premise
stringlengths 923
1.41k
| hypothesis
stringlengths 11
33
| label
stringclasses 4
values |
|---|---|---|
Lane is not latter.
Robert is latter.
Alvin is latter.
Alvin is not generous.
Basil is not elegant.
Basil is not generous.
Marvin is not agreeable.
Robert is not victorious.
Konrad is not mental.
Lane is elegant.
Marvin is latter.
Robert is agreeable.Jorge being not latter is equivalent to Robert being mental.
Jorge being elegant or Konrad being not mental implies that Robert is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and victorious, then Konrad is not mental.
Someone is not generous and mental if and only if he is not latter.
Alvin being not victorious and Robert being latter imply that Marvin is elegant.
Someone being both generous and not elegant is equivalent to being not latter.
If there is at least one people who is not agreeable, then Alvin is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If Konrad is mental or Robert is not agreeable, then Alvin is generous.
If there is someone who is either not generous or not agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If there is someone who is both mental and elegant, then Marvin is not victorious.
If someone is not agreeable, then he is not generous, and vice versa. | Basil is not agreeable. | entailment |
Lane is not latter.
Robert is latter.
Alvin is latter.
Alvin is not generous.
Basil is not elegant.
Basil is not generous.
Marvin is not agreeable.
Robert is not victorious.
Konrad is not mental.
Lane is elegant.
Marvin is latter.
Robert is agreeable.Jorge being not latter is equivalent to Robert being mental.
Jorge being elegant or Konrad being not mental implies that Robert is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and victorious, then Konrad is not mental.
Someone is not generous and mental if and only if he is not latter.
Alvin being not victorious and Robert being latter imply that Marvin is elegant.
Someone being both generous and not elegant is equivalent to being not latter.
If there is at least one people who is not agreeable, then Alvin is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If Konrad is mental or Robert is not agreeable, then Alvin is generous.
If there is someone who is either not generous or not agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If there is someone who is both mental and elegant, then Marvin is not victorious.
If someone is not agreeable, then he is not generous, and vice versa. | Basil is not elegant. | entailment |
Lane is not latter.
Robert is latter.
Alvin is latter.
Alvin is not generous.
Basil is not elegant.
Basil is not generous.
Marvin is not agreeable.
Robert is not victorious.
Konrad is not mental.
Lane is elegant.
Marvin is latter.
Robert is agreeable.Jorge being not latter is equivalent to Robert being mental.
Jorge being elegant or Konrad being not mental implies that Robert is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and victorious, then Konrad is not mental.
Someone is not generous and mental if and only if he is not latter.
Alvin being not victorious and Robert being latter imply that Marvin is elegant.
Someone being both generous and not elegant is equivalent to being not latter.
If there is at least one people who is not agreeable, then Alvin is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If Konrad is mental or Robert is not agreeable, then Alvin is generous.
If there is someone who is either not generous or not agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If there is someone who is both mental and elegant, then Marvin is not victorious.
If someone is not agreeable, then he is not generous, and vice versa. | Marvin is agreeable. | contradiction |
Lane is not latter.
Robert is latter.
Alvin is latter.
Alvin is not generous.
Basil is not elegant.
Basil is not generous.
Marvin is not agreeable.
Robert is not victorious.
Konrad is not mental.
Lane is elegant.
Marvin is latter.
Robert is agreeable.Jorge being not latter is equivalent to Robert being mental.
Jorge being elegant or Konrad being not mental implies that Robert is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and victorious, then Konrad is not mental.
Someone is not generous and mental if and only if he is not latter.
Alvin being not victorious and Robert being latter imply that Marvin is elegant.
Someone being both generous and not elegant is equivalent to being not latter.
If there is at least one people who is not agreeable, then Alvin is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If Konrad is mental or Robert is not agreeable, then Alvin is generous.
If there is someone who is either not generous or not agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If there is someone who is both mental and elegant, then Marvin is not victorious.
If someone is not agreeable, then he is not generous, and vice versa. | Basil is victorious. | neutral |
Lane is not latter.
Robert is latter.
Alvin is latter.
Alvin is not generous.
Basil is not elegant.
Basil is not generous.
Marvin is not agreeable.
Robert is not victorious.
Konrad is not mental.
Lane is elegant.
Marvin is latter.
Robert is agreeable.Jorge being not latter is equivalent to Robert being mental.
Jorge being elegant or Konrad being not mental implies that Robert is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and victorious, then Konrad is not mental.
Someone is not generous and mental if and only if he is not latter.
Alvin being not victorious and Robert being latter imply that Marvin is elegant.
Someone being both generous and not elegant is equivalent to being not latter.
If there is at least one people who is not agreeable, then Alvin is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If Konrad is mental or Robert is not agreeable, then Alvin is generous.
If there is someone who is either not generous or not agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If there is someone who is both mental and elegant, then Marvin is not victorious.
If someone is not agreeable, then he is not generous, and vice versa. | Lane is not generous. | self_contradiction |
Lane is not latter.
Robert is latter.
Alvin is latter.
Alvin is not generous.
Basil is not elegant.
Basil is not generous.
Marvin is not agreeable.
Robert is not victorious.
Konrad is not mental.
Lane is elegant.
Marvin is latter.
Robert is agreeable.Jorge being not latter is equivalent to Robert being mental.
Jorge being elegant or Konrad being not mental implies that Robert is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and victorious, then Konrad is not mental.
Someone is not generous and mental if and only if he is not latter.
Alvin being not victorious and Robert being latter imply that Marvin is elegant.
Someone being both generous and not elegant is equivalent to being not latter.
If there is at least one people who is not agreeable, then Alvin is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If Konrad is mental or Robert is not agreeable, then Alvin is generous.
If there is someone who is either not generous or not agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If there is someone who is both mental and elegant, then Marvin is not victorious.
If someone is not agreeable, then he is not generous, and vice versa. | Basil is elegant. | contradiction |
Lane is not latter.
Robert is latter.
Alvin is latter.
Alvin is not generous.
Basil is not elegant.
Basil is not generous.
Marvin is not agreeable.
Robert is not victorious.
Konrad is not mental.
Lane is elegant.
Marvin is latter.
Robert is agreeable.Jorge being not latter is equivalent to Robert being mental.
Jorge being elegant or Konrad being not mental implies that Robert is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and victorious, then Konrad is not mental.
Someone is not generous and mental if and only if he is not latter.
Alvin being not victorious and Robert being latter imply that Marvin is elegant.
Someone being both generous and not elegant is equivalent to being not latter.
If there is at least one people who is not agreeable, then Alvin is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If Konrad is mental or Robert is not agreeable, then Alvin is generous.
If there is someone who is either not generous or not agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If there is someone who is both mental and elegant, then Marvin is not victorious.
If someone is not agreeable, then he is not generous, and vice versa. | Robert is not latter. | contradiction |
Lane is not latter.
Robert is latter.
Alvin is latter.
Alvin is not generous.
Basil is not elegant.
Basil is not generous.
Marvin is not agreeable.
Robert is not victorious.
Konrad is not mental.
Lane is elegant.
Marvin is latter.
Robert is agreeable.Jorge being not latter is equivalent to Robert being mental.
Jorge being elegant or Konrad being not mental implies that Robert is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and victorious, then Konrad is not mental.
Someone is not generous and mental if and only if he is not latter.
Alvin being not victorious and Robert being latter imply that Marvin is elegant.
Someone being both generous and not elegant is equivalent to being not latter.
If there is at least one people who is not agreeable, then Alvin is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If Konrad is mental or Robert is not agreeable, then Alvin is generous.
If there is someone who is either not generous or not agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If there is someone who is both mental and elegant, then Marvin is not victorious.
If someone is not agreeable, then he is not generous, and vice versa. | Marvin is generous. | contradiction |
Lane is not latter.
Robert is latter.
Alvin is latter.
Alvin is not generous.
Basil is not elegant.
Basil is not generous.
Marvin is not agreeable.
Robert is not victorious.
Konrad is not mental.
Lane is elegant.
Marvin is latter.
Robert is agreeable.Jorge being not latter is equivalent to Robert being mental.
Jorge being elegant or Konrad being not mental implies that Robert is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and victorious, then Konrad is not mental.
Someone is not generous and mental if and only if he is not latter.
Alvin being not victorious and Robert being latter imply that Marvin is elegant.
Someone being both generous and not elegant is equivalent to being not latter.
If there is at least one people who is not agreeable, then Alvin is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If Konrad is mental or Robert is not agreeable, then Alvin is generous.
If there is someone who is either not generous or not agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If there is someone who is both mental and elegant, then Marvin is not victorious.
If someone is not agreeable, then he is not generous, and vice versa. | Konrad is victorious. | neutral |
Lane is not latter.
Robert is latter.
Alvin is latter.
Alvin is not generous.
Basil is not elegant.
Basil is not generous.
Marvin is not agreeable.
Robert is not victorious.
Konrad is not mental.
Lane is elegant.
Marvin is latter.
Robert is agreeable.Jorge being not latter is equivalent to Robert being mental.
Jorge being elegant or Konrad being not mental implies that Robert is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and victorious, then Konrad is not mental.
Someone is not generous and mental if and only if he is not latter.
Alvin being not victorious and Robert being latter imply that Marvin is elegant.
Someone being both generous and not elegant is equivalent to being not latter.
If there is at least one people who is not agreeable, then Alvin is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If Konrad is mental or Robert is not agreeable, then Alvin is generous.
If there is someone who is either not generous or not agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If there is someone who is both mental and elegant, then Marvin is not victorious.
If someone is not agreeable, then he is not generous, and vice versa. | Marvin is not victorious. | entailment |
Lane is not latter.
Robert is latter.
Alvin is latter.
Alvin is not generous.
Basil is not elegant.
Basil is not generous.
Marvin is not agreeable.
Robert is not victorious.
Konrad is not mental.
Lane is elegant.
Marvin is latter.
Robert is agreeable.Jorge being not latter is equivalent to Robert being mental.
Jorge being elegant or Konrad being not mental implies that Robert is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and victorious, then Konrad is not mental.
Someone is not generous and mental if and only if he is not latter.
Alvin being not victorious and Robert being latter imply that Marvin is elegant.
