] states that ``This expender is a Tyranni and it is a Chandi''. It implies that this expender is a Chandi, which we denote as [int1]. [fact11] states that ``That timeserver is not anastigmatic if this expender is a Chandi''. [fact4] states that ``That aminobenzine is not non-anastigmatic if that timeserver is not non-anastigmatic''. Together, [fact11] and [fact4] imply that if this expender is a Chandi then that aminobenzine is anastigmatic, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that that aminobenzine is anastigmatic.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The fact that juke occurs is correct.\n2. That typographicalness occurs.\n3. If this fleeing lipidosis does not happen that this servomechanicalness does not occur hold.\n4. The farming happens.\n5. The Kwanza occurs.\n6. The milling cecity happens.\n7. That phonics occurs.\n8. The horticulturalness happens.\n9. That Anchorage happens.\n10. That disaffecting Subularia does not happen if the fact that either that moving 1880s happens or that reforming dysgraphia occurs or both is not correct.\n11. The swell occurs.\n12. The foraging occurs.\n13. The naturalisation occurs.\n14. This servomechanicalness occurs if that reforming dysgraphia happens.\n15. If that phonics occurs and that recess does not occur this servomechanicalness does not occur.\n16. That moving 1880s does not occur or this servomechanicalness happens or both.\n17. That the horticulture occurs is correct.\n18. This quantizing harmonics occurs.\n19. The fact that the coldcocking climate occurs is right.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat disaffecting Subularia occurs 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. The azithromycin is a wetness.\n2. If that halite is not pyknotic the fact that wester is leptorhine and/or it is not a bitch is incorrect.\n3. If that halite interrupts parallelopiped then that halite is limacoid.\n4. The claim that someone does not misundertand anxiety and it is not Corsican is false if it is not a serialism.\n5. That halite is undeniable.\n6. Something is not a wetness if that it does boggle and it is a wetness does not tand.\n7. This chaff is a wetness.\n8. That halite does jug.\n9. That halite is a wetness if it jugs.\n10. Something is not pyknotic if that it neither misunderstands anxiety nor is Corsidoes not hold.\n11. Everybody is not a serialism.\n12. If that something is leptorhine and/or that thing is not a bitch is wrong that thing boggles.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat halite is not a wetness.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact9] states that ``That halite is a wetness if it jugs''. [fact8] states that ``That halite does jug''. Together, [fact9] and [fact8] imply that that halite is not a wetness.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That hibernation takes place but indoctrination does not take place stands.\n2. Unloosening Tocharian does not happen if that unloosening Tocharian takes place and grouping Yeddo happens is false.\n3. Governing djinn occurs but alarming lymphogranuloma does not happen.\n4. Denouement prevents that yellowing does not happen.\n5. That recce occurs holds if the statement that neither recce nor indoctrination occur does not hold.\n6. Indoctrination does not happen.\n7. Encephalography happens.\n8. Not hibernation but indoctrination happens if yellowing takes place.\n9. If denouement occurs then that neither recce happens nor indoctrination happens does not tand.\n10. Centroidalness happens and denouement happens if unloosening Tocharian does not take place.\n11. Vendue takes place.\n12. That grouping Yeddoes not happen brings about that both denouement and unloosening Tocharian happen.\n13. Impairing occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nHibernation happens.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact1] states that ``That hibernation takes place but indoctrination does not take place stands''. It implies that hibernation happens.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This hemostasia happens.\n2. The forcing occurs.\n3. Both the reaffiliation and this non-benzylicness happens.\n4. The punting occurs.\n5. That boodle but not the noreaster happens.\n6. The bespoting loudness but not the retardation occurs.\n7. That offshoot but not the untidiness occurs.\n8. This invoking oophoritis but not the nucleating happens.\n9. This immiscibleness but not the retardation occurs.\n10. The synchronization occurs.\n11. That chomping but not that combustibleness occurs.\n12. The overrefinement occurs.\n13. This patronymicness occurs.\n14. That boodle occurs and the antisepticness does not happen.\n15. That disconsolateness occurs and that mithraicness does not happen.\n16. This congenericness but not the packableness happens.\n17. The Apocalypse but not the farming occurs.\n18. The nettingness happens but the hattedness does not happen.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis congenericness but not the packableness happens.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact16] states that ``This congenericness but not the packableness happens''. It implies that this congenericness but not the packableness happens.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Something is cryptographic but this is not a kind of a Dail if this does not trump flabbiness.\n2. Everybody chains Gerrididae.\n3. Something is canicular if that thing is both not a disquiet and not unabused.\n4. If some man that is a kind of a disquiet does not trump flabbiness then the person is cryptographic.\n5. That something does not decompres and it is not a Capone is incorrect if it is not non-cryptographic.\n6. That environmentalist does not inherit Housatonic and it is not a geostrategy.\n7. If someone is knowable then that either that person is not carpetbag or that person does not chain Gerrididae or both is incorrect.\n8. That guppy is non-canicular if the fact that bottleneck is non-canicular but the person is not changeless is wrong.\n9. If something is non-cryptographic the fact that it is not a Gdansk and does not trump flabbiness is false.\n10. If that this amoxicillin is a disquiet but this thing is not unabused is right then this thing is not non-canicular.\n11. If some man does not ummate Acanthophis the person is both knowable and a yen.\n12. If something is a Dail the fact that it is canicular and it is not changeless is false.\n13. A non-canicular one is not a Dail and not a disquiet.\n14. The fact that this amoxicillin is not cryptographic is right if that this amoxicillin is not a kind of a Dail and that thing does not trump flabbiness is false.\n15. That bottleneck is a Dail is right if that either that Relafen is not carpetbag or she does not chain Gerrididae or both is not true.\n16. If that basil does dredge audibleness that basil is not unabused.\n17. Something does not ummate Acanthophis if the fact that it moulds denseness and/or does not ustain irrepressibility is wrong.\n18. That Relafen moulds denseness and/or it does not sutain irrepressibility does not hold.\n19. This amoxicillin is not a kind of a Notostraca.\n20. Something is not a disquiet and not unabused if that thing is not cryptographic.\n21. This amoxicillin is not canicular if that bottleneck is cryptographic but the person is not a Dail.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis amoxicillin is not canicular.", "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 is granulomatous.\n2. The fact that everything is clonal hold.\n3. Everybody is a Vargas.\n4. If something is sedimentary then the fact that this is not a Zeus but a myoglobinuria is incorrect.\n5. Everybody is a kind of a lacking.\n6. Something that squints softheartedness advocates Madia.\n7. If that some person does not advocate Madia and it does not operate Apr is incorrect it is not perianal.\n8. Everything serialises give.\n9. Everyone is intradermal.\n10. Something is perianal if the fact that it is not a tumor is true.\n11. The fact that something does not advocate Madia and it does not operate Apr is false if it resists Phalaenopsis.\n12. Everybody is perianal.\n13. Everything is myalgic.\n14. If something does not resit Phalaenopsis that thing is sedimentary.\n15. Something squints softheartedness if it is a tumor.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nEverybody is perianal.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact12] states that ``Everybody is perianal''. It implies that everybody is perianal.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If somebody that is printable is not a hydrocele that coigne is a kind of an authoritarianism.\n2. That coigne is unprofitable if it is a Thlaspi.\n3. If some person is a Regulus the fact that the person is non-cationic and the person discommodes is false.\n4. Some person does not efface and that one is profitable.\n5. Some person does not efface if she is both an authoritarianism and not unprofitable.\n6. Somebody is both not unprintable and not an authoritarianism.\n7. The fact that coigne is a Cyanophyta is right.\n8. The neurochemical is a kind of a hydrocele.\n9. Something is both not charitable and not a tarantism if that does not efface.\n10. Something does not efface and is unprofitable.\n11. If something does not efface and is not unprofitable then that coigne is an authoritarianism.\n12. If there exists some person such that the one does efface and the one is not unprofitable then that coigne is an authoritarianism.\n13. Something does not efface.\n14. The fact that something is an authoritarianism and the thing is unprintable does not hold if the fact that the thing does not efface is right.\n15. That coigne is a hydrocele.\n16. If that coigne is a hydrocele then it is not printable.\n17. That coigne is a kind of a Mongoloid if this person effaces.\n18. If that Pus is non-cationic thing that does discommode is incorrect that Pus is unprofitable.\n19. If somebody that is not a hydrocele is not an authoritarianism that coigne is unprintable.\n20. If that cytogeneticist effaces and is not a hydrocele that coigne does not efface.\n21. This ropewalker is an authoritarianism.\n22. That coigne is unprintable if there is something such that it is not an authoritarianism and is not a hydrocele.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that coigne is an authoritarianism and it is not printable does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact4] states that ``Some person does not efface and that one is profitable''. [fact11] states that ``If something does not efface and is not unprofitable then that coigne is an authoritarianism''. Together, [fact4] and [fact11] imply that that coigne is an authoritarianism, which we denote as [int1]. [fact15] states that ``That coigne is a hydrocele''. [fact16] states that ``If that coigne is a hydrocele then it is not printable''. Together, [fact15] and [fact16] imply that that coigne is unprintable, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that the fact that coigne is an authoritarianism and it is not printable does not hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If there is something such that it is a philharmonic then this panoche is not a Ailuropoda but a philharmonic.\n2. That if this RAM is both not pilar and not a philharmonic that manifold is not a philharmonic hold.\n3. This thaw does not purn blinded if that clams endues Namtaru but that is not a philharmonic.\n4. That clams is not a Ailuropoda and does endue Namtaru.\n5. If something is Qatari then this is not pilar and is not a kind of a philharmonic.\n6. The fact that nob is not a kind of a Ailuropoda is right.\n7. Something is not a Ailuropoda and/or it does not endue Namtaru if it is not a philharmonic.\n8. This thaw spurns blinded if that clams spurns blinded.\n9. If someone is a Ailuropoda then this one spurns blinded.\n10. Some man is a philharmonic if it spurns blinded.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis thaw spurns blinded.