Someone being both generous and not elegant is equivalent to being not latter.
If there is at least one people who is not agreeable, then Alvin is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If Konrad is mental or Robert is not agreeable, then Alvin is generous.
If there is someone who is either not generous or not agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If there is someone who is both mental and elegant, then Marvin is not victorious.
If someone is not agreeable, then he is not generous, and vice versa. | Lane is elegant. | self_contradiction |
Lane is not latter.
Robert is latter.
Alvin is latter.
Alvin is not generous.
Basil is not elegant.
Basil is not generous.
Marvin is not agreeable.
Robert is not victorious.
Konrad is not mental.
Lane is elegant.
Marvin is latter.
Robert is agreeable.Jorge being not latter is equivalent to Robert being mental.
Jorge being elegant or Konrad being not mental implies that Robert is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and victorious, then Konrad is not mental.
Someone is not generous and mental if and only if he is not latter.
Alvin being not victorious and Robert being latter imply that Marvin is elegant.
Someone being both generous and not elegant is equivalent to being not latter.
If there is at least one people who is not agreeable, then Alvin is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If Konrad is mental or Robert is not agreeable, then Alvin is generous.
If there is someone who is either not generous or not agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If there is someone who is both mental and elegant, then Marvin is not victorious.
If someone is not agreeable, then he is not generous, and vice versa. | Basil is not latter. | neutral |
Lane is not latter.
Robert is latter.
Alvin is latter.
Alvin is not generous.
Basil is not elegant.
Basil is not generous.
Marvin is not agreeable.
Robert is not victorious.
Konrad is not mental.
Lane is elegant.
Marvin is latter.
Robert is agreeable.Jorge being not latter is equivalent to Robert being mental.
Jorge being elegant or Konrad being not mental implies that Robert is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and victorious, then Konrad is not mental.
Someone is not generous and mental if and only if he is not latter.
Alvin being not victorious and Robert being latter imply that Marvin is elegant.
Someone being both generous and not elegant is equivalent to being not latter.
If there is at least one people who is not agreeable, then Alvin is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If Konrad is mental or Robert is not agreeable, then Alvin is generous.
If there is someone who is either not generous or not agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If there is someone who is both mental and elegant, then Marvin is not victorious.
If someone is not agreeable, then he is not generous, and vice versa. | Jorge is elegant. | neutral |
Lane is not latter.
Robert is latter.
Alvin is latter.
Alvin is not generous.
Basil is not elegant.
Basil is not generous.
Marvin is not agreeable.
Robert is not victorious.
Konrad is not mental.
Lane is elegant.
Marvin is latter.
Robert is agreeable.Jorge being not latter is equivalent to Robert being mental.
Jorge being elegant or Konrad being not mental implies that Robert is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and victorious, then Konrad is not mental.
Someone is not generous and mental if and only if he is not latter.
Alvin being not victorious and Robert being latter imply that Marvin is elegant.
Someone being both generous and not elegant is equivalent to being not latter.
If there is at least one people who is not agreeable, then Alvin is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If Konrad is mental or Robert is not agreeable, then Alvin is generous.
If there is someone who is either not generous or not agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If there is someone who is both mental and elegant, then Marvin is not victorious.
If someone is not agreeable, then he is not generous, and vice versa. | Robert is agreeable. | self_contradiction |
Lane is not latter.
Robert is latter.
Alvin is latter.
Alvin is not generous.
Basil is not elegant.
Basil is not generous.
Marvin is not agreeable.
Robert is not victorious.
Konrad is not mental.
Lane is elegant.
Marvin is latter.
Robert is agreeable.Jorge being not latter is equivalent to Robert being mental.
Jorge being elegant or Konrad being not mental implies that Robert is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and victorious, then Konrad is not mental.
Someone is not generous and mental if and only if he is not latter.
Alvin being not victorious and Robert being latter imply that Marvin is elegant.
Someone being both generous and not elegant is equivalent to being not latter.
If there is at least one people who is not agreeable, then Alvin is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If Konrad is mental or Robert is not agreeable, then Alvin is generous.
If there is someone who is either not generous or not agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If there is someone who is both mental and elegant, then Marvin is not victorious.
If someone is not agreeable, then he is not generous, and vice versa. | Jorge is not elegant. | neutral |
Lane is not latter.
Robert is latter.
Alvin is latter.
Alvin is not generous.
Basil is not elegant.
Basil is not generous.
Marvin is not agreeable.
Robert is not victorious.
Konrad is not mental.
Lane is elegant.
Marvin is latter.
Robert is agreeable.Jorge being not latter is equivalent to Robert being mental.
Jorge being elegant or Konrad being not mental implies that Robert is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and victorious, then Konrad is not mental.
Someone is not generous and mental if and only if he is not latter.
Alvin being not victorious and Robert being latter imply that Marvin is elegant.
Someone being both generous and not elegant is equivalent to being not latter.
If there is at least one people who is not agreeable, then Alvin is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If Konrad is mental or Robert is not agreeable, then Alvin is generous.
If there is someone who is either not generous or not agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If there is someone who is both mental and elegant, then Marvin is not victorious.
If someone is not agreeable, then he is not generous, and vice versa. | Alvin is not generous. | self_contradiction |
Lane is not latter.
Robert is latter.
Alvin is latter.
Alvin is not generous.
Basil is not elegant.
Basil is not generous.
Marvin is not agreeable.
Robert is not victorious.
Konrad is not mental.
Lane is elegant.
Marvin is latter.
Robert is agreeable.Jorge being not latter is equivalent to Robert being mental.
Jorge being elegant or Konrad being not mental implies that Robert is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and victorious, then Konrad is not mental.
Someone is not generous and mental if and only if he is not latter.
Alvin being not victorious and Robert being latter imply that Marvin is elegant.
Someone being both generous and not elegant is equivalent to being not latter.
If there is at least one people who is not agreeable, then Alvin is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If Konrad is mental or Robert is not agreeable, then Alvin is generous.
If there is someone who is either not generous or not agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If there is someone who is both mental and elegant, then Marvin is not victorious.
If someone is not agreeable, then he is not generous, and vice versa. | Lane is latter. | contradiction |
Lane is not latter.
Robert is latter.
Alvin is latter.
Alvin is not generous.
Basil is not elegant.
Basil is not generous.
Marvin is not agreeable.
Robert is not victorious.
Konrad is not mental.
Lane is elegant.
Marvin is latter.
Robert is agreeable.Jorge being not latter is equivalent to Robert being mental.
Jorge being elegant or Konrad being not mental implies that Robert is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and victorious, then Konrad is not mental.
Someone is not generous and mental if and only if he is not latter.
Alvin being not victorious and Robert being latter imply that Marvin is elegant.
Someone being both generous and not elegant is equivalent to being not latter.
If there is at least one people who is not agreeable, then Alvin is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If Konrad is mental or Robert is not agreeable, then Alvin is generous.
If there is someone who is either not generous or not agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If there is someone who is both mental and elegant, then Marvin is not victorious.
If someone is not agreeable, then he is not generous, and vice versa. | Robert is not agreeable. | self_contradiction |
Lane is not latter.
Robert is latter.
Alvin is latter.
Alvin is not generous.
Basil is not elegant.
Basil is not generous.
Marvin is not agreeable.
Robert is not victorious.
Konrad is not mental.
Lane is elegant.
Marvin is latter.
Robert is agreeable.Jorge being not latter is equivalent to Robert being mental.
Jorge being elegant or Konrad being not mental implies that Robert is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and victorious, then Konrad is not mental.
Someone is not generous and mental if and only if he is not latter.
Alvin being not victorious and Robert being latter imply that Marvin is elegant.
Someone being both generous and not elegant is equivalent to being not latter.
If there is at least one people who is not agreeable, then Alvin is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If Konrad is mental or Robert is not agreeable, then Alvin is generous.
If there is someone who is either not generous or not agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If there is someone who is both mental and elegant, then Marvin is not victorious.
If someone is not agreeable, then he is not generous, and vice versa. | Robert is not generous. | entailment |
Lane is not latter.
Robert is latter.
Alvin is latter.
Alvin is not generous.
Basil is not elegant.
Basil is not generous.
Marvin is not agreeable.
Robert is not victorious.
Konrad is not mental.
Lane is elegant.
Marvin is latter.
Robert is agreeable.Jorge being not latter is equivalent to Robert being mental.
Jorge being elegant or Konrad being not mental implies that Robert is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and victorious, then Konrad is not mental.
Someone is not generous and mental if and only if he is not latter.
Alvin being not victorious and Robert being latter imply that Marvin is elegant.
Someone being both generous and not elegant is equivalent to being not latter.
If there is at least one people who is not agreeable, then Alvin is not generous.
If there is at least one people who is both generous and agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If Konrad is mental or Robert is not agreeable, then Alvin is generous.
If there is someone who is either not generous or not agreeable, then Lane is not elegant.
If there is someone who is both mental and elegant, then Marvin is not victorious.
If someone is not agreeable, then he is not generous, and vice versa. | Marvin is not agreeable. | entailment |
Culver is not political.
Amanda is political.
Roland is political.
Culver is realistic.
Roland is not rational.
Rufus is purple.
Amanda is rational.
Liam is not realistic.
Culver is shy.
Isaac is not curious.
Amanda is not shy.
Roland is shy.It can be concluded that Roland is not shy and Culver is purple once knowing that Irvin is political and Rufus is not curious.
Irvin is shy if and only if Culver is political and Isaac is realistic.
Someone who is political is always both realistic and curious.
if there is at least one people who is shy and not purple, then Isaac is curious and Culver is not political.
Culver being shy is equivalent to Amanda being rational and Culver being curious.
Someone being both realistic and purple is equivalent to being curious.
If someone who is not shy is also curious, then he is not realistic.
If someone is curious or not realistic, then he is purple.
Someone is not realistic and not political if and only if he is not shy.
If someone is not rational and not political, then he is purple, and vice versa.
If all people are not rational, then Amanda is realistic.
If Amanda is not political and Irvin is not realistic, then Liam is curious. | Isaac is not curious. | entailment |
Culver is not political.
Amanda is political.
Roland is political.
Culver is realistic.
Roland is not rational.
Rufus is purple.
Amanda is rational.
Liam is not realistic.