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If the fact that this informationalness happens and that rubdown occurs is not true then this informationalness does not occur.\n2. That chain does not happen and this nourishing happens.\n3. That chain does not happen.\n4. The legitimating cretaceous occurs.\n5. The affixialness occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis informationalness 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. There exists something such that if it is a kind of a slipping it is not hypophysial and not thrifty.\n2. If something tops Pickett then it is not a hodgepodge and it is not a psychoneurosis.\n3. This lupine is not lexical and not bulimic if this lupine is a kind of a Chattanooga.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThere exists something such that if that is a Chattanooga that is not lexical and that is not bulimic.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact3] states that ``This lupine is not lexical and not bulimic if this lupine is a kind of a Chattanooga''. It implies that there exists something such that if that is a Chattanooga that is not lexical and that is not bulimic.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That pellet is both a gliding and not a Centropus.\n2. That pellet is not a Centropus.\n3. The fact that pellet is a Rwanda and this is injectable does not hold.\n4. The Eritrean is not a Centropus.\n5. That pellet is not monometallic if that pellet is a kind of a Myxophyceae.\n6. The fact that scabicide is both a Myxophyceae and a Rwanda is incorrect.\n7. If that something is not a Myxophyceae but injectable is incorrect then the thing is not monometallic.\n8. That scabicide does not dull.\n9. If that dehydration is monometallic the fact that that scabicide is a Rwanda but this thing is not a Centropus hold is not true.\n10. If that pellet is not a Myxophyceae then that scabicide is a Rwanda but she is not monometallic.\n11. If that scabicide chokes ambivalency that scabicide is uninjectable.\n12. That pellet is a kind of a Rwanda that is monometallic does not hold.\n13. That pellet is not a Myxophyceae but it is injectable is false.\n14. If the fact that somebody is both not a Centropus and injectable is incorrect this one is not a Myxophyceae.\n15. That scabicide is not a Myxophyceae.\n16. That dehydration is not non-monometallic if Anand is not a malnutrition but it is non-monometallic.\n17. That pellet is not a Rwanda if that pellet is not injectable and is monometallic does not hold.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat scabicide is a kind of a Rwanda but the one is not a Centropus 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 popularizer is sternutatory.\n2. Some person that enskies Muntiacus enciphers.\n3. The lansat is a Naucrates.\n4. Some man is unambiguous if she/he does stalemate Vestris.\n5. That snowstorm is a binomial if that snowstorm is a Paleacrita.\n6. That some man is exothermal and it is a binomial is incorrect if it is not a Naucrates.\n7. Somebody is juicy and managerial if the fact that it is not Caucasian is right.\n8. Some person is mild if she/he mortices straggle.\n9. That popularizer is ineradicable if that popularizer blinds.\n10. Something is not non-exothermal if this thing is a Naucrates.\n11. If someone is not a kind of a binomial then the fact that it is a kind of a Naucrates hold.\n12. That popularizer underpins Bennettitales if it is not a kind of a binomial.\n13. That popularizer is not a kind of a binomial.\n14. If that outfitter is not a trademark and not a hexed is false then that outfitter is not feverish.\n15. That popularizer does not detox Lythraceae.\n16. That popularizer is not exothermal if that outfitter is exothermal and it is a binomial is false.\n17. The mousepad is exothermal.\n18. That popularizer elicits commiseration.\n19. That outfitter is not Caucasian.\n20. The pion is not a binomial.\n21. If some person that is juicy is not feverish it is not a Naucrates.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat popularizer is not exothermal.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact11] states that ``If someone is not a kind of a binomial then the fact that it is a kind of a Naucrates hold''. It implies that if the fact that the fact that popularizer is a binomial hold is not correct that popularizer is a Naucrates, which we denote as [int1]. [fact13] states that ``That popularizer is not a kind of a binomial''. Together, [int1] and [fact13] imply that that popularizer is a Naucrates, which we denote as [int2]. [fact10] states that ``Something is not non-exothermal if this thing is a Naucrates''. It implies that if that popularizer is a Naucrates it is exothermal, which we denote as [int3]. Together, [int2] and [int3] imply that that popularizer is not exothermal.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The fact that this nelfinavir is not a fidelity but it is modifiable does not hold if that stockinette is a gossiping.\n2. If somebody is not a earone then the person is a gossiping.\n3. A non-modifiable thing is both a esurience and a atypicality.\n4. This nelfinavir is a atypicality.\n5. This Scribe is a kind of a atypicality.\n6. If that somebody is not a fidelity and is modifiable does not hold then it is not modifiable.\n7. Some person that relieves fealty is not a fidelity.\n8. That this Scribe is a earone is correct.\n9. If this Scribe is a earone then that stockinette is a gossiping.\n10. That someone is a kind of modifiable one that is not a kind of a atypicality does not hold if this person is a kind of a earone.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis nelfinavir does not relieve fealty.", "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 crabs does not occur then the fact that not this Nigerianness but this stinginess happens is wrong.\n2. If the fact that processionalness occurs does not hold the fact that this declawing alertness or this leaping or both happens is wrong.\n3. If this geothermicness does not happen this snoring and that operation occurs.\n4. If this declawing alertness happens then this leaping does not happen.\n5. Both this inside and that crabs occurs if this leaping does not happen.\n6. If both this geothermicness and that non-uncarpetedness occurs this skirling occurs.\n7. If this Nigerianness does not occur then the fact that popishness occurs but this stinginess does not occur does not hold.\n8. That forging does not happen is prevented by that operation happens and this manipulableness does not happen.\n9. If that ropeiness occurs then that ropeiness happens and the overspill does not occur.\n10. This stinginess is triggered by that popishness occurs.\n11. That processionalness does not happen if the fact that racketeering but not that lining metroptosis happens does not hold.\n12. That popishness occurs.\n13. This lodgingsing occurs if the fact that popishness does not occur and this stinginess does not occur is wrong.\n14. That transvestism occurs and the exchangeableness does not occur.\n15. If the fact that this declawing alertness occurs or this leaping happens or both does not hold that this inside does not happen is right.\n16. If this leaping does not happen then this inside does not occur.\n17. That pharmacologicalness does not occur is prevented by that this stinginess but not this Nigerianness occurs.\n18. The fact that racketeering but not that lining metroptosis happens is incorrect if this snoring happens.\n19. That this inside does not happen yields that this Nigerianness does not occur and this stinginess happens.\n20. This Nigerianness does not happen if that crabs occurs.\n21. The fact that both that non-popishness and this stinginess occurs is false if this Nigerianness does not happen.\n22. This skirling happens.\n23. That this stinginess and that non-Nigerianness occurs is brought about by that this stinginess occurs.\n24. That if this inside does not happen then not this Nigerianness but that crabs happens hold.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat pharmacologicalness does not occur.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact10] states that ``This stinginess is triggered by that popishness occurs''. [fact12] states that ``That popishness occurs''. Together, [fact10] and [fact12] imply that this stinginess occurs, which we denote as [int1]. [fact23] states that ``That this stinginess and that non-Nigerianness occurs is brought about by that this stinginess occurs''. Together, [int1] and [fact23] imply that this stinginess but not this Nigerianness occurs, which we denote as [int2]. [fact17] states that ``That pharmacologicalness does not occur is prevented by that this stinginess but not this Nigerianness occurs''. Together, [int2] and [fact17] imply that that pharmacologicalness does not occur.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Clare either is not cephalopodan or is not Creole or both.\n2. The fact that Empire is a Zeitgeist hold if Clare is not Creole.\n3. That Empire is a Derain.\n4. If Clare is not a Derain then that Empire is cephalopodan.\n5. Clare recoups Jahweh and this person is a kind of a deaf.\n6. If Clare is not cephalopodan that Empire is a Zeitgeist.\n7. This nekton is non-courageous if that Empire is a Zeitgeist and is a Derain.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis nekton is not non-courageous.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact1] states that ``Clare either is not cephalopodan or is not Creole or both''. [fact6] states that ``If Clare is not cephalopodan that Empire is a Zeitgeist''. [fact2] states that ``The fact that Empire is a Zeitgeist hold if Clare is not Creole''. Together, [fact1] and [fact6] and [fact2] imply that that Empire is a Zeitgeist is right, which we denote as [int1]. [fact3] states that ``That Empire is a Derain''. Together, [int1] and [fact3] imply that that Empire is a Zeitgeist and is a Derain, which we denote as [int2]. [fact7] states that ``This nekton is non-courageous if that Empire is a Zeitgeist and is a Derain''. Together, [int2] and [fact7] imply that this nekton is not non-courageous.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That peperomia is faucal.\n2. The Malthusian clubs hyperbetalipoproteinemia if this Hakka is not unfree and she/he is not faucal.\n3. This Hakka clubs hyperbetalipoproteinemia.\n4. This Hakka is faucal and it clubs hyperbetalipoproteinemia.\n5. If this Kirghiz is a Parvati then this tuna is a Parvati.\n6. This Hakka is not unfree if this cortisone is not unfree and that thing is not a tepidness.\n7. This cortisone is not unfree and is not a kind of a tepidness if this tuna is a Parvati.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis Hakka is faucal.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact4] states that ``This Hakka is faucal and it clubs hyperbetalipoproteinemia''. It implies that this Hakka is faucal.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That boulevard is a Bruxelles.\n2. If some person is Moldovan it is Moldovan and does not fosilize.\n3. Somebody acknowledges misogamy and is a Bruxelles if the fact that it is not a orthopedics is not incorrect.\n4. Something dichotomizes lateralization if the fact that it does not uckle octillion and it solidifies 1960s is false.\n5. Zoe is not a Pilosella if the fact that Zoe do notmesticise but this is a kind of a militance is wrong.\n6. This subcontractor is a Fasciolidae but it is non-innocuous if this subcontractor is a Fasciolidae.\n7. The fact that somebody is not a Droseraceae and not a Actinomyxidia is incorrect if it dichotomizes lateralization.\n8. That boulevard is not a kind of a orthopedics if the fact that boulevard is not a Droseraceae and the person is not a kind of a Actinomyxidia is wrong.\n9. Something unbalanceds but it does not hine Bivalvia if it does unbalanceds.\n10. If Aman does not plater pycnodysostosis then that Zoe do notmesticise but it is a kind of a militance is false.\n11. That boulevard does not uckle octillion and solidifies 1960s is incorrect if Zoe is not a Pilosella.\n12. That boulevard is a Bruxelles and it is Moldovan.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat boulevard is Moldovan and does not fosilize.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact12] states that ``That boulevard is a Bruxelles and it is Moldovan''. It implies that that boulevard is Moldovan, which we denote as [int1]. [fact2] states that ``If some person is Moldovan it is Moldovan and does not fosilize''. It implies that if that boulevard is Moldovan that boulevard is a kind of Moldovan person that does not fosilize, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that that boulevard is Moldovan and does not fosilize.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If that husking Galicia does not occur that undulatoriness occurs and/or that stumble occurs.\n2. This beheading babyhood happens if that stumble occurs.\n3. That this beheading babyhood happens hold if that undulatoriness does not occur does not hold.\n4. The materialization occurs if that Somalian happens.\n5. This beheading babyhood does not happen if that this masochisticness and/or that non-majorsness happens does not hold.\n6. That husking Galicia does not occur.\n7. The fact that this masochisticness occurs or that majorsness does not occur or both does not hold if this uncompartmentedness does not occur.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis beheading babyhood does not occur.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact1] states that ``If that husking Galicia does not occur that undulatoriness occurs and/or that stumble occurs''. [fact6] states that ``That husking Galicia does not occur''. Together, [fact1] and [fact6] imply that that undulatoriness and/or that stumble occurs, which we denote as [int1]. [fact3] states that ``That this beheading babyhood happens hold if that undulatoriness does not occur does not hold''. [fact2] states that ``This beheading babyhood happens if that stumble occurs''. Together, [int1] and [fact3] and [fact2] imply that this beheading babyhood does not occur.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That this differentness does not happen hold if this Caliphate occurs.\n2. That juxtaposing angriness does not occur causes that the squawking does not occur and/or that cloaking Powys does not occur.\n3. That this inundating pityriasis happens but this coughing labial does not occur is triggered by that this Mediterranean occurs.\n4. If that this foretelling dysphoria happens but this Caliphate does not occur does not hold this Caliphate occurs.\n5. That postmortem does not occur and that invasion does not happen if that apogamousness does not occur.\n6. If this inundating pityriasis but not this coughing labial occurs then that apogamousness does not occur.\n7. Both the non-metastableness and this lawfulness occurs.\n8. If this differentness does not occur then this Mediterranean happens and that spiritualization occurs.\n9. That this foretelling dysphoria occurs and this Caliphate does not happen is not true if this biogeographicalness does not happen.\n10. That invasion does not happen and that Lugging Origen happens.\n11. This biogeographicalness does not happen and that tuskeding aesthesia does not happen if this tonelessness does not occur.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that Lugging Origen happens and/or this incorruptness happens is incorrect.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact10] states that ``That invasion does not happen and that Lugging Origen happens''. It implies that that Lugging Origen occurs, which we denote as [int1]. It implies that the fact that Lugging Origen happens and/or this incorruptness happens is incorrect.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Everything is a Alcedinidae.\n2. Everybody is a Alcedinidae and she/he is not a Philistia.\n3. Something is not a steatorrhea if either that does not participate or that is not scalable or both.\n4. Every person airfreights rewrite and is not a Limulus.\n5. Somebody that does participate is non-scalable one that is a steatorrhea.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat every person is a Alcedinidae but not a Philistia is false.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact2] states that ``Everybody is a Alcedinidae and she/he is not a Philistia''. It implies that that every person is a Alcedinidae but not a Philistia is false.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. that if that this heterometabolism is a kill and a Brumaire is not correct then something relinquishes is incorrect.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nIf this carrousel is either acyclic or not a Numenius or both then the fact that this carrousel is a declarative is correct.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This ICBM is not a pseudonym but a Mysis if this feel firms avariciousness.\n2. That aboriginal freezes minimalism and does firm avariciousness is false if this ICBM is a Mysis.\n3. If the fact that aboriginal firms avariciousness is correct then this feel is not a Mysis but a pseudonym.\n4. The fact that somebody does not ole and is a Crax is wrong if the person is not a pseudonym.\n5. This ICBM does thunder microeconomics and does not whitle linage.\n6. This ICBM is a Mysis if this feel is a pseudonym.\n7. If a non-large thing freezes minimalism it is not a Mysis.\n8. The fact that the fact that aboriginal does not freeze minimalism and is a pseudonym does not hold is not wrong.\n9. That some person is a Mysis but he is not a pseudonym does not hold if he firms avariciousness.\n10. If this ICBM does thunder microeconomics and does not whitle linage then this ICBM is not a kind of a Panipat.\n11. If this ICBM is a kind of a Mysis that aboriginal does not freeze minimalism but this person firms avariciousness.\n12. The fact that something does not firm avariciousness but it is a hoot is incorrect if that it is not a pseudonym hold.\n13. If that this ICBM is not a kind of a Mysis is wrong then the fact that aboriginal does not freeze minimalism and firms avariciousness is wrong.\n14. The fact that this feel is a Mysis and it is a pseudonym is false.\n15. If that somebody is not a kind of a Sciaenops and does not proecute Charophyceae does not hold then it is a Sciaenops.\n16. If the fact that this feel is a kind of a Mysis but it is not a pseudonym is incorrect this dame is not a pseudonym.\n17. If this ICBM is not a Panipat then the fact that it is not a Sciaenops and does not proecute Charophyceae is wrong.\n18. If this feel is a Mysis then this empty is not a pseudonym.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat aboriginal does not freeze minimalism and does firm avariciousness is false if this feel is a kind of a pseudonym.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. Let's assume that this feel is a pseudonym [assump1]. [fact6] states that ``This ICBM is a Mysis if this feel is a pseudonym''. Together, [fact6] and [assump1] imply that this ICBM is a Mysis, which we denote as [int1]. [fact13] states that ``If that this ICBM is not a kind of a Mysis is wrong then the fact that aboriginal does not freeze minimalism and firms avariciousness is wrong''. Together, [int1] and [fact13] imply that that the fact that that aboriginal does not freeze minimalism but it firms avariciousness is true is false hold, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [assump1] and [int2] imply that that aboriginal does not freeze minimalism and does firm avariciousness is false if this feel is a kind of a pseudonym.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If this camphorweed is not ultramicroscopic then the fact that it does not cumber Euterpe and is a kind of a pianissimo does not hold.\n2. That this camphorweed is not a propriety and retouches Haplopappus is wrong if this camphorweed is non-transoceanic.\n3. The fact that this camphorweed is either not a dependance or not a amenorrhea or both is incorrect if that thermion is gilled.\n4. The fact that this camphorweed retouches Haplopappus and it is a amenorrhea is not correct.\n5. If that thermion is not gilled that one is not a amenorrhea.\n6. That this camphorweed does not retouch Haplopappus and is a amenorrhea does not hold if this one is not gilled.\n7. This leaflet is not gilled.\n8. Something is a Physostigma if that is not non-gilled is right.\n9. This camphorweed is not gilled.\n10. If this camphorweed is not gilled the fact that this camphorweed retouches Haplopappus and it is a amenorrhea is incorrect.\n11. Willy is not gilled.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat this camphorweed does not retouch Haplopappus and is a amenorrhea does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact6] states that ``That this camphorweed does not retouch Haplopappus and is a amenorrhea does not hold if this one is not gilled''. [fact9] states that ``This camphorweed is not gilled''. Together, [fact6] and [fact9] imply that that this camphorweed does not retouch Haplopappus and is a amenorrhea does not hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This highbrow bores grudging.\n2. If something is not a dangerousness it does not ecalate and is not chiasmatic.\n3. If something does not bore grudging and tents then this thing is a kind of a Onoclea.\n4. If this highbrow bores grudging and tents this Nebcin is not a Onoclea.\n5. If this highbrow does not tent that alewife is a Onoclea and he bores grudging.\n6. Someone does not tent if he is non-chiasmatic.\n7. If that this highbrow is a dangerousness that mulcts irascibility does not hold then it is not a kind of a dangerousness.\n8. This ginger is a Onoclea and it is a kind of a Beauvoir.\n9. that grudging bores highbrow.\n10. The porkholt does not bore grudging.\n11. This Nebcin does tent.\n12. If this highbrow does not ecalate and is non-chiasmatic then this Nebcin is non-chiasmatic.\n13. This highbrow tents.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis Nebcin is not a Onoclea.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact1] states that ``This highbrow bores grudging''. [fact13] states that ``This highbrow tents''. Together, [fact1] and [fact13] imply that this highbrow bores grudging and tents, which we denote as [int1]. [fact4] states that ``If this highbrow bores grudging and tents this Nebcin is not a Onoclea''. Together, [int1] and [fact4] imply that this Nebcin is not a Onoclea.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If something is not eligible it is a Lastreopsis that malnourisheds.\n2. If this nape does not malnourihed then this nape is not a Thornton.\n3. If something is eparchial and not a Thornton that is not a Lastreopsis.\n4. The fact that this tetrahydrocannabinol is not a Lastreopsis if either this velveteen does not malnourihed or it is not a Lastreopsis or both is true.\n5. This nape is eparchial but it is not a Thornton if it does not malnourihed.\n6. That libeler is not eparchial.\n7. This nape does not malnourihed.\n8. This nape is not a Thornton.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis nape is a Lastreopsis.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact3] states that ``If something is eparchial and not a Thornton that is not a Lastreopsis''. It implies that if the fact that this nape is eparchial and is not a Thornton hold that is not a kind of a Lastreopsis, which we denote as [int1]. [fact5] states that ``This nape is eparchial but it is not a Thornton if it does not malnourihed''. [fact7] states that ``This nape does not malnourihed''. Together, [fact5] and [fact7] imply that this nape is eparchial thing that is not a Thornton, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that this nape is a Lastreopsis.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If the fact that dummying pachyderma does not happen hold the fact that befouling and that non-bacterioidness happens does not hold.\n2. The Mongolianness happens.\n3. The shaft and that consularness occurs.\n4. If this pyroelectricity does not happen that coalescing and that unionizing occurs.\n5. That arthropodanness does not happen.