Culver is shy.
Isaac is not curious.
Amanda is not shy.
Roland is shy.It can be concluded that Roland is not shy and Culver is purple once knowing that Irvin is political and Rufus is not curious.
Irvin is shy if and only if Culver is political and Isaac is realistic.
Someone who is political is always both realistic and curious.
if there is at least one people who is shy and not purple, then Isaac is curious and Culver is not political.
Culver being shy is equivalent to Amanda being rational and Culver being curious.
Someone being both realistic and purple is equivalent to being curious.
If someone who is not shy is also curious, then he is not realistic.
If someone is curious or not realistic, then he is purple.
Someone is not realistic and not political if and only if he is not shy.
If someone is not rational and not political, then he is purple, and vice versa.
If all people are not rational, then Amanda is realistic.
If Amanda is not political and Irvin is not realistic, then Liam is curious. | Rufus is not curious. | neutral |
Culver is not political.
Amanda is political.
Roland is political.
Culver is realistic.
Roland is not rational.
Rufus is purple.
Amanda is rational.
Liam is not realistic.
Culver is shy.
Isaac is not curious.
Amanda is not shy.
Roland is shy.It can be concluded that Roland is not shy and Culver is purple once knowing that Irvin is political and Rufus is not curious.
Irvin is shy if and only if Culver is political and Isaac is realistic.
Someone who is political is always both realistic and curious.
if there is at least one people who is shy and not purple, then Isaac is curious and Culver is not political.
Culver being shy is equivalent to Amanda being rational and Culver being curious.
Someone being both realistic and purple is equivalent to being curious.
If someone who is not shy is also curious, then he is not realistic.
If someone is curious or not realistic, then he is purple.
Someone is not realistic and not political if and only if he is not shy.
If someone is not rational and not political, then he is purple, and vice versa.
If all people are not rational, then Amanda is realistic.
If Amanda is not political and Irvin is not realistic, then Liam is curious. | Roland is not political. | self_contradiction |
Culver is not political.
Amanda is political.
Roland is political.
Culver is realistic.
Roland is not rational.
Rufus is purple.
Amanda is rational.
Liam is not realistic.
Culver is shy.
Isaac is not curious.
Amanda is not shy.
Roland is shy.It can be concluded that Roland is not shy and Culver is purple once knowing that Irvin is political and Rufus is not curious.
Irvin is shy if and only if Culver is political and Isaac is realistic.
Someone who is political is always both realistic and curious.
if there is at least one people who is shy and not purple, then Isaac is curious and Culver is not political.
Culver being shy is equivalent to Amanda being rational and Culver being curious.
Someone being both realistic and purple is equivalent to being curious.
If someone who is not shy is also curious, then he is not realistic.
If someone is curious or not realistic, then he is purple.
Someone is not realistic and not political if and only if he is not shy.
If someone is not rational and not political, then he is purple, and vice versa.
If all people are not rational, then Amanda is realistic.
If Amanda is not political and Irvin is not realistic, then Liam is curious. | Irvin is not purple. | neutral |
Culver is not political.
Amanda is political.
Roland is political.
Culver is realistic.
Roland is not rational.
Rufus is purple.
Amanda is rational.
Liam is not realistic.
Culver is shy.
Isaac is not curious.
Amanda is not shy.
Roland is shy.It can be concluded that Roland is not shy and Culver is purple once knowing that Irvin is political and Rufus is not curious.
Irvin is shy if and only if Culver is political and Isaac is realistic.
Someone who is political is always both realistic and curious.
if there is at least one people who is shy and not purple, then Isaac is curious and Culver is not political.
Culver being shy is equivalent to Amanda being rational and Culver being curious.
Someone being both realistic and purple is equivalent to being curious.
If someone who is not shy is also curious, then he is not realistic.
If someone is curious or not realistic, then he is purple.
Someone is not realistic and not political if and only if he is not shy.
If someone is not rational and not political, then he is purple, and vice versa.
If all people are not rational, then Amanda is realistic.
If Amanda is not political and Irvin is not realistic, then Liam is curious. | Roland is not purple. | contradiction |
Culver is not political.
Amanda is political.
Roland is political.
Culver is realistic.
Roland is not rational.
Rufus is purple.
Amanda is rational.
Liam is not realistic.
Culver is shy.
Isaac is not curious.
Amanda is not shy.
Roland is shy.It can be concluded that Roland is not shy and Culver is purple once knowing that Irvin is political and Rufus is not curious.
Irvin is shy if and only if Culver is political and Isaac is realistic.
Someone who is political is always both realistic and curious.
if there is at least one people who is shy and not purple, then Isaac is curious and Culver is not political.
Culver being shy is equivalent to Amanda being rational and Culver being curious.
Someone being both realistic and purple is equivalent to being curious.
If someone who is not shy is also curious, then he is not realistic.
If someone is curious or not realistic, then he is purple.
Someone is not realistic and not political if and only if he is not shy.
If someone is not rational and not political, then he is purple, and vice versa.
If all people are not rational, then Amanda is realistic.
If Amanda is not political and Irvin is not realistic, then Liam is curious. | Isaac is not purple. | neutral |
Culver is not political.
Amanda is political.
Roland is political.
Culver is realistic.
Roland is not rational.
Rufus is purple.
Amanda is rational.
Liam is not realistic.
Culver is shy.
Isaac is not curious.
Amanda is not shy.
Roland is shy.It can be concluded that Roland is not shy and Culver is purple once knowing that Irvin is political and Rufus is not curious.
Irvin is shy if and only if Culver is political and Isaac is realistic.
Someone who is political is always both realistic and curious.
if there is at least one people who is shy and not purple, then Isaac is curious and Culver is not political.
Culver being shy is equivalent to Amanda being rational and Culver being curious.
Someone being both realistic and purple is equivalent to being curious.
If someone who is not shy is also curious, then he is not realistic.
If someone is curious or not realistic, then he is purple.
Someone is not realistic and not political if and only if he is not shy.
If someone is not rational and not political, then he is purple, and vice versa.
If all people are not rational, then Amanda is realistic.
If Amanda is not political and Irvin is not realistic, then Liam is curious. | Roland is not curious. | contradiction |
Culver is not political.
Amanda is political.
Roland is political.
Culver is realistic.
Roland is not rational.
Rufus is purple.
Amanda is rational.
Liam is not realistic.
Culver is shy.
Isaac is not curious.
Amanda is not shy.
Roland is shy.It can be concluded that Roland is not shy and Culver is purple once knowing that Irvin is political and Rufus is not curious.
Irvin is shy if and only if Culver is political and Isaac is realistic.
Someone who is political is always both realistic and curious.
if there is at least one people who is shy and not purple, then Isaac is curious and Culver is not political.
Culver being shy is equivalent to Amanda being rational and Culver being curious.
Someone being both realistic and purple is equivalent to being curious.
If someone who is not shy is also curious, then he is not realistic.
If someone is curious or not realistic, then he is purple.
Someone is not realistic and not political if and only if he is not shy.
If someone is not rational and not political, then he is purple, and vice versa.
If all people are not rational, then Amanda is realistic.
If Amanda is not political and Irvin is not realistic, then Liam is curious. | Rufus is not political. | entailment |
Culver is not political.
Amanda is political.
Roland is political.
Culver is realistic.
Roland is not rational.
Rufus is purple.
Amanda is rational.
Liam is not realistic.
Culver is shy.
Isaac is not curious.
Amanda is not shy.
Roland is shy.It can be concluded that Roland is not shy and Culver is purple once knowing that Irvin is political and Rufus is not curious.
Irvin is shy if and only if Culver is political and Isaac is realistic.
Someone who is political is always both realistic and curious.
if there is at least one people who is shy and not purple, then Isaac is curious and Culver is not political.
Culver being shy is equivalent to Amanda being rational and Culver being curious.
Someone being both realistic and purple is equivalent to being curious.
If someone who is not shy is also curious, then he is not realistic.
If someone is curious or not realistic, then he is purple.
Someone is not realistic and not political if and only if he is not shy.
If someone is not rational and not political, then he is purple, and vice versa.
If all people are not rational, then Amanda is realistic.
If Amanda is not political and Irvin is not realistic, then Liam is curious. | Amanda is not realistic. | self_contradiction |
Culver is not political.
Amanda is political.
Roland is political.
Culver is realistic.
Roland is not rational.
Rufus is purple.
Amanda is rational.
Liam is not realistic.
Culver is shy.
Isaac is not curious.
Amanda is not shy.
Roland is shy.It can be concluded that Roland is not shy and Culver is purple once knowing that Irvin is political and Rufus is not curious.
Irvin is shy if and only if Culver is political and Isaac is realistic.
Someone who is political is always both realistic and curious.
if there is at least one people who is shy and not purple, then Isaac is curious and Culver is not political.
Culver being shy is equivalent to Amanda being rational and Culver being curious.
Someone being both realistic and purple is equivalent to being curious.
If someone who is not shy is also curious, then he is not realistic.
If someone is curious or not realistic, then he is purple.
Someone is not realistic and not political if and only if he is not shy.
If someone is not rational and not political, then he is purple, and vice versa.
If all people are not rational, then Amanda is realistic.
If Amanda is not political and Irvin is not realistic, then Liam is curious. | Amanda is not shy. | entailment |
Culver is not political.
Amanda is political.
Roland is political.
Culver is realistic.
Roland is not rational.
Rufus is purple.
Amanda is rational.
Liam is not realistic.
Culver is shy.
Isaac is not curious.
Amanda is not shy.
Roland is shy.It can be concluded that Roland is not shy and Culver is purple once knowing that Irvin is political and Rufus is not curious.
Irvin is shy if and only if Culver is political and Isaac is realistic.
Someone who is political is always both realistic and curious.
if there is at least one people who is shy and not purple, then Isaac is curious and Culver is not political.
Culver being shy is equivalent to Amanda being rational and Culver being curious.
Someone being both realistic and purple is equivalent to being curious.
If someone who is not shy is also curious, then he is not realistic.
If someone is curious or not realistic, then he is purple.
Someone is not realistic and not political if and only if he is not shy.
If someone is not rational and not political, then he is purple, and vice versa.
If all people are not rational, then Amanda is realistic.
If Amanda is not political and Irvin is not realistic, then Liam is curious. | Roland is not realistic. | contradiction |
Culver is not political.
Amanda is political.
Roland is political.
Culver is realistic.
Roland is not rational.
Rufus is purple.
Amanda is rational.
Liam is not realistic.
Culver is shy.
Isaac is not curious.
Amanda is not shy.
Roland is shy.It can be concluded that Roland is not shy and Culver is purple once knowing that Irvin is political and Rufus is not curious.
Irvin is shy if and only if Culver is political and Isaac is realistic.
Someone who is political is always both realistic and curious.
if there is at least one people who is shy and not purple, then Isaac is curious and Culver is not political.
Culver being shy is equivalent to Amanda being rational and Culver being curious.
Someone being both realistic and purple is equivalent to being curious.
If someone who is not shy is also curious, then he is not realistic.
If someone is curious or not realistic, then he is purple.
Someone is not realistic and not political if and only if he is not shy.
If someone is not rational and not political, then he is purple, and vice versa.
If all people are not rational, then Amanda is realistic.
If Amanda is not political and Irvin is not realistic, then Liam is curious. | Amanda is not political. | self_contradiction |
Culver is not political.
Amanda is political.
Roland is political.
Culver is realistic.
Roland is not rational.
Rufus is purple.
Amanda is rational.
Liam is not realistic.
Culver is shy.
Isaac is not curious.
Amanda is not shy.
Roland is shy.It can be concluded that Roland is not shy and Culver is purple once knowing that Irvin is political and Rufus is not curious.
Irvin is shy if and only if Culver is political and Isaac is realistic.
Someone who is political is always both realistic and curious.
if there is at least one people who is shy and not purple, then Isaac is curious and Culver is not political.
Culver being shy is equivalent to Amanda being rational and Culver being curious.
Someone being both realistic and purple is equivalent to being curious.
If someone who is not shy is also curious, then he is not realistic.
If someone is curious or not realistic, then he is purple.
Someone is not realistic and not political if and only if he is not shy.
If someone is not rational and not political, then he is purple, and vice versa.
If all people are not rational, then Amanda is realistic.
If Amanda is not political and Irvin is not realistic, then Liam is curious. | Culver is not shy. | contradiction |
Culver is not political.
Amanda is political.
Roland is political.
Culver is realistic.
Roland is not rational.
Rufus is purple.
Amanda is rational.
Liam is not realistic.
Culver is shy.
Isaac is not curious.
Amanda is not shy.
Roland is shy.It can be concluded that Roland is not shy and Culver is purple once knowing that Irvin is political and Rufus is not curious.
Irvin is shy if and only if Culver is political and Isaac is realistic.
Someone who is political is always both realistic and curious.
if there is at least one people who is shy and not purple, then Isaac is curious and Culver is not political.
Culver being shy is equivalent to Amanda being rational and Culver being curious.
Someone being both realistic and purple is equivalent to being curious.
If someone who is not shy is also curious, then he is not realistic.
If someone is curious or not realistic, then he is purple.
Someone is not realistic and not political if and only if he is not shy.
If someone is not rational and not political, then he is purple, and vice versa.
If all people are not rational, then Amanda is realistic.
If Amanda is not political and Irvin is not realistic, then Liam is curious. | Amanda is realistic. | self_contradiction |
Culver is not political.
Amanda is political.
Roland is political.
Culver is realistic.
Roland is not rational.
Rufus is purple.
Amanda is rational.
Liam is not realistic.
Culver is shy.
Isaac is not curious.
Amanda is not shy.
Roland is shy.It can be concluded that Roland is not shy and Culver is purple once knowing that Irvin is political and Rufus is not curious.
Irvin is shy if and only if Culver is political and Isaac is realistic.
Someone who is political is always both realistic and curious.
if there is at least one people who is shy and not purple, then Isaac is curious and Culver is not political.
Culver being shy is equivalent to Amanda being rational and Culver being curious.
Someone being both realistic and purple is equivalent to being curious.
If someone who is not shy is also curious, then he is not realistic.
If someone is curious or not realistic, then he is purple.
Someone is not realistic and not political if and only if he is not shy.
If someone is not rational and not political, then he is purple, and vice versa.
If all people are not rational, then Amanda is realistic.
If Amanda is not political and Irvin is not realistic, then Liam is curious. | Irvin is not curious. | neutral |
Culver is not political.
Amanda is political.
Roland is political.
Culver is realistic.
Roland is not rational.
Rufus is purple.
Amanda is rational.
Liam is not realistic.
Culver is shy.
Isaac is not curious.
Amanda is not shy.
Roland is shy.It can be concluded that Roland is not shy and Culver is purple once knowing that Irvin is political and Rufus is not curious.
Irvin is shy if and only if Culver is political and Isaac is realistic.
Someone who is political is always both realistic and curious.
if there is at least one people who is shy and not purple, then Isaac is curious and Culver is not political.
Culver being shy is equivalent to Amanda being rational and Culver being curious.
Someone being both realistic and purple is equivalent to being curious.
If someone who is not shy is also curious, then he is not realistic.
If someone is curious or not realistic, then he is purple.
Someone is not realistic and not political if and only if he is not shy.
If someone is not rational and not political, then he is purple, and vice versa.
If all people are not rational, then Amanda is realistic.
If Amanda is not political and Irvin is not realistic, then Liam is curious. | Irvin is not political. | neutral |
Culver is not political.
Amanda is political.
Roland is political.
Culver is realistic.
Roland is not rational.
Rufus is purple.
Amanda is rational.
Liam is not realistic.
Culver is shy.
Isaac is not curious.
Amanda is not shy.
Roland is shy.It can be concluded that Roland is not shy and Culver is purple once knowing that Irvin is political and Rufus is not curious.
Irvin is shy if and only if Culver is political and Isaac is realistic.
Someone who is political is always both realistic and curious.
if there is at least one people who is shy and not purple, then Isaac is curious and Culver is not political.
Culver being shy is equivalent to Amanda being rational and Culver being curious.
Someone being both realistic and purple is equivalent to being curious.
If someone who is not shy is also curious, then he is not realistic.
If someone is curious or not realistic, then he is purple.
Someone is not realistic and not political if and only if he is not shy.
If someone is not rational and not political, then he is purple, and vice versa.
If all people are not rational, then Amanda is realistic.
If Amanda is not political and Irvin is not realistic, then Liam is curious. | Culver is realistic. | entailment |
Culver is not political.
Amanda is political.
Roland is political.
Culver is realistic.
Roland is not rational.
Rufus is purple.
Amanda is rational.
Liam is not realistic.
Culver is shy.
Isaac is not curious.
Amanda is not shy.
Roland is shy.It can be concluded that Roland is not shy and Culver is purple once knowing that Irvin is political and Rufus is not curious.
Irvin is shy if and only if Culver is political and Isaac is realistic.
Someone who is political is always both realistic and curious.
if there is at least one people who is shy and not purple, then Isaac is curious and Culver is not political.
Culver being shy is equivalent to Amanda being rational and Culver being curious.
Someone being both realistic and purple is equivalent to being curious.
If someone who is not shy is also curious, then he is not realistic.
If someone is curious or not realistic, then he is purple.
Someone is not realistic and not political if and only if he is not shy.
If someone is not rational and not political, then he is purple, and vice versa.
If all people are not rational, then Amanda is realistic.
If Amanda is not political and Irvin is not realistic, then Liam is curious. | Amanda is rational. | self_contradiction |
Culver is not political.
Amanda is political.
Roland is political.
Culver is realistic.
Roland is not rational.
Rufus is purple.
Amanda is rational.
Liam is not realistic.
Culver is shy.
Isaac is not curious.
Amanda is not shy.
Roland is shy.It can be concluded that Roland is not shy and Culver is purple once knowing that Irvin is political and Rufus is not curious.
Irvin is shy if and only if Culver is political and Isaac is realistic.
Someone who is political is always both realistic and curious.
if there is at least one people who is shy and not purple, then Isaac is curious and Culver is not political.
Culver being shy is equivalent to Amanda being rational and Culver being curious.
Someone being both realistic and purple is equivalent to being curious.
If someone who is not shy is also curious, then he is not realistic.
If someone is curious or not realistic, then he is purple.
Someone is not realistic and not political if and only if he is not shy.
If someone is not rational and not political, then he is purple, and vice versa.
If all people are not rational, then Amanda is realistic.
If Amanda is not political and Irvin is not realistic, then Liam is curious. | Culver is rational. | contradiction |
Culver is not political.
Amanda is political.
Roland is political.
Culver is realistic.
Roland is not rational.
Rufus is purple.
Amanda is rational.
Liam is not realistic.
Culver is shy.
Isaac is not curious.
Amanda is not shy.
Roland is shy.It can be concluded that Roland is not shy and Culver is purple once knowing that Irvin is political and Rufus is not curious.
Irvin is shy if and only if Culver is political and Isaac is realistic.
Someone who is political is always both realistic and curious.
if there is at least one people who is shy and not purple, then Isaac is curious and Culver is not political.
Culver being shy is equivalent to Amanda being rational and Culver being curious.
Someone being both realistic and purple is equivalent to being curious.
If someone who is not shy is also curious, then he is not realistic.
If someone is curious or not realistic, then he is purple.
Someone is not realistic and not political if and only if he is not shy.
If someone is not rational and not political, then he is purple, and vice versa.
If all people are not rational, then Amanda is realistic.
If Amanda is not political and Irvin is not realistic, then Liam is curious. | Liam is not rational. | entailment |
Aidan is naughty.
Walter is not timid.
Cuthbert is timid.
Charlie is wrong.
Aidan is wrong.
Chalmers is not wrong.
Hadden is naughty.
Kianna is not accurate.
Charlie is naughty.
Kianna is not naughty.
Hadden is not better.
Cuthbert is not better.If someone who is not wrong is also not timid, then he is not naughty.
Someone being not better is equivalent to being not quaint.
As long as someone is not accurate, he is not naughty and better.
If someone is both not quaint and accurate, then he is better.
If Aidan is not better, then Aidan is quaint and Charlie is not timid, and vice versa.
Hadden being not quaint implies that Aidan is not better and Charlie is not accurate.
Someone being not naughty is equivalent to being not wrong.