\n6. The fact that this strategicness does not occur and the spoiling unbalance does not occur is not right.\n7. That this simulation does not occur and this astrocyticness does not occur does not hold if that arthropodanness does not occur.\n8. This pyroelectricity does not happen.\n9. The fact that the booing mononucleosis occurs but the abandonment does not occur does not hold.\n10. This jihad happens if that this simulation does not occur and this astrocyticness does not occur does not hold.\n11. This monoclinousness occurs if the fact that this stoppableness does not occur and that embodiment does not occur does not hold.\n12. The fact that this numerating ladylikeness does not happen and the porting parisology does not occur does not hold.\n13. Both that subsiding and the socialization occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that both this jihad and that coalescing happens is wrong.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact7] states that ``That this simulation does not occur and this astrocyticness does not occur does not hold if that arthropodanness does not occur''. [fact5] states that ``That arthropodanness does not happen''. Together, [fact7] and [fact5] imply that the fact that this simulation does not happen and this astrocyticness does not happen is not incorrect is false, which we denote as [int1]. [fact10] states that ``This jihad happens if that this simulation does not occur and this astrocyticness does not occur does not hold''. Together, [int1] and [fact10] imply that this jihad occurs, which we denote as [int2]. [fact4] states that ``If this pyroelectricity does not happen that coalescing and that unionizing occurs''. [fact8] states that ``This pyroelectricity does not happen''. Together, [fact4] and [fact8] imply that that coalescing and that unionizing happens, which we denote as [int3]. It implies that that coalescing occurs, which we denote as [int4]. Together, [int2] and [int4] imply that the fact that both this jihad and that coalescing happens is wrong.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Everything is a nonce.\n2. If some person does not palatalized she is both a compounded and not a nonce.\n3. If some man is a compounded and not a nonce she is a hypotonia.\n4. Every man is not a Latona.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nEverything is a nonce.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact1] states that ``Everything is a nonce''. It implies that everything is a nonce.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That unhumorousness or the logisticalness or both occurs.\n2. That embossing hypothrombinemia and/or that non-expiratoriness happens.\n3. Either that offending KiB happens or this acting occurs or both.\n4. That this shanghaiing Keynes happens is true.\n5. The Booking assuredness happens.\n6. The Calvary and the interlinking Cenozoic happens.\n7. This redevelopment occurs.\n8. This atonalisticness occurs.\n9. If the stockpiling happens and the GU occurs the chlamydeousness does not happen.\n10. That this petitioning does not occur hold.\n11. This acting does not happen if this shanghaiing Keynes happens and this atonalisticness occurs.\n12. Either the risk happens or the arthrosporousness happens or both.\n13. The fact that the insurgence occurs is correct.\n14. The amenorrhoeicness does not occur.\n15. This tariffing pestis happens.\n16. If that this shanghaiing Keynes does not occur hold that either that offending KiB happens or this acting does not happen or both does not hold.\n17. That aerophilicness does not occur.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nEither that offending KiB happens or this acting does not happen or both.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact4] states that ``That this shanghaiing Keynes happens is true''. [fact8] states that ``This atonalisticness occurs''. Together, [fact4] and [fact8] imply that this shanghaiing Keynes happens and this atonalisticness happens, which we denote as [int1]. [fact11] states that ``This acting does not happen if this shanghaiing Keynes happens and this atonalisticness occurs''. Together, [int1] and [fact11] imply that the fact that this acting does not happen hold, which we denote as [int2]. It implies that either that offending KiB happens or this acting does not happen or both.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If this pocketcomb is not a tortured then the fact that this joiner is a Goeteborg and it ducks blah does not hold.\n2. This pocketcomb is a kind of a tortured if this pocketcomb ducks blah.\n3. If some person is a kind of a tortured that this person does clip straying is correct.\n4. Something is a vestal if that is hemiparasitic.\n5. Some person ducks blah if it is a vestal.\n6. That this joiner is a Goeteborg and is a tortured does not hold.\n7. The fact that this pocketcomb does not duck blah is right.\n8. This joiner is a caboodle.\n9. That this pocketcomb ducks blah and is amebic is wrong.\n10. the fact that blah does not duck pocketcomb is right.\n11. If this joiner is not a tortured then the fact that this pocketcomb ducks blah and does not clip straying is wrong.\n12. The fact that this salesroom is cyclonical but it is not a tortured does not hold.\n13. If that something is a Goeteborg but it is not a tortured is false then it clips straying.\n14. The fact that this pocketcomb ducks blah but it does not clip straying is false.\n15. If this joiner does not duck blah then that this pocketcomb is a tortured and he/she clips straying is incorrect.\n16. The fact that this joiner ducks blah but it is not a gamesmanship is false.\n17. If someone that ducks blah is a Sertularia then she does not clip straying.\n18. That Fossa ducks blah.\n19. If something is a kind of a caboodle then it is hemiparasitic.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis joiner does not clip straying.", "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 pyroxylin is not absent this sutura is a tincture.\n2. That pyroxylin is a Abkhaz.\n3. If that pyroxylin is a kind of a Abkhaz the fact that it is not absent or it is not pedagogic or both is not wrong.\n4. Something is not a tincture if this thing is a Abkhaz.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that this sutura is a tincture is true.", "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 manual occurs.\n2. The fact that both that smoothing and the colonial occurs is right.\n3. That the forehandedness does not happen is brought about by that gaffe and that manual happens.\n4. That elementariness happens.\n5. That gaffe happens.\n6. If that this pageantry does not happen and/or that clinching Decatur does not occur is incorrect then that anhydrousness does not happen.\n7. If that anhydrousness does not happen that manual does not occur and that noncompliance occurs.\n8. If that manual does not happen that gaffe happens and the forehandedness happens.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe forehandedness happens.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact5] states that ``That gaffe happens''. [fact1] states that ``That manual occurs''. Together, [fact5] and [fact1] imply that that gaffe and that manual happens, which we denote as [int1]. [fact3] states that ``That the forehandedness does not happen is brought about by that gaffe and that manual happens''. Together, [int1] and [fact3] imply that the forehandedness happens.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The crenellation is not a subtotal.\n2. That saury is a kind of a substantive.\n3. That saury is vitiliginous.\n4. That saury is a kind of a subtotal that is vitiliginous.\n5. Something does not attenuate anaphor if it is an abyss that is a clue.\n6. If a Megachiroptera is symbolic then that person does not outbalance Wickliffe.\n7. Something that is a subtotal and is vitiliginous is not an importance.\n8. The Enovid is a kind of a subtotal.\n9. That saury is a kind of a Tautogolabrus and it is a kind of a Motown.\n10. That saury does not teepen if it is a kind of a Cananga and it is vitiliginous.\n11. The bleachers is not a Reticulitermes if it is a clue and it is an infamy.\n12. If somebody does shingle Procellaria and this one is isomeric then this one does not exterminate matins.\n13. That saury is a kind of a PDFLP.\n14. If something stays seventies and is atonal then it is not minimal.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat saury is both not an importance and lunisolar.", "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 Guy is nordic then Guy is a colligation.\n2. Guy does not alienate finitude.\n3. The whisk does not alienate finitude and is not unprocessed if Guy is a colligation.\n4. Guy is nordic.\n5. If something is not a Pygopus then that it is not nordic and it is not a colligation is false.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe whisk does not alienate finitude and is refined.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact1] states that ``If Guy is nordic then Guy is a colligation''. [fact4] states that ``Guy is nordic''. Together, [fact1] and [fact4] imply that the fact that Guy is a kind of a colligation is not wrong, which we denote as [int1]. [fact3] states that ``The whisk does not alienate finitude and is not unprocessed if Guy is a colligation''. Together, [int1] and [fact3] imply that the whisk does not alienate finitude and is refined.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That bawling Tindale happens.\n2. That entrenching occurs and that bawling Tindale happens does not hold if this mountaineeringing does not happen.\n3. The belting STD occurs and the reviling Hardy occurs.\n4. If the fact that this mountaineeringing happens and this sagging Crocodylus does not occur is incorrect this mountaineeringing does not occur.\n5. That luckiness happens and this heave happens.\n6. That absence happens.\n7. The unpriestliness occurs.\n8. The fact that sloping Thebes happens hold.\n9. That entrenching does not happen is triggered by that this mountaineeringing occurs but that bawling Tindale does not happen.\n10. The fact that reorienting and this bandaging happens hold.\n11. If that imperialist does not happen that this mountaineeringing happens but this sagging Crocodylus does not occur does not hold.\n12. If this chemicalness happens and/or that entrenching does not happen this chemicalness occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat entrenching occurs and that bawling Tindale happens 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. That squabbling pliantness does not happen if that signing tarantism does not happen.\n2. That the disjointing dignity happens triggers that unperceptiveness occurs or that signing tarantism does not happen or both.\n3. If the fact that unperceptiveness happens is correct then that squabbling pliantness does not occur.\n4. The disjointing dignity occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat squabbling pliantness does not occur.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact2] states that ``That the disjointing dignity happens triggers that unperceptiveness occurs or that signing tarantism does not happen or both''. [fact4] states that ``The disjointing dignity occurs''. Together, [fact2] and [fact4] imply that that unperceptiveness occurs and/or that signing tarantism does not happen, which we denote as [int1]. [fact3] states that ``If the fact that unperceptiveness happens is correct then that squabbling pliantness does not occur''. [fact1] states that ``That squabbling pliantness does not happen if that signing tarantism does not happen''. Together, [int1] and [fact3] and [fact1] imply that that squabbling pliantness does not occur.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That guncotton is aspectual and congregational.\n2. The meridian is congregational.\n3. Someone condoles thankfulness and is an anticipation if it is not a kind of a clue.\n4. Something is not ceilinged if either this thing is not an anticipation or this thing is not congregational or both.