Someone is naughty if and only if he is not better.
Someone is timid and quaint if and only if he is not better and accurate.
If Aidan is not timid, then Charlie is wrong, and vice versa.
If someone is quaint, then he is not better, and vice versa.
Kianna being better is equivalent to Cuthbert being not quaint. | Kianna is better. | entailment |
Aidan is naughty.
Walter is not timid.
Cuthbert is timid.
Charlie is wrong.
Aidan is wrong.
Chalmers is not wrong.
Hadden is naughty.
Kianna is not accurate.
Charlie is naughty.
Kianna is not naughty.
Hadden is not better.
Cuthbert is not better.If someone who is not wrong is also not timid, then he is not naughty.
Someone being not better is equivalent to being not quaint.
As long as someone is not accurate, he is not naughty and better.
If someone is both not quaint and accurate, then he is better.
If Aidan is not better, then Aidan is quaint and Charlie is not timid, and vice versa.
Hadden being not quaint implies that Aidan is not better and Charlie is not accurate.
Someone being not naughty is equivalent to being not wrong.
Someone is naughty if and only if he is not better.
Someone is timid and quaint if and only if he is not better and accurate.
If Aidan is not timid, then Charlie is wrong, and vice versa.
If someone is quaint, then he is not better, and vice versa.
Kianna being better is equivalent to Cuthbert being not quaint. | Hadden is not accurate. | neutral |
Aidan is naughty.
Walter is not timid.
Cuthbert is timid.
Charlie is wrong.
Aidan is wrong.
Chalmers is not wrong.
Hadden is naughty.
Kianna is not accurate.
Charlie is naughty.
Kianna is not naughty.
Hadden is not better.
Cuthbert is not better.If someone who is not wrong is also not timid, then he is not naughty.
Someone being not better is equivalent to being not quaint.
As long as someone is not accurate, he is not naughty and better.
If someone is both not quaint and accurate, then he is better.
If Aidan is not better, then Aidan is quaint and Charlie is not timid, and vice versa.
Hadden being not quaint implies that Aidan is not better and Charlie is not accurate.
Someone being not naughty is equivalent to being not wrong.
Someone is naughty if and only if he is not better.
Someone is timid and quaint if and only if he is not better and accurate.
If Aidan is not timid, then Charlie is wrong, and vice versa.
If someone is quaint, then he is not better, and vice versa.
Kianna being better is equivalent to Cuthbert being not quaint. | Aidan is not quaint. | self_contradiction |
Aidan is naughty.
Walter is not timid.
Cuthbert is timid.
Charlie is wrong.
Aidan is wrong.
Chalmers is not wrong.
Hadden is naughty.
Kianna is not accurate.
Charlie is naughty.
Kianna is not naughty.
Hadden is not better.
Cuthbert is not better.If someone who is not wrong is also not timid, then he is not naughty.
Someone being not better is equivalent to being not quaint.
As long as someone is not accurate, he is not naughty and better.
If someone is both not quaint and accurate, then he is better.
If Aidan is not better, then Aidan is quaint and Charlie is not timid, and vice versa.
Hadden being not quaint implies that Aidan is not better and Charlie is not accurate.
Someone being not naughty is equivalent to being not wrong.
Someone is naughty if and only if he is not better.
Someone is timid and quaint if and only if he is not better and accurate.
If Aidan is not timid, then Charlie is wrong, and vice versa.
If someone is quaint, then he is not better, and vice versa.
Kianna being better is equivalent to Cuthbert being not quaint. | Aidan is accurate. | neutral |
Aidan is naughty.
Walter is not timid.
Cuthbert is timid.
Charlie is wrong.
Aidan is wrong.
Chalmers is not wrong.
Hadden is naughty.
Kianna is not accurate.
Charlie is naughty.
Kianna is not naughty.
Hadden is not better.
Cuthbert is not better.If someone who is not wrong is also not timid, then he is not naughty.
Someone being not better is equivalent to being not quaint.
As long as someone is not accurate, he is not naughty and better.
If someone is both not quaint and accurate, then he is better.
If Aidan is not better, then Aidan is quaint and Charlie is not timid, and vice versa.
Hadden being not quaint implies that Aidan is not better and Charlie is not accurate.
Someone being not naughty is equivalent to being not wrong.
Someone is naughty if and only if he is not better.
Someone is timid and quaint if and only if he is not better and accurate.
If Aidan is not timid, then Charlie is wrong, and vice versa.
If someone is quaint, then he is not better, and vice versa.
Kianna being better is equivalent to Cuthbert being not quaint. | Kianna is naughty. | contradiction |
Aidan is naughty.
Walter is not timid.
Cuthbert is timid.
Charlie is wrong.
Aidan is wrong.
Chalmers is not wrong.
Hadden is naughty.
Kianna is not accurate.
Charlie is naughty.
Kianna is not naughty.
Hadden is not better.
Cuthbert is not better.If someone who is not wrong is also not timid, then he is not naughty.
Someone being not better is equivalent to being not quaint.
As long as someone is not accurate, he is not naughty and better.
If someone is both not quaint and accurate, then he is better.
If Aidan is not better, then Aidan is quaint and Charlie is not timid, and vice versa.
Hadden being not quaint implies that Aidan is not better and Charlie is not accurate.
Someone being not naughty is equivalent to being not wrong.
Someone is naughty if and only if he is not better.
Someone is timid and quaint if and only if he is not better and accurate.
If Aidan is not timid, then Charlie is wrong, and vice versa.
If someone is quaint, then he is not better, and vice versa.
Kianna being better is equivalent to Cuthbert being not quaint. | Walter is not quaint. | neutral |
Aidan is naughty.
Walter is not timid.
Cuthbert is timid.
Charlie is wrong.
Aidan is wrong.
Chalmers is not wrong.
Hadden is naughty.
Kianna is not accurate.
Charlie is naughty.
Kianna is not naughty.
Hadden is not better.
Cuthbert is not better.If someone who is not wrong is also not timid, then he is not naughty.
Someone being not better is equivalent to being not quaint.
As long as someone is not accurate, he is not naughty and better.
If someone is both not quaint and accurate, then he is better.
If Aidan is not better, then Aidan is quaint and Charlie is not timid, and vice versa.
Hadden being not quaint implies that Aidan is not better and Charlie is not accurate.
Someone being not naughty is equivalent to being not wrong.
Someone is naughty if and only if he is not better.
Someone is timid and quaint if and only if he is not better and accurate.
If Aidan is not timid, then Charlie is wrong, and vice versa.
If someone is quaint, then he is not better, and vice versa.
Kianna being better is equivalent to Cuthbert being not quaint. | Cuthbert is not timid. | contradiction |
Aidan is naughty.
Walter is not timid.
Cuthbert is timid.
Charlie is wrong.
Aidan is wrong.
Chalmers is not wrong.
Hadden is naughty.
Kianna is not accurate.
Charlie is naughty.
Kianna is not naughty.
Hadden is not better.
Cuthbert is not better.If someone who is not wrong is also not timid, then he is not naughty.
Someone being not better is equivalent to being not quaint.
As long as someone is not accurate, he is not naughty and better.
If someone is both not quaint and accurate, then he is better.
If Aidan is not better, then Aidan is quaint and Charlie is not timid, and vice versa.
Hadden being not quaint implies that Aidan is not better and Charlie is not accurate.
Someone being not naughty is equivalent to being not wrong.
Someone is naughty if and only if he is not better.
Someone is timid and quaint if and only if he is not better and accurate.
If Aidan is not timid, then Charlie is wrong, and vice versa.
If someone is quaint, then he is not better, and vice versa.
Kianna being better is equivalent to Cuthbert being not quaint. | Walter is not naughty. | neutral |
Aidan is naughty.
Walter is not timid.
Cuthbert is timid.
Charlie is wrong.
Aidan is wrong.
Chalmers is not wrong.
Hadden is naughty.
Kianna is not accurate.
Charlie is naughty.
Kianna is not naughty.
Hadden is not better.
Cuthbert is not better.If someone who is not wrong is also not timid, then he is not naughty.
Someone being not better is equivalent to being not quaint.
As long as someone is not accurate, he is not naughty and better.
If someone is both not quaint and accurate, then he is better.
If Aidan is not better, then Aidan is quaint and Charlie is not timid, and vice versa.
Hadden being not quaint implies that Aidan is not better and Charlie is not accurate.
Someone being not naughty is equivalent to being not wrong.
Someone is naughty if and only if he is not better.
Someone is timid and quaint if and only if he is not better and accurate.
If Aidan is not timid, then Charlie is wrong, and vice versa.
If someone is quaint, then he is not better, and vice versa.
Kianna being better is equivalent to Cuthbert being not quaint. | Kianna is not timid. | neutral |
Aidan is naughty.
Walter is not timid.
Cuthbert is timid.
Charlie is wrong.
Aidan is wrong.
Chalmers is not wrong.
Hadden is naughty.
Kianna is not accurate.
Charlie is naughty.
Kianna is not naughty.
Hadden is not better.
Cuthbert is not better.If someone who is not wrong is also not timid, then he is not naughty.
Someone being not better is equivalent to being not quaint.
As long as someone is not accurate, he is not naughty and better.
If someone is both not quaint and accurate, then he is better.
If Aidan is not better, then Aidan is quaint and Charlie is not timid, and vice versa.
Hadden being not quaint implies that Aidan is not better and Charlie is not accurate.
Someone being not naughty is equivalent to being not wrong.
Someone is naughty if and only if he is not better.
Someone is timid and quaint if and only if he is not better and accurate.
If Aidan is not timid, then Charlie is wrong, and vice versa.
If someone is quaint, then he is not better, and vice versa.
Kianna being better is equivalent to Cuthbert being not quaint. | Chalmers is not naughty. | entailment |
Aidan is naughty.
Walter is not timid.
Cuthbert is timid.
Charlie is wrong.
Aidan is wrong.
Chalmers is not wrong.
Hadden is naughty.
Kianna is not accurate.
Charlie is naughty.
Kianna is not naughty.
Hadden is not better.
Cuthbert is not better.If someone who is not wrong is also not timid, then he is not naughty.
Someone being not better is equivalent to being not quaint.
As long as someone is not accurate, he is not naughty and better.
If someone is both not quaint and accurate, then he is better.
If Aidan is not better, then Aidan is quaint and Charlie is not timid, and vice versa.
Hadden being not quaint implies that Aidan is not better and Charlie is not accurate.
Someone being not naughty is equivalent to being not wrong.
Someone is naughty if and only if he is not better.
Someone is timid and quaint if and only if he is not better and accurate.
If Aidan is not timid, then Charlie is wrong, and vice versa.
If someone is quaint, then he is not better, and vice versa.
Kianna being better is equivalent to Cuthbert being not quaint. | Aidan is quaint. | self_contradiction |
Aidan is naughty.
Walter is not timid.
Cuthbert is timid.
Charlie is wrong.
Aidan is wrong.
Chalmers is not wrong.
Hadden is naughty.
Kianna is not accurate.
Charlie is naughty.
Kianna is not naughty.
Hadden is not better.
Cuthbert is not better.If someone who is not wrong is also not timid, then he is not naughty.
Someone being not better is equivalent to being not quaint.
As long as someone is not accurate, he is not naughty and better.
If someone is both not quaint and accurate, then he is better.
If Aidan is not better, then Aidan is quaint and Charlie is not timid, and vice versa.
Hadden being not quaint implies that Aidan is not better and Charlie is not accurate.
Someone being not naughty is equivalent to being not wrong.
Someone is naughty if and only if he is not better.
Someone is timid and quaint if and only if he is not better and accurate.
If Aidan is not timid, then Charlie is wrong, and vice versa.
If someone is quaint, then he is not better, and vice versa.
Kianna being better is equivalent to Cuthbert being not quaint. | Charlie is wrong. | self_contradiction |
Aidan is naughty.
Walter is not timid.
Cuthbert is timid.
Charlie is wrong.
Aidan is wrong.
Chalmers is not wrong.
Hadden is naughty.
Kianna is not accurate.
Charlie is naughty.
Kianna is not naughty.
Hadden is not better.
Cuthbert is not better.If someone who is not wrong is also not timid, then he is not naughty.
Someone being not better is equivalent to being not quaint.
As long as someone is not accurate, he is not naughty and better.
If someone is both not quaint and accurate, then he is better.
If Aidan is not better, then Aidan is quaint and Charlie is not timid, and vice versa.
Hadden being not quaint implies that Aidan is not better and Charlie is not accurate.
Someone being not naughty is equivalent to being not wrong.
Someone is naughty if and only if he is not better.
Someone is timid and quaint if and only if he is not better and accurate.
If Aidan is not timid, then Charlie is wrong, and vice versa.
If someone is quaint, then he is not better, and vice versa.
Kianna being better is equivalent to Cuthbert being not quaint. | Kianna is accurate. | contradiction |
Aidan is naughty.
Walter is not timid.
Cuthbert is timid.
Charlie is wrong.
Aidan is wrong.
Chalmers is not wrong.
Hadden is naughty.
Kianna is not accurate.
Charlie is naughty.
Kianna is not naughty.
Hadden is not better.
Cuthbert is not better.If someone who is not wrong is also not timid, then he is not naughty.
Someone being not better is equivalent to being not quaint.
As long as someone is not accurate, he is not naughty and better.
If someone is both not quaint and accurate, then he is better.
If Aidan is not better, then Aidan is quaint and Charlie is not timid, and vice versa.
Hadden being not quaint implies that Aidan is not better and Charlie is not accurate.
Someone being not naughty is equivalent to being not wrong.
Someone is naughty if and only if he is not better.
Someone is timid and quaint if and only if he is not better and accurate.
If Aidan is not timid, then Charlie is wrong, and vice versa.
If someone is quaint, then he is not better, and vice versa.
Kianna being better is equivalent to Cuthbert being not quaint. | Aidan is not wrong. | contradiction |
Aidan is naughty.
Walter is not timid.
Cuthbert is timid.
Charlie is wrong.
Aidan is wrong.
Chalmers is not wrong.
Hadden is naughty.
Kianna is not accurate.
Charlie is naughty.
Kianna is not naughty.
Hadden is not better.
Cuthbert is not better.If someone who is not wrong is also not timid, then he is not naughty.
Someone being not better is equivalent to being not quaint.
As long as someone is not accurate, he is not naughty and better.
If someone is both not quaint and accurate, then he is better.
If Aidan is not better, then Aidan is quaint and Charlie is not timid, and vice versa.
Hadden being not quaint implies that Aidan is not better and Charlie is not accurate.
Someone being not naughty is equivalent to being not wrong.
Someone is naughty if and only if he is not better.
Someone is timid and quaint if and only if he is not better and accurate.
If Aidan is not timid, then Charlie is wrong, and vice versa.
If someone is quaint, then he is not better, and vice versa.
Kianna being better is equivalent to Cuthbert being not quaint. | Cuthbert is quaint. | self_contradiction |
Aidan is naughty.
Walter is not timid.
Cuthbert is timid.
Charlie is wrong.
Aidan is wrong.
Chalmers is not wrong.
Hadden is naughty.
Kianna is not accurate.
Charlie is naughty.
Kianna is not naughty.
Hadden is not better.
Cuthbert is not better.If someone who is not wrong is also not timid, then he is not naughty.
Someone being not better is equivalent to being not quaint.
As long as someone is not accurate, he is not naughty and better.
If someone is both not quaint and accurate, then he is better.
If Aidan is not better, then Aidan is quaint and Charlie is not timid, and vice versa.
Hadden being not quaint implies that Aidan is not better and Charlie is not accurate.
Someone being not naughty is equivalent to being not wrong.
Someone is naughty if and only if he is not better.
Someone is timid and quaint if and only if he is not better and accurate.
If Aidan is not timid, then Charlie is wrong, and vice versa.
If someone is quaint, then he is not better, and vice versa.
Kianna being better is equivalent to Cuthbert being not quaint. | Charlie is quaint. | self_contradiction |
Aidan is naughty.
Walter is not timid.
Cuthbert is timid.
Charlie is wrong.
Aidan is wrong.
Chalmers is not wrong.
Hadden is naughty.
Kianna is not accurate.
Charlie is naughty.
Kianna is not naughty.
Hadden is not better.
Cuthbert is not better.If someone who is not wrong is also not timid, then he is not naughty.
Someone being not better is equivalent to being not quaint.
As long as someone is not accurate, he is not naughty and better.
If someone is both not quaint and accurate, then he is better.
If Aidan is not better, then Aidan is quaint and Charlie is not timid, and vice versa.
Hadden being not quaint implies that Aidan is not better and Charlie is not accurate.
Someone being not naughty is equivalent to being not wrong.
Someone is naughty if and only if he is not better.
Someone is timid and quaint if and only if he is not better and accurate.
If Aidan is not timid, then Charlie is wrong, and vice versa.
If someone is quaint, then he is not better, and vice versa.
Kianna being better is equivalent to Cuthbert being not quaint. | Aidan is naughty. | entailment |
Aidan is naughty.
Walter is not timid.
Cuthbert is timid.
Charlie is wrong.
Aidan is wrong.
Chalmers is not wrong.
Hadden is naughty.
Kianna is not accurate.
Charlie is naughty.
Kianna is not naughty.
Hadden is not better.
Cuthbert is not better.If someone who is not wrong is also not timid, then he is not naughty.
Someone being not better is equivalent to being not quaint.
As long as someone is not accurate, he is not naughty and better.
If someone is both not quaint and accurate, then he is better.
If Aidan is not better, then Aidan is quaint and Charlie is not timid, and vice versa.
Hadden being not quaint implies that Aidan is not better and Charlie is not accurate.
Someone being not naughty is equivalent to being not wrong.
Someone is naughty if and only if he is not better.
Someone is timid and quaint if and only if he is not better and accurate.
If Aidan is not timid, then Charlie is wrong, and vice versa.
If someone is quaint, then he is not better, and vice versa.
Kianna being better is equivalent to Cuthbert being not quaint. | Kianna is wrong. | contradiction |
Aidan is naughty.
Walter is not timid.
Cuthbert is timid.
Charlie is wrong.
Aidan is wrong.
Chalmers is not wrong.
Hadden is naughty.
Kianna is not accurate.
Charlie is naughty.
Kianna is not naughty.
Hadden is not better.
Cuthbert is not better.If someone who is not wrong is also not timid, then he is not naughty.
Someone being not better is equivalent to being not quaint.
As long as someone is not accurate, he is not naughty and better.
If someone is both not quaint and accurate, then he is better.
If Aidan is not better, then Aidan is quaint and Charlie is not timid, and vice versa.
Hadden being not quaint implies that Aidan is not better and Charlie is not accurate.
Someone being not naughty is equivalent to being not wrong.
Someone is naughty if and only if he is not better.
Someone is timid and quaint if and only if he is not better and accurate.
If Aidan is not timid, then Charlie is wrong, and vice versa.
If someone is quaint, then he is not better, and vice versa.
Kianna being better is equivalent to Cuthbert being not quaint. | Cuthbert is naughty. | entailment |
Aidan is naughty.
Walter is not timid.
Cuthbert is timid.
Charlie is wrong.
Aidan is wrong.
Chalmers is not wrong.
Hadden is naughty.
Kianna is not accurate.
Charlie is naughty.
Kianna is not naughty.
Hadden is not better.
Cuthbert is not better.If someone who is not wrong is also not timid, then he is not naughty.
Someone being not better is equivalent to being not quaint.
As long as someone is not accurate, he is not naughty and better.
If someone is both not quaint and accurate, then he is better.
If Aidan is not better, then Aidan is quaint and Charlie is not timid, and vice versa.
Hadden being not quaint implies that Aidan is not better and Charlie is not accurate.
Someone being not naughty is equivalent to being not wrong.
Someone is naughty if and only if he is not better.
Someone is timid and quaint if and only if he is not better and accurate.
If Aidan is not timid, then Charlie is wrong, and vice versa.
If someone is quaint, then he is not better, and vice versa.
Kianna being better is equivalent to Cuthbert being not quaint. | Kianna is not naughty. | entailment |
Joe is good-tempered.
Kent is not angry.
Roy is not angry.
Joe is sincere.
Merlin is not serious.
Kingston is angry.
Merlin is not angry.
Joshua is not healthy.
Kent is not healthy.