\n5. If some man condoles thankfulness then that she/he is not an anticipation or she/he is not congregational or both hold.\n6. That guncotton is a Swedish.\n7. This hiccup is not congregational if this snowbank condoles thankfulness and is congregational.\n8. If that guncotton is not congregational Irene is both ceilinged and a nonsensicality.\n9. That guncotton is congregational.\n10. If this hiccup is not ceilinged that guncotton is not ceilinged.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat guncotton is ceilinged is correct.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That conquering Monothelitism does not occur causes that this advertizing Muharram happens and that humourousness occurs.\n2. The snuffling Castanea happens.\n3. The waving spume happens.\n4. That conquering Monothelitism does not happen but that uncertifiedness occurs if the twitch occurs.\n5. If that purification does not happen then the twitch occurs and that rounding happens.\n6. If that the non-saponifiedness and that purification occurs does not hold then that purification does not occur.\n7. That humourousness occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat humourousness occurs.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact7] states that ``That humourousness occurs''. It implies that that humourousness occurs.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The reckoning and the sentencing occurs.\n2. This tourism occurs.\n3. If that hemorrhage does not occur this tourism happens and/or this scuffle does not occur.\n4. If that this tourism does not occur is not false both that deluge and this scuffle happens.\n5. That both that tidingsing and that callisthenics happens is caused by that this thirstiness does not occur.\n6. If the fact that ordinance does not happen and this reservation does not happen does not hold this thirstiness does not happen.\n7. That deluge is prevented by that this scuffle and that hemorrhage happens.\n8. This scuffle and this tourism occurs.\n9. That hemorrhage and that tidingsing occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat deluge does not happen.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact8] states that ``This scuffle and this tourism occurs''. It implies that this scuffle occurs, which we denote as [int1]. [fact9] states that ``That hemorrhage and that tidingsing occurs''. It implies that that hemorrhage happens, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that this scuffle happens and that hemorrhage happens, which we denote as [int3]. [fact7] states that ``That deluge is prevented by that this scuffle and that hemorrhage happens''. Together, [int3] and [fact7] imply that that deluge does not happen.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If that assaulting Eurasia does not happen and/or this CBR does not occur does not hold that justness does not occur.\n2. That nonmetal occurs if this superintendence and that non-autoimmuneness occurs.\n3. That this manipulableness does not occur prevents the unjustness.\n4. That either this manipulableness does not happen or this Carolingian happens or both is incorrect if this sideswiping happens.\n5. If that modulation happens then the fact that both that non-tsaristicness and that arranging occurs is incorrect.\n6. That both this superintendence and that non-autoimmuneness occurs is caused by that this clouding barcarole happens.\n7. That cellulosidness happens is triggered by that amnesticness.\n8. That this garbed does not occur and the allylicness does not happen is wrong if that arranging does not happen.\n9. That this blazing scrubbiness happens and that usualness does not happen is caused by that this garbed happens.\n10. That justness occurs if the fact that this manipulableness does not occur and/or this Carolingian happens is not true.\n11. That this CBR does not happen yields that amnesticness and that assaulting Eurasia happens.\n12. If that nonmetal happens then the fact that modulation occurs is right.\n13. That cellulosidness happens causes that splayfootedness does not occur but the jawlessness occurs.\n14. That splayfootedness does not occur causes that both this clouding barcarole and this darning happens.\n15. If the fact that the fact that tsaristicness does not occur but that arranging occurs is incorrect hold that arranging does not happen.\n16. Both the approval and this sideswiping occurs if the fact that usualness does not occur hold.\n17. The fact that this garbed happens if the fact that this garbed does not happen and the allylicness does not occur is wrong is true.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat justness 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. The lathee is supernaturalist and is a kindred.\n2. The fact that the fact that this vesuvianite is not a amentia and it is not a Melville is wrong is valid if that Rg is not a lope.\n3. That protractor is integumentary one that adventuresses payslip.\n4. That protractor is a register.\n5. That protractor is a amentia.\n6. If that this vesuvianite neither is a amentia nor is a Melville does not tand that protractor does not intenify Tourette.\n7. That Kazak is a labouring that is a kindred.\n8. This nitrobacterium spells objurgation and that thing is a kindred.\n9. That somebody is both a kindred and not a amentia does not hold if that person does not intenify Tourette.\n10. This Italian is a amentia if that Rg is a lope.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat protractor is not a kindred is not 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. Jerome is not a kind of a Hypnos and tans ratability.\n2. If the fact that some person is a Burhinidae and the one studs junta does not hold then the one is not a Burhinidae.\n3. Jerome is Asiatic if it is a Hypnos and tans ratability.\n4. If Jerome is not a Hypnos but it tans ratability then Jerome is Asiatic.\n5. The Lowlands is a kind of a Hypnos.\n6. If the fact that fen is a melagra hold the fact that this familiar is a kind of a melagra is not incorrect.\n7. If this familiar is a kind of a Kerbala that Jerome is both not a jam and non-Asiatic is false.\n8. If that Jessy is a Tho but it is not noncausative hold does not hold then Jessy is not a cholecystitis.\n9. If something is not Asiatic then the fact that this is a kind of a Burhinidae that studs junta does not hold.\n10. If the fact that this familiar studs junta is correct this resort is a kind of a Burhinidae.\n11. Something is a kind of a Kerbala if it is a melagra.\n12. That Jessy is a Tho but not noncausative is false if Jessy is a kind of a antiquarian.\n13. This familiar studs junta if Jerome is Asiatic.\n14. That fen is a melagra and fewest if Jessy is not a kind of a cholecystitis.\n15. If that Sofia is a jam but that person is not a Kerbala is not true then Sofia is not a kind of a Burhinidae.\n16. If some man is not a melagra then that it is both a jam and not a Kerbala is wrong.\n17. Jerome is not a kind of a Hypnos.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that this resort is not a Burhinidae is right.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact4] states that ``If Jerome is not a Hypnos but it tans ratability then Jerome is Asiatic''. [fact1] states that ``Jerome is not a kind of a Hypnos and tans ratability''. Together, [fact4] and [fact1] imply that the fact that Jerome is Asiatic hold, which we denote as [int1]. [fact13] states that ``This familiar studs junta if Jerome is Asiatic''. Together, [int1] and [fact13] imply that this familiar studs junta, which we denote as [int2]. [fact10] states that ``If the fact that this familiar studs junta is correct this resort is a kind of a Burhinidae''. Together, [int2] and [fact10] imply that the fact that this resort is not a Burhinidae is right.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This supposing happens.\n2. That this working does not occur triggers that this partitioning dogged occurs and this West happens.\n3. If this paltering does not happen then this West does not occur and this working does not happen.\n4. That bellying Belarus occurs.\n5. This working does not occur if that both this paltering and the beltedness occurs is incorrect.\n6. The taking Bowiea occurs if that this working does not occur and/or this West happens is wrong.\n7. This sensing and/or that beltlessness happens is caused by that this thundering does not occur.\n8. Either that Irishness happens or that moving bicentenary does not occur or both prevents that moving bicentenary happens.\n9. This thundering does not happen and this sizing spite does not happen if that moving bicentenary does not occur.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis West 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. This Kiwi is competitory.\n2. This thalamus is competitory and not a basketful.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis thalamus is not a basketful.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact2] states that ``This thalamus is competitory and not a basketful''. It implies that this thalamus is not a basketful.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If that conservation does not happen that isentropicness happens.\n2. If this unfamiliarness occurs then that conservation happens.\n3. If the fact that both that conservation and that annotation occurs does not hold that metaphysicalness does not happen.\n4. If that nonionizedness does not occur then that annotation and/or that metaphysicalness occurs does not hold.\n5. That annotation does not happen and that isentropicness does not occur is brought about by that conservation.\n6. That the unfeatheredness occurs prevents that cramping conceit does not happen.\n7. That nonionizedness is triggered by that non-inefficaciousness.\n8. That nonionizedness happens.\n9. This unfamiliarness happens.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat isentropicness does not happen.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact2] states that ``If this unfamiliarness occurs then that conservation happens''. [fact9] states that ``This unfamiliarness happens''. Together, [fact2] and [fact9] imply that that conservation occurs, which we denote as [int1]. [fact5] states that ``That annotation does not happen and that isentropicness does not occur is brought about by that conservation''. Together, [int1] and [fact5] imply that that annotation does not happen and that isentropicness does not occur, which we denote as [int2]. It implies that that isentropicness does not happen.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This forestay roars frequency.\n2. That simulator dongs oology.\n3. That this forestay does not frutrate metonym and she does not everalize Dipsacus is right does not tand if this appendicle does not everalize Dipsacus.\n4. this frequency roars forestay.\n5. If something does not frutrate metonym then that does not roar frequency and/or does not everalize Dipsacus.\n6. This grayback is not sociocultural but she/he recovers.\n7. The claim that this forestay does not roar frequency stands if the fact that simulator is not a kind of a perishability but it is sociocultural is invalid.\n8. If this appendicle does not roar frequency this forestay frustrates metonym.\n9. If something does not roar frequency that simulator does not roar frequency and is a perishability.\n10. That blighter does not everalize Dipsacus.\n11. If this appendicle roars frequency then that blighter frustrates metonym and does not everalize Dipsacus is not valid.\n12. This forestay is non-sociocultural if that simulator does not roar frequency and is a perishability is invalid.\n13. This forestay is not a perishability if some person that does not roar frequency is a perishability.\n14. If that simulator is non-sociocultural then this forestay does not roar frequency.\n15. If that blighter is a counterterrorist then the fact that simulator is not a perishability but the thing is sociocultural is wrong.\n16. That simulator is sociocultural.\n17. That blighter grains industrialism is valid if this appendicle does frustrate metonym.\n18. That simulator is not a tempering.\n19. This forestay does not frutrate metonym and does not everalize Dipsacus if it does not frutrate metonym.\n20. This forestay is not sociocultural if the proposition that simulator is not a perishability and roars frequency is false.\n21. That blighter is classed as a counterterrorist if that blighter grains industrialism.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat simulator is not a perishability but the thing is sociocultural.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. Let's assume that that simulator is not a perishability but that person is sociocultural does not hold [assump1]. [fact7] states that ``The claim that this forestay does not roar frequency stands if the fact that simulator is not a kind of a perishability but it is sociocultural is invalid''. Together, [fact7] and [assump1] imply that that this forestay does not roar frequency is right, which we denote as [int1]. [fact1] states that ``This forestay roars frequency''. [int1] and [fact1] contradict each other, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [assump1] and [int2] imply that that simulator is not a perishability but the thing is sociocultural.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. Fulfillment takes place.\n2. Anthropophagousness does not take place.\n3. Trilling hoodooism does not occur.\n4. If touting Bennington does not happen then masonry occurs and labeling Pinnotheridae takes place.\n5. That labeling Pinnotheridae does not occur is prevented by that theatre does not occur.\n6. If that neither curtseying nor trilling hoodooism occur does not hold theatre does not happen.\n7. That theatre does not take place is triggered by trilling hoodooism.\n8. That not curtseying but trilling hoodooism takes place is incorrect.\n9. Suing gallimaufry does not occur and Transportation does not happen.\n10. If labeling Pinnotheridae occurs masonry or bivouacking or both occurs.\n11. Plagiarizing unruliness is brought about by that theatre occurs but fulfillment does not happen.\n12. The fact that theatre happens and fulfillment does not take place is not false if bivouacking happens.\n13. That neither labeling Pinnotheridae nor heckling Zu occur does not tand holds.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nNeither curtseying nor trilling hoodooism 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. If the extropicness happens the gonadotropicness occurs.\n2. That flexibleness does not happen and that recirculation does not occur if that splenicness happens is correct.\n3. If that benevolence does not happen the fact that both the non-flexibleness and this erectingness occurs does not hold.\n4. If this soaping Plasmodiidae happens that irreverence happens.\n5. That benevolence happens.\n6. That this accrual does not happen is brought about by that photomechanicalness occurs and this erectingness does not happen.\n7. This erectingness occurs.\n8. If this accrual happens then that adrenocorticalness occurs.\n9. Both that benevolence and this accrual happens.\n10. Both the tying and this colonizing Gadidae happens.\n11. Both this venerating terahertz and that benevolence happens if this accrual does not occur.\n12. That flexibleness does not occur but this erectingness occurs is triggered by that adrenocorticalness occurs.\n13. The sprout occurs.\n14. If that flexibleness does not occur that frying crushed and that adrenocorticalness happens.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nBoth the non-flexibleness and this erectingness happens.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact9] states that ``Both that benevolence and this accrual happens''. It implies that this accrual occurs, which we denote as [int1]. [fact8] states that ``If this accrual happens then that adrenocorticalness occurs''. Together, [int1] and [fact8] imply that that adrenocorticalness occurs, which we denote as [int2]. [fact12] states that ``That flexibleness does not occur but this erectingness occurs is triggered by that adrenocorticalness occurs''. Together, [int2] and [fact12] imply that both the non-flexibleness and this erectingness happens.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. A non-betulaceous thing is bladed and a augend.\n2. That faulting is betulaceous.\n3. If that faulting is betulaceous this Highness spumes profoundness.\n4. This Ponka is a penni and this one is a Terrapene.\n5. If this Ponka is betulaceous then that faulting deluges.\n6. That tichodrome does not pume profoundness.\n7. If this protomammal is betulaceous and a fair that trabecula is not some is right.\n8. That trabecula is not a Kachinic if that the one deluges and is not some does not hold.\n9. If that faulting deluges this protomammal is betulaceous and it is a fair.\n10. This Highness is some.\n11. If that trabecula is not some this Highness is not betulaceous.\n12. Some person that is not a Kachinic is non-betulaceous person that spumes profoundness.\n13. If this Highness spumes profoundness and is a Kachinic then this Ponka does not deluge.\n14. This Highness is a Kachinic and some.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis Ponka deluges.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact3] states that ``If that faulting is betulaceous this Highness spumes profoundness''. [fact2] states that ``That faulting is betulaceous''. Together, [fact3] and [fact2] imply that that this Highness spumes profoundness holds, which we denote as [int1]. [fact14] states that ``This Highness is a Kachinic and some''. It implies that this Highness is a Kachinic, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that this Highness does spume profoundness and that thing is a Kachinic, which we denote as [int3]. [fact13] states that ``If this Highness spumes profoundness and is a Kachinic then this Ponka does not deluge''. Together, [int3] and [fact13] imply that this Ponka deluges.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This disunifying prolixity does not happen if the totalitarian or that bearing or both happens.\n2. The amending erythroblastosis happens if either that incurableness or this bauxiticness or both happens.\n3. If that this neuroanatomicalness does not happen but this incumbency happens is false this incumbency does not occur.\n4. That shrimp happens if either that absolutisticness happens or this incumbency happens or both.\n5. The fact that grossness does not happen is right if that shrimp happens.\n6. That absolutisticness happens hold.\n7. The abducting Naiadaceae is prevented by that responsibility occurs.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat grossness occurs.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact6] states that ``That absolutisticness happens hold''. It implies that that absolutisticness occurs and/or this incumbency happens, which we denote as [int1]. [fact4] states that ``That shrimp happens if either that absolutisticness happens or this incumbency happens or both''. [fact5] states that ``The fact that grossness does not happen is right if that shrimp happens''. Together, [fact4] and [fact5] imply that that grossness is prevented by that either that absolutisticness happens or this incumbency occurs or both, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that that grossness occurs.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If some man is not a sidestep it is a Sisyrinchium and it is non-bloodless.\n2. If something is not a kind of a winding then that does insolate amicability and requisitions Greenville is incorrect.\n3. If Jasmine does insolate amicability this flatus is a Echinacea.\n4. that Greenville does not requiition Mormon.\n5. The sparling is not a Echinacea.\n6. If Jasmine is a sidestep this flatus is not a sidestep.\n7. If something is not a kind of a winding and/or it does not requiition Greenville then it does not requiition Greenville.\n8. That this flatus is not a winding and/or it does not requiition Greenville hold.\n9. that amicability insolates Mormon.\n10. If this flatus is a Sisyrinchium and is not bloodless then this Mormon is not a winding.\n11. If Jasmine is not Handelian then it is both cuticular and a sidestep.\n12. This Mormon does not requiition Greenville.\n13. If something insolates amicability but this thing does not requiition Greenville this thing is a kind of a Echinacea.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis Mormon is not a Echinacea.", "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 Sumatran is a kind of a medallion.\n2. If that Dewar is a medallion then the fact that this Sumatran tars Lycopodiate is correct.\n3. That Dewar tars Lycopodiate if this Sumatran is a medallion.\n4. Otto is a medallion.\n5. That Dewar is a ROI.\n6. This Sumatran does bond kilogram.\n7. That Dewar is not a medallion or not atactic or both if Mary does not inge.\n8. If someone is not atactic it is a medallion that tars Lycopodiate.\n9. That Dewar is a medallion.\n10. This Sumatran is an invariant.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis Sumatran tars Lycopodiate.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact2] states that ``If that Dewar is a medallion then the fact that this Sumatran tars Lycopodiate is correct''. [fact9] states that ``That Dewar is a medallion''. Together, [fact2] and [fact9] imply that this Sumatran tars Lycopodiate.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That classmate does not calculate Montessori.\n2. This phragmacone does not calculate Montessori if that classmate is not obtrusive or it does not brave stubbiness or both is wrong.\n3. This phragmacone braves stubbiness.\n4. This epiphyllum evades.\n5. That classmate does not evade.\n6. If this epiphyllum evades then that either that classmate is not obtrusive or this thing does not brave stubbiness or both does not hold.\n7. If this epiphyllum is obtrusive then that this phragmacone does not calculate Montessori and/or does not evade is wrong.\n8. This epiphyllum does not calculate Montessori if that this phragmacone either evades or does not brave stubbiness or both is wrong.\n9. If that this phragmacone does not brave stubbiness and/or it is not obtrusive is wrong that classmate does not calculate Montessori.\n10. If the fact that this epiphyllum braves stubbiness and/or it is not obtrusive is not correct then that classmate does not evade.\n11. The insecticide is obtrusive.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis phragmacone calculates Montessori.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact6] states that ``If this epiphyllum evades then that either that classmate is not obtrusive or this thing does not brave stubbiness or both does not hold''. [fact4] states that ``This epiphyllum evades''. Together, [fact6] and [fact4] imply that the fact that that classmate is not obtrusive and/or does not brave stubbiness is not wrong does not hold, which we denote as [int1]. [fact2] states that ``This phragmacone does not calculate Montessori if that classmate is not obtrusive or it does not brave stubbiness or both is wrong''. Together, [int1] and [fact2] imply that this phragmacone calculates Montessori.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. This wasting does not occur if that reciting does not occur.\n2. That this ordeal does not happen hold if the seismologicalness does not occur.\n3. If this sidelining occurs that pavage does not happen.\n4. That coarsenessing nationalism triggers that cathecting tearfulness.\n5. That pavage occurs is brought about by that this sidelining does not happen.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that if this sidelining does not happen that pavage does not happen 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. That aquaplane slams quatercentenary if the fact that the fact that Chasid does not await hydromancy and is not unsolved is not wrong is wrong.\n2. The fact that aquaplane is not a kind of a quibble and does await hydromancy is wrong if that maturement is not a Luce is correct.\n3. Some man slams quatercentenary if it is a kind of a Bushnell.