Roy is serious.
Joe is not agreeable.
Brian is not serious.Someone is not angry if and only if he is not serious.
If Kingston is angry and Kingston is not good-tempered, then Brian is sincere.
Roy is serious if and only if Kent is angry.
If Joe is not angry or Merlin is healthy, then Roy is sincere.
If there is at least one people who is both not good-tempered and not angry, then Merlin is not agreeable.
If there is someone who is both not healthy and not agreeable, then Joe is not good-tempered and Brian is sincere.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is not healthy.
If Roy is not good-tempered and Kent is sincere, then Kingston is angry and Joshua is not healthy.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is sincere.
It can be concluded that Brian is not angry once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Merlin is not serious.
It can be concluded that Roy is not serious once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Joshua is healthy.
Joshua being not angry implies that Joe is healthy. | Roy is not serious. | self_contradiction |
Joe is good-tempered.
Kent is not angry.
Roy is not angry.
Joe is sincere.
Merlin is not serious.
Kingston is angry.
Merlin is not angry.
Joshua is not healthy.
Kent is not healthy.
Roy is serious.
Joe is not agreeable.
Brian is not serious.Someone is not angry if and only if he is not serious.
If Kingston is angry and Kingston is not good-tempered, then Brian is sincere.
Roy is serious if and only if Kent is angry.
If Joe is not angry or Merlin is healthy, then Roy is sincere.
If there is at least one people who is both not good-tempered and not angry, then Merlin is not agreeable.
If there is someone who is both not healthy and not agreeable, then Joe is not good-tempered and Brian is sincere.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is not healthy.
If Roy is not good-tempered and Kent is sincere, then Kingston is angry and Joshua is not healthy.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is sincere.
It can be concluded that Brian is not angry once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Merlin is not serious.
It can be concluded that Roy is not serious once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Joshua is healthy.
Joshua being not angry implies that Joe is healthy. | Joe is healthy. | contradiction |
Joe is good-tempered.
Kent is not angry.
Roy is not angry.
Joe is sincere.
Merlin is not serious.
Kingston is angry.
Merlin is not angry.
Joshua is not healthy.
Kent is not healthy.
Roy is serious.
Joe is not agreeable.
Brian is not serious.Someone is not angry if and only if he is not serious.
If Kingston is angry and Kingston is not good-tempered, then Brian is sincere.
Roy is serious if and only if Kent is angry.
If Joe is not angry or Merlin is healthy, then Roy is sincere.
If there is at least one people who is both not good-tempered and not angry, then Merlin is not agreeable.
If there is someone who is both not healthy and not agreeable, then Joe is not good-tempered and Brian is sincere.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is not healthy.
If Roy is not good-tempered and Kent is sincere, then Kingston is angry and Joshua is not healthy.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is sincere.
It can be concluded that Brian is not angry once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Merlin is not serious.
It can be concluded that Roy is not serious once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Joshua is healthy.
Joshua being not angry implies that Joe is healthy. | Joe is good-tempered. | self_contradiction |
Joe is good-tempered.
Kent is not angry.
Roy is not angry.
Joe is sincere.
Merlin is not serious.
Kingston is angry.
Merlin is not angry.
Joshua is not healthy.
Kent is not healthy.
Roy is serious.
Joe is not agreeable.
Brian is not serious.Someone is not angry if and only if he is not serious.
If Kingston is angry and Kingston is not good-tempered, then Brian is sincere.
Roy is serious if and only if Kent is angry.
If Joe is not angry or Merlin is healthy, then Roy is sincere.
If there is at least one people who is both not good-tempered and not angry, then Merlin is not agreeable.
If there is someone who is both not healthy and not agreeable, then Joe is not good-tempered and Brian is sincere.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is not healthy.
If Roy is not good-tempered and Kent is sincere, then Kingston is angry and Joshua is not healthy.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is sincere.
It can be concluded that Brian is not angry once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Merlin is not serious.
It can be concluded that Roy is not serious once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Joshua is healthy.
Joshua being not angry implies that Joe is healthy. | Roy is sincere. | neutral |
Joe is good-tempered.
Kent is not angry.
Roy is not angry.
Joe is sincere.
Merlin is not serious.
Kingston is angry.
Merlin is not angry.
Joshua is not healthy.
Kent is not healthy.
Roy is serious.
Joe is not agreeable.
Brian is not serious.Someone is not angry if and only if he is not serious.
If Kingston is angry and Kingston is not good-tempered, then Brian is sincere.
Roy is serious if and only if Kent is angry.
If Joe is not angry or Merlin is healthy, then Roy is sincere.
If there is at least one people who is both not good-tempered and not angry, then Merlin is not agreeable.
If there is someone who is both not healthy and not agreeable, then Joe is not good-tempered and Brian is sincere.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is not healthy.
If Roy is not good-tempered and Kent is sincere, then Kingston is angry and Joshua is not healthy.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is sincere.
It can be concluded that Brian is not angry once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Merlin is not serious.
It can be concluded that Roy is not serious once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Joshua is healthy.
Joshua being not angry implies that Joe is healthy. | Brian is not serious. | entailment |
Joe is good-tempered.
Kent is not angry.
Roy is not angry.
Joe is sincere.
Merlin is not serious.
Kingston is angry.
Merlin is not angry.
Joshua is not healthy.
Kent is not healthy.
Roy is serious.
Joe is not agreeable.
Brian is not serious.Someone is not angry if and only if he is not serious.
If Kingston is angry and Kingston is not good-tempered, then Brian is sincere.
Roy is serious if and only if Kent is angry.
If Joe is not angry or Merlin is healthy, then Roy is sincere.
If there is at least one people who is both not good-tempered and not angry, then Merlin is not agreeable.
If there is someone who is both not healthy and not agreeable, then Joe is not good-tempered and Brian is sincere.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is not healthy.
If Roy is not good-tempered and Kent is sincere, then Kingston is angry and Joshua is not healthy.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is sincere.
It can be concluded that Brian is not angry once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Merlin is not serious.
It can be concluded that Roy is not serious once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Joshua is healthy.
Joshua being not angry implies that Joe is healthy. | Merlin is good-tempered. | neutral |
Joe is good-tempered.
Kent is not angry.
Roy is not angry.
Joe is sincere.
Merlin is not serious.
Kingston is angry.
Merlin is not angry.
Joshua is not healthy.
Kent is not healthy.
Roy is serious.
Joe is not agreeable.
Brian is not serious.Someone is not angry if and only if he is not serious.
If Kingston is angry and Kingston is not good-tempered, then Brian is sincere.
Roy is serious if and only if Kent is angry.
If Joe is not angry or Merlin is healthy, then Roy is sincere.
If there is at least one people who is both not good-tempered and not angry, then Merlin is not agreeable.
If there is someone who is both not healthy and not agreeable, then Joe is not good-tempered and Brian is sincere.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is not healthy.
If Roy is not good-tempered and Kent is sincere, then Kingston is angry and Joshua is not healthy.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is sincere.
It can be concluded that Brian is not angry once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Merlin is not serious.
It can be concluded that Roy is not serious once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Joshua is healthy.
Joshua being not angry implies that Joe is healthy. | Kent is angry. | self_contradiction |
Joe is good-tempered.
Kent is not angry.
Roy is not angry.
Joe is sincere.
Merlin is not serious.
Kingston is angry.
Merlin is not angry.
Joshua is not healthy.
Kent is not healthy.
Roy is serious.
Joe is not agreeable.
Brian is not serious.Someone is not angry if and only if he is not serious.
If Kingston is angry and Kingston is not good-tempered, then Brian is sincere.
Roy is serious if and only if Kent is angry.
If Joe is not angry or Merlin is healthy, then Roy is sincere.
If there is at least one people who is both not good-tempered and not angry, then Merlin is not agreeable.
If there is someone who is both not healthy and not agreeable, then Joe is not good-tempered and Brian is sincere.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is not healthy.
If Roy is not good-tempered and Kent is sincere, then Kingston is angry and Joshua is not healthy.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is sincere.
It can be concluded that Brian is not angry once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Merlin is not serious.
It can be concluded that Roy is not serious once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Joshua is healthy.
Joshua being not angry implies that Joe is healthy. | Joshua is healthy. | contradiction |
Joe is good-tempered.
Kent is not angry.
Roy is not angry.
Joe is sincere.
Merlin is not serious.
Kingston is angry.
Merlin is not angry.
Joshua is not healthy.
Kent is not healthy.
Roy is serious.
Joe is not agreeable.
Brian is not serious.Someone is not angry if and only if he is not serious.
If Kingston is angry and Kingston is not good-tempered, then Brian is sincere.
Roy is serious if and only if Kent is angry.
If Joe is not angry or Merlin is healthy, then Roy is sincere.
If there is at least one people who is both not good-tempered and not angry, then Merlin is not agreeable.
If there is someone who is both not healthy and not agreeable, then Joe is not good-tempered and Brian is sincere.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is not healthy.
If Roy is not good-tempered and Kent is sincere, then Kingston is angry and Joshua is not healthy.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is sincere.
It can be concluded that Brian is not angry once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Merlin is not serious.
It can be concluded that Roy is not serious once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Joshua is healthy.
Joshua being not angry implies that Joe is healthy. | Joe is not good-tempered. | self_contradiction |
Joe is good-tempered.
Kent is not angry.
Roy is not angry.
Joe is sincere.
Merlin is not serious.
Kingston is angry.
Merlin is not angry.
Joshua is not healthy.
Kent is not healthy.
Roy is serious.
Joe is not agreeable.
Brian is not serious.Someone is not angry if and only if he is not serious.
If Kingston is angry and Kingston is not good-tempered, then Brian is sincere.
Roy is serious if and only if Kent is angry.
If Joe is not angry or Merlin is healthy, then Roy is sincere.
If there is at least one people who is both not good-tempered and not angry, then Merlin is not agreeable.
If there is someone who is both not healthy and not agreeable, then Joe is not good-tempered and Brian is sincere.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is not healthy.
If Roy is not good-tempered and Kent is sincere, then Kingston is angry and Joshua is not healthy.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is sincere.
It can be concluded that Brian is not angry once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Merlin is not serious.
It can be concluded that Roy is not serious once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Joshua is healthy.