\n4. If that aquaplane is uninfluential and/or is not unattached then that maturement is uninfluential.\n5. If that someone does not ward pictured but she is eusporangiate is false she is not immunotherapeutic.\n6. The fact that maturement does not ward pictured and is eusporangiate does not hold.\n7. Something is not a Luce if this is not a Bushnell.\n8. If that maturement is not a Luce that aquaplane is not a quibble and does not await hydromancy is not right.\n9. Something is a Bushnell if this thing jostles sogginess and this thing is not immunotherapeutic.\n10. If the fact that aquaplane is splashy hold then that aquaplane is uninfluential or this thing is not unattached or both.\n11. If that maturement is uninfluential the thing jostles sogginess.\n12. That maturement is not a Luce.\n13. The fact that something is unsolved and slams quatercentenary does not hold if this thing is not a Luce.\n14. That Chasid jostles sogginess and is a Bushnell.\n15. That Chasid jostles sogginess.\n16. That aquaplane is splashy.\n17. Something is a Horus if that disobliges Masa and does not handle prospicience.\n18. That Chasid is a Luce but that does not jotle sogginess is incorrect.\n19. If that maturement is a Bushnell and is a kind of a Horus then that Chasid is not a Bushnell.\n20. That maturement disobliges Masa.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat Chasid is unsolved one that slams quatercentenary 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. Either somebody is insentient or that one is expendable or both if the fact that one is not a slanted is correct.\n2. This penetrator is a kind of an adjective and the thing is a angioma.\n3. Something is not a slanted if the fact that it is a kind of an adjective is not false.\n4. If this penetrator ordinates lawlessness then it is a languor and/or it kills dysphasia.\n5. The fact that this penetrator is not a angioma if this penetrator is not enthusiastic but it is a graduated is right.\n6. The fact that the fact that Richard is not a boating but it is a Gleicheniaceae is correct is wrong.\n7. If this penetrator is a kind of a angioma then this ropewalker is a kind of a angioma.\n8. If this penetrator is not enthusiastic and she/he is not a graduated then she/he is not a angioma.\n9. This penetrator is a angioma and/or it ordinates lawlessness if this penetrator is insentient.\n10. This penetrator is both a commute and a slipping.\n11. If this penetrator is a languor then this tortrix is a Dactylopteridae.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that this penetrator is not enthusiastic and is not a graduated is incorrect.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. Let's assume that this penetrator is not enthusiastic and she/he is not a kind of a graduated [assump1]. [fact8] states that ``If this penetrator is not enthusiastic and she/he is not a graduated then she/he is not a angioma''. Together, [fact8] and [assump1] imply that this penetrator is not a angioma, which we denote as [int1]. [fact2] states that ``This penetrator is a kind of an adjective and the thing is a angioma''. It implies that this penetrator is a angioma, which we denote as [int2]. [int1] and [int2] contradict each other, which we denote as [int3]. Together, [assump1] and [int3] imply that the fact that this penetrator is not enthusiastic and is not a graduated is incorrect.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If the fact that something is both not interspecies and not a Behrens is incorrect then that does not tunnel shoeful.\n2. If the fact that this participant is not a etymologizing and that is not paniculate is wrong that is not a ciliate.\n3. If the fact that carrefour is both not interspecies and not a wanted does not hold then that thing does not penetrate Daubentoniidae.\n4. That that carrefour is not a kind of a lxx and is irremovable is wrong hold.\n5. If that carrefour is not paniculate the fact that it is not non-interspecies and it is not a kind of a Behrens does not hold.\n6. That carrefour is not a resplendence.\n7. That carrefour is not paniculate.\n8. This whitetail is not paniculate.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat carrefour does not tunnel shoeful.", "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 cataract does not equalie if that he does not reveal bureaucracy and does equalise does not hold.\n2. That Massorete is a kind of a paysheet if that cataract equalises.\n3. That cataract is interplanetary.\n4. The fact that cataract equalises hold if that cataract is interplanetary.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat Massorete is a paysheet.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact4] states that ``The fact that cataract equalises hold if that cataract is interplanetary''. [fact3] states that ``That cataract is interplanetary''. Together, [fact4] and [fact3] imply that that cataract equalises, which we denote as [int1]. [fact2] states that ``That Massorete is a kind of a paysheet if that cataract equalises''. Together, [int1] and [fact2] imply that that Massorete is a paysheet.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The harmonicness triggers that this prompting occurs and that lumbering does not occur.\n2. That the thrusting and that non-pleomorphicness occurs is wrong.\n3. That the concerting happens and the separating Apidae happens is incorrect.\n4. That nonharmonicness does not happen if the fact that this masonry does not occur and this disqualification does not occur is wrong.\n5. The fact that this hooking and this Manicheeness happens is not true.\n6. The fact that both this hooking and that non-Manicheeness happens does not hold.\n7. The fact that the presidentship and the virga occurs is wrong.\n8. If this orchestralness does not occur then that this masonry does not occur and this disqualification does not happen is false.\n9. The fact that the covering jeer occurs and the gyroscopicness does not occur is correct is incorrect.\n10. That the seppuku occurs but this appeasing does not occur is false.\n11. That plaining but not this slander happens is incorrect.\n12. That lumbering does not happen yields that both this hooking and that non-Manicheeness happens.\n13. That lumbering happens if that this egression but not this Revelation occurs is true.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThe fact that both this hooking and that non-Manicheeness happens does not hold.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact6] states that ``The fact that both this hooking and that non-Manicheeness happens does not hold''. It implies that the fact that both this hooking and that non-Manicheeness happens does not hold.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That Renato is not dynastic is right if that streamlet is not a atonality and it is not a Deparia does not hold.\n2. The fact that Renato neither is a atonality nor is dynastic is invalid.\n3. That streamlet is not dynastic if that Renato is not a Deparia and that is not a iii does not tand.\n4. If that streamlet is a iii is right then that it is not a atonality and it is not a Deparia is wrong.\n5. Corey is not dynastic.\n6. That void is not a iii and the person is not a semicentenary is not true.\n7. If the statement that streamlet does not honor Coniferopsida and does not interlace hypersomnia does not tand then that streamlet is not astrophysical is not false.\n8. If that streamlet is both a iii and not dynastic does not hold then Renato is dynastic.\n9. Renato is not dynastic if that streamlet is a Deparia.\n10. If some man is not astrophysical then the fact that it is a iii and it is not dynastic is wrong.\n11. Renato is a Deparia.\n12. That streamlet is a iii.\n13. If that streamlet is a iii then that it is not a atonality and it is a Deparia is not right.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nRenato is dynastic.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact4] states that ``If that streamlet is a iii is right then that it is not a atonality and it is not a Deparia is wrong''. [fact12] states that ``That streamlet is a iii''. Together, [fact4] and [fact12] imply that that that streamlet is not a kind of a atonality and she/he is not a Deparia is invalid holds, which we denote as [int1]. [fact1] states that ``That Renato is not dynastic is right if that streamlet is not a atonality and it is not a Deparia does not hold''. Together, [int1] and [fact1] imply that renato is dynastic.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That kasbah is not a kind of a postcard.\n2. This jimhickey does not filtrate anima.\n3. That this jimhickey is both a Brugmansia and not a postcard does not hold.\n4. Someone is not a Brugmansia if that it does not filtrate anima is correct.\n5. That dauphin does not manufacture Bismarck if this jimhickey filtrates anima.\n6. The fact that this jimhickey is not a kind of a Quinquagesima and it is not a postcard is wrong.\n7. The storksbill does not filtrate anima.\n8. If this jimhickey is a Brugmansia then that dauphin is not a kind of a postcard is true.\n9. If the fact that this jimhickey is not a postcard and does not filtrate anima is incorrect then that dauphin is not a kind of a Brugmansia.\n10. This jimhickey is not a postcard if it does not filtrate anima.\n11. That dauphin is not a postcard if this jimhickey filtrates anima.\n12. If that dauphin is a postcard this jimhickey is not a kind of a Brugmansia.\n13. That dauphin is not a kind of a Brugmansia if this jimhickey filtrates anima.\n14. That dauphin is not a SEAL.\n15. That Deborah is a kind of yogic person that is not bold is incorrect.\n16. If the fact that this jimhickey is not a Brugmansia and the one is not a postcard is wrong that dauphin does not manufacture Bismarck is true.\n17. This jimhickey does not croon atheism.\n18. If the fact that this jimhickey does not manufacture Bismarck and is not a kind of a postcard is wrong then that dauphin does not filtrate anima.\n19. That dauphin is not a postcard.\n20. This jimhickey is a Brugmansia and/or is a inconceivableness if that accessary does not filtrate anima.\n21. That this jimhickey filtrates anima but it does not manufacture Bismarck is not correct.\n22. If someone does not hybridie Bemidji that person does not categorie Christmastide.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat dauphin is a kind of a Brugmansia.", "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 something is a kind of dextral thing that is not a kind of a pomology is wrong it honks Ms.\n2. That something is both dextral and not a pomology does not hold if the thing is not non-anisometropic.\n3. This mould is anisometropic.\n4. If the fact that some person is both nonspatial and not anisometropic is false then it is anisometropic.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis mould honks Ms.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact2] states that ``That something is both dextral and not a pomology does not hold if the thing is not non-anisometropic''. It implies that that the fact that this mould is dextral and not a pomology is not right if this mould is not non-anisometropic is right, which we denote as [int1]. [fact3] states that ``This mould is anisometropic''. Together, [int1] and [fact3] imply that the fact that this mould is dextral person that is not a kind of a pomology is incorrect, which we denote as [int2]. [fact1] states that ``If that something is a kind of dextral thing that is not a kind of a pomology is wrong it honks Ms''. It implies that if the fact that this mould is both dextral and not a pomology does not hold he/she honks Ms, which we denote as [int3]. Together, [int2] and [int3] imply that this mould honks Ms.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That this cheat is not Nilotic hold if he/she is a cetacean.\n2. That this cheat is not inglorious but that is a Waco is false.\n3. The fact that something is not a Waco is correct if the fact that the fact that the thing is not a Riksmal but nonsubmersible is not incorrect is wrong.\n4. Something is a kind of a perfecter but the thing is not a kind of a Waco if the fact that the thing is not a Waco is right.\n5. That this cheat is not a Riksmal and not submersible is false if the fact that he is a kind of a cetacean is correct.\n6. If this burin conjures then that this burin is a Greco and Brazilian is incorrect.\n7. This cheat is a cetacean.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat this cheat is a perfecter but the one is not a Waco is incorrect.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact5] states that ``That this cheat is not a Riksmal and not submersible is false if the fact that he is a kind of a cetacean is correct''. [fact7] states that ``This cheat is a cetacean''. Together, [fact5] and [fact7] imply that the fact that this cheat is not a Riksmal and is nonsubmersible does not hold, which we denote as [int1]. [fact3] states that ``The fact that something is not a Waco is correct if the fact that the fact that the thing is not a Riksmal but nonsubmersible is not incorrect is wrong''. It implies that if that this cheat is not a Riksmal and is nonsubmersible does not hold it is not a Waco, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that this cheat is not a Waco, which we denote as [int3]. [fact4] states that ``Something is a kind of a perfecter but the thing is not a kind of a Waco if the fact that the thing is not a Waco is right''. It implies that if this cheat is not a Waco then this cheat is a perfecter but it is not a Waco, which we denote as [int4]. Together, [int3] and [int4] imply that that this cheat is a perfecter but the one is not a Waco is incorrect.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If the fact that this machilid is a Aeneid is correct then that craniometer does not loot drusen.\n2. This machilid is inadvisable.\n3. This machilid is not a Aeneid.\n4. The fact that tremble is a ankyloglossia and/or that one does not transgres Orchidaceae is wrong if that one is not unappealable.\n5. That tremble rocks senselessness.\n6. That tremble is a ankyloglossia.\n7. Something does not molder if the fact that this is a ankyloglossia or this does not transgres Orchidaceae or both does not hold.\n8. That tremble does not loot drusen if this machilid is a Aeneid.\n9. That tremble does not loot drusen.\n10. If that tremble skews and/or is not a Cocytus the fact that tremble is not unappealable is true.\n11. If something does not publicie Cuvier then it is a Aeneid and loots drusen.\n12. That tremble does not publicie Cuvier if this machilid does not molder.\n13. That tremble is a Aeneid.\n14. This machilid publicises Cuvier and is a Aeneid if the fact that tremble does not molder is true.\n15. This machilid is not a Aeneid if that tremble does loot drusen.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis machilid loots drusen.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If someone is not an ecclesiastic that the fact that person is a kind of phonogramic one that is tight is not incorrect does not hold.\n2. If this wonderland is a tangled that this wonderland does not mob Crotophaga but it laves orology does not hold.\n3. This wonderland is a kind of negligent man that is a kind of a Allhallowtide.\n4. If that something does not mob Crotophaga but it does lave orology does not hold it mob Crotophaga.\n5. This wonderland is a Pyrrhocoridae if that ampoule is phonogramic and is an ecclesiastic.\n6. That ampoule is not a kind of a Pyrrhocoridae.\n7. This wonderland is tight.\n8. This wonderland is an ecclesiastic if that ampoule is not a Pyrrhocoridae but it is a Paleacrita.\n9. Somebody that mobs Crotophaga and/or deprives metaphor is not an ecclesiastic.\n10. This wonderland is an ecclesiastic if that ampoule is not a Paleacrita and not non-phonogramic.\n11. That ampoule is both not a Pyrrhocoridae and a Paleacrita.\n12. This wonderland is a Coffea.\n13. Somebody is phonogramic if the one is an ecclesiastic.\n14. If this wonderland is a Pyrrhocoridae then this wonderland is phonogramic.\n15. This Tutsi is tight.\n16. If something is a kind of a Pyrrhocoridae then it is phonogramic.\n17. This wonderland is not a Paleacrita.\n18. Something that is a kind of a Paleacrita is phonogramic.\n19. This wonderland coldcocks Dolby.\n20. This wonderland is a kind of a regionalism that is an infancy.\n21. If that ampoule is a kind of a Pyrrhocoridae and is a kind of a Paleacrita this wonderland is a kind of an ecclesiastic.\n22. This wonderland redes woodgrain and refrigerates Pinctada.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis wonderland is phonogramic and this thing is tight.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact8] states that ``This wonderland is an ecclesiastic if that ampoule is not a Pyrrhocoridae but it is a Paleacrita''. [fact11] states that ``That ampoule is both not a Pyrrhocoridae and a Paleacrita''. Together, [fact8] and [fact11] imply that this wonderland is an ecclesiastic, which we denote as [int1]. [fact13] states that ``Somebody is phonogramic if the one is an ecclesiastic''. It implies that if this wonderland is an ecclesiastic this wonderland is phonogramic, which we denote as [int2]. Together, [int1] and [int2] imply that this wonderland is phonogramic, which we denote as [int3]. [fact7] states that ``This wonderland is tight''. Together, [int3] and [fact7] imply that this wonderland is phonogramic and this thing is tight.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If this Missourian is Gaussian and this is a Abronia then Diana is not Gaussian.\n2. This anovulant is a kind of a pseudocyesis.\n3. This Missourian exiles.\n4. This Missourian is Gaussian if he/she majors.\n5. Someone that is not a flute does not engrave assertiveness and is a Abronia.\n6. The fact that this Missourian is not a vocal is true.\n7. This Missourian does major.\n8. That poacher is a servo.\n9. That this Missourian is not a pseudocyesis if that this Chesterfield does not wobble Coreidae and/or is not a servo is false hold.\n10. Somebody is a mineralogy but it is not a flute if it is not a vocal.\n11. If something that does not wobble Coreidae is not a pseudocyesis then the fact that thing is a servo is true.\n12. Something does not wobble Coreidae and the thing is not a pseudocyesis if the thing is not Gaussian.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis Missourian is a pseudocyesis.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. If this Hymen is Pavlovian and it is digital this Hymen is not compatible.\n2. The fact that something is not intermediate and not gonadotrophic is correct if it is not a damn.\n3. This machete is steroidal if there is some person such that he is both not nonprescription and direct does not hold.\n4. If that something is not a Furnarius and spots doubt is not right it is a Furnarius.\n5. If there is something such that the fact that it is prescription and it flakes is wrong then Mikey is steroidal.\n6. That Mikey is not nonprescription but direct is wrong.\n7. This machete is a orangeness and it is seasonable if that sleuth does not prove Brummagem.\n8. Somebody flakes if this one is steroidal.\n9. Some man does not prove Brummagem and/or is a kind of a childbearing if it is a Furnarius.\n10. If this lamasery is non-intermediate person that is non-gonadotrophic then that gorgonian is non-gonadotrophic.\n11. If this ponderosa manifests Fumaria this lamasery is not a damn.\n12. This Hymen is Pavlovian and the person is digital.\n13. This screwdriver does not guestimate contemporaneity and does coldcock Holmes if that this Hymen is not compatible is correct.\n14. That this machete is not direct and flakes is not true.\n15. This machete does not flake if that sleuth flake.\n16. If some person does not prove Brummagem or is a childbearing or both the one does not prove Brummagem.\n17. This ponderosa does not guestimate contemporaneity if this screwdriver does not guestimate contemporaneity and coldcocks Holmes.\n18. If that gorgonian is a kind of a Furnarius then the fact that sleuth is a Furnarius is right.\n19. That somebody is not a Furnarius and spots doubt is false if she/he is gonadotrophic.\n20. That sleuth flakes and is a orangeness if that sleuth is not seasonable.\n21. If somebody does not guestimate contemporaneity either it manifests Fumaria or it is a damn or both.\n22. Something does not flake and is steroidal if it is a kind of a orangeness.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThis machete does flake.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably true. [fact6] states that ``That Mikey is not nonprescription but direct is wrong''. It implies that there exists something such that the fact that the thing is not nonprescription and the thing is not indirect is wrong, which we denote as [int1]. [fact3] states that ``This machete is steroidal if there is some person such that he is both not nonprescription and direct does not hold''. Together, [int1] and [fact3] imply that this machete is steroidal, which we denote as [int2]. [fact8] states that ``Somebody flakes if this one is steroidal''. It implies that if this machete is steroidal then it flakes, which we denote as [int3]. Together, [int2] and [int3] imply that this machete does flake.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. That the sailing does not happen is caused by that the instillation happens.\n2. The instillation and the counterploting inferiority occurs if that jamming Svalbard does not happen.\n3. That this RFD does not happen and that mockery occurs is brought about by that branch does not occur.\n4. That mockery occurs if that not that mockery but this RFD occurs hold is incorrect.\n5. If that leash happens and/or this RFD occurs then that mockery does not happen.\n6. The humbling does not happen.\n7. If the race does not occur that branch and that flicking occurs.\n8. If this RFD occurs that mockery does not occur.\n9. That leash does not happen is false.\n10. That not that mockery but this RFD occurs does not hold if that leash does not occur.\n11. Either that jamming Svalbard does not occur or that this incorrigibleness occurs or both causes that jamming Svalbard does not happen.\n12. The ricochet happens and/or the charting Gutierrezia happens.\n13. This lighting occurs.\n14. That bractedness occurs.\n15. That the osteoclasis and/or that atheromatousness occurs prevents that the referencing occurs.\n16. The Achaean happens.\n17. If the sailing does not occur then the race does not occur and this Britishism does not occur.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat mockery happens.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement is provably false. [fact9] states that ``That leash does not happen is false''. It implies that that leash happens or this RFD occurs or both, which we denote as [int1]. [fact5] states that ``If that leash happens and/or this RFD occurs then that mockery does not happen''. Together, [int1] and [fact5] imply that that mockery happens.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Assume that the following statements are all true.\n1. The claim that unhallowedness does not happen but gustativeness takes place is not right.\n2. That neither unhallowedness nor gustativeness occur are caused by augmenting Rhineland.\n3. That bower does not happen and Tusdoes not take place is invalid if augmenting Rhineland happens.\n4. That unhallowedness but not gustativeness occurs is invalid.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat neither unhallowedness nor gustativeness happen is invalid.", "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 caoutchouc deceases.\n2. This caoutchouc is an even if that stump does not deceae.\n3. That stump is a kind of an even if that that treadwheel is non-Gibraltarian but the thing is choric is correct is incorrect.\n\nAnalyze if the statement is provably true and explain your reasoning:\nThat stump is an even.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The statement cannot be proved or disproved with the given facts", "role": "assistant" } ]