Joshua being not angry implies that Joe is healthy. | Roy is serious. | self_contradiction |
Joe is good-tempered.
Kent is not angry.
Roy is not angry.
Joe is sincere.
Merlin is not serious.
Kingston is angry.
Merlin is not angry.
Joshua is not healthy.
Kent is not healthy.
Roy is serious.
Joe is not agreeable.
Brian is not serious.Someone is not angry if and only if he is not serious.
If Kingston is angry and Kingston is not good-tempered, then Brian is sincere.
Roy is serious if and only if Kent is angry.
If Joe is not angry or Merlin is healthy, then Roy is sincere.
If there is at least one people who is both not good-tempered and not angry, then Merlin is not agreeable.
If there is someone who is both not healthy and not agreeable, then Joe is not good-tempered and Brian is sincere.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is not healthy.
If Roy is not good-tempered and Kent is sincere, then Kingston is angry and Joshua is not healthy.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is sincere.
It can be concluded that Brian is not angry once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Merlin is not serious.
It can be concluded that Roy is not serious once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Joshua is healthy.
Joshua being not angry implies that Joe is healthy. | Roy is not angry. | entailment |
Joe is good-tempered.
Kent is not angry.
Roy is not angry.
Joe is sincere.
Merlin is not serious.
Kingston is angry.
Merlin is not angry.
Joshua is not healthy.
Kent is not healthy.
Roy is serious.
Joe is not agreeable.
Brian is not serious.Someone is not angry if and only if he is not serious.
If Kingston is angry and Kingston is not good-tempered, then Brian is sincere.
Roy is serious if and only if Kent is angry.
If Joe is not angry or Merlin is healthy, then Roy is sincere.
If there is at least one people who is both not good-tempered and not angry, then Merlin is not agreeable.
If there is someone who is both not healthy and not agreeable, then Joe is not good-tempered and Brian is sincere.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is not healthy.
If Roy is not good-tempered and Kent is sincere, then Kingston is angry and Joshua is not healthy.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is sincere.
It can be concluded that Brian is not angry once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Merlin is not serious.
It can be concluded that Roy is not serious once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Joshua is healthy.
Joshua being not angry implies that Joe is healthy. | Brian is not angry. | entailment |
Joe is good-tempered.
Kent is not angry.
Roy is not angry.
Joe is sincere.
Merlin is not serious.
Kingston is angry.
Merlin is not angry.
Joshua is not healthy.
Kent is not healthy.
Roy is serious.
Joe is not agreeable.
Brian is not serious.Someone is not angry if and only if he is not serious.
If Kingston is angry and Kingston is not good-tempered, then Brian is sincere.
Roy is serious if and only if Kent is angry.
If Joe is not angry or Merlin is healthy, then Roy is sincere.
If there is at least one people who is both not good-tempered and not angry, then Merlin is not agreeable.
If there is someone who is both not healthy and not agreeable, then Joe is not good-tempered and Brian is sincere.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is not healthy.
If Roy is not good-tempered and Kent is sincere, then Kingston is angry and Joshua is not healthy.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is sincere.
It can be concluded that Brian is not angry once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Merlin is not serious.
It can be concluded that Roy is not serious once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Joshua is healthy.
Joshua being not angry implies that Joe is healthy. | Merlin is not good-tempered. | neutral |
Joe is good-tempered.
Kent is not angry.
Roy is not angry.
Joe is sincere.
Merlin is not serious.
Kingston is angry.
Merlin is not angry.
Joshua is not healthy.
Kent is not healthy.
Roy is serious.
Joe is not agreeable.
Brian is not serious.Someone is not angry if and only if he is not serious.
If Kingston is angry and Kingston is not good-tempered, then Brian is sincere.
Roy is serious if and only if Kent is angry.
If Joe is not angry or Merlin is healthy, then Roy is sincere.
If there is at least one people who is both not good-tempered and not angry, then Merlin is not agreeable.
If there is someone who is both not healthy and not agreeable, then Joe is not good-tempered and Brian is sincere.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is not healthy.
If Roy is not good-tempered and Kent is sincere, then Kingston is angry and Joshua is not healthy.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is sincere.
It can be concluded that Brian is not angry once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Merlin is not serious.
It can be concluded that Roy is not serious once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Joshua is healthy.
Joshua being not angry implies that Joe is healthy. | Brian is agreeable. | neutral |
Joe is good-tempered.
Kent is not angry.
Roy is not angry.
Joe is sincere.
Merlin is not serious.
Kingston is angry.
Merlin is not angry.
Joshua is not healthy.
Kent is not healthy.
Roy is serious.
Joe is not agreeable.
Brian is not serious.Someone is not angry if and only if he is not serious.
If Kingston is angry and Kingston is not good-tempered, then Brian is sincere.
Roy is serious if and only if Kent is angry.
If Joe is not angry or Merlin is healthy, then Roy is sincere.
If there is at least one people who is both not good-tempered and not angry, then Merlin is not agreeable.
If there is someone who is both not healthy and not agreeable, then Joe is not good-tempered and Brian is sincere.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is not healthy.
If Roy is not good-tempered and Kent is sincere, then Kingston is angry and Joshua is not healthy.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is sincere.
It can be concluded that Brian is not angry once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Merlin is not serious.
It can be concluded that Roy is not serious once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Joshua is healthy.
Joshua being not angry implies that Joe is healthy. | Brian is serious. | contradiction |
Joe is good-tempered.
Kent is not angry.
Roy is not angry.
Joe is sincere.
Merlin is not serious.
Kingston is angry.
Merlin is not angry.
Joshua is not healthy.
Kent is not healthy.
Roy is serious.
Joe is not agreeable.
Brian is not serious.Someone is not angry if and only if he is not serious.
If Kingston is angry and Kingston is not good-tempered, then Brian is sincere.
Roy is serious if and only if Kent is angry.
If Joe is not angry or Merlin is healthy, then Roy is sincere.
If there is at least one people who is both not good-tempered and not angry, then Merlin is not agreeable.
If there is someone who is both not healthy and not agreeable, then Joe is not good-tempered and Brian is sincere.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is not healthy.
If Roy is not good-tempered and Kent is sincere, then Kingston is angry and Joshua is not healthy.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is sincere.
It can be concluded that Brian is not angry once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Merlin is not serious.
It can be concluded that Roy is not serious once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Joshua is healthy.
Joshua being not angry implies that Joe is healthy. | Brian is angry. | contradiction |
Joe is good-tempered.
Kent is not angry.
Roy is not angry.
Joe is sincere.
Merlin is not serious.
Kingston is angry.
Merlin is not angry.
Joshua is not healthy.
Kent is not healthy.
Roy is serious.
Joe is not agreeable.
Brian is not serious.Someone is not angry if and only if he is not serious.
If Kingston is angry and Kingston is not good-tempered, then Brian is sincere.
Roy is serious if and only if Kent is angry.
If Joe is not angry or Merlin is healthy, then Roy is sincere.
If there is at least one people who is both not good-tempered and not angry, then Merlin is not agreeable.
If there is someone who is both not healthy and not agreeable, then Joe is not good-tempered and Brian is sincere.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is not healthy.
If Roy is not good-tempered and Kent is sincere, then Kingston is angry and Joshua is not healthy.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is sincere.
It can be concluded that Brian is not angry once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Merlin is not serious.
It can be concluded that Roy is not serious once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Joshua is healthy.
Joshua being not angry implies that Joe is healthy. | Merlin is angry. | contradiction |
Joe is good-tempered.
Kent is not angry.
Roy is not angry.
Joe is sincere.
Merlin is not serious.
Kingston is angry.
Merlin is not angry.
Joshua is not healthy.
Kent is not healthy.
Roy is serious.
Joe is not agreeable.
Brian is not serious.Someone is not angry if and only if he is not serious.
If Kingston is angry and Kingston is not good-tempered, then Brian is sincere.
Roy is serious if and only if Kent is angry.
If Joe is not angry or Merlin is healthy, then Roy is sincere.
If there is at least one people who is both not good-tempered and not angry, then Merlin is not agreeable.
If there is someone who is both not healthy and not agreeable, then Joe is not good-tempered and Brian is sincere.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is not healthy.
If Roy is not good-tempered and Kent is sincere, then Kingston is angry and Joshua is not healthy.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is sincere.
It can be concluded that Brian is not angry once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Merlin is not serious.
It can be concluded that Roy is not serious once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Joshua is healthy.
Joshua being not angry implies that Joe is healthy. | Joshua is not sincere. | neutral |
Joe is good-tempered.
Kent is not angry.
Roy is not angry.
Joe is sincere.
Merlin is not serious.
Kingston is angry.
Merlin is not angry.
Joshua is not healthy.
Kent is not healthy.
Roy is serious.
Joe is not agreeable.
Brian is not serious.Someone is not angry if and only if he is not serious.
If Kingston is angry and Kingston is not good-tempered, then Brian is sincere.
Roy is serious if and only if Kent is angry.
If Joe is not angry or Merlin is healthy, then Roy is sincere.
If there is at least one people who is both not good-tempered and not angry, then Merlin is not agreeable.
If there is someone who is both not healthy and not agreeable, then Joe is not good-tempered and Brian is sincere.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is not healthy.
If Roy is not good-tempered and Kent is sincere, then Kingston is angry and Joshua is not healthy.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is sincere.
It can be concluded that Brian is not angry once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Merlin is not serious.
It can be concluded that Roy is not serious once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Joshua is healthy.
Joshua being not angry implies that Joe is healthy. | Kent is not serious. | entailment |
Joe is good-tempered.
Kent is not angry.
Roy is not angry.
Joe is sincere.
Merlin is not serious.
Kingston is angry.
Merlin is not angry.
Joshua is not healthy.
Kent is not healthy.
Roy is serious.
Joe is not agreeable.
Brian is not serious.Someone is not angry if and only if he is not serious.
If Kingston is angry and Kingston is not good-tempered, then Brian is sincere.
Roy is serious if and only if Kent is angry.
If Joe is not angry or Merlin is healthy, then Roy is sincere.
If there is at least one people who is both not good-tempered and not angry, then Merlin is not agreeable.
If there is someone who is both not healthy and not agreeable, then Joe is not good-tempered and Brian is sincere.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is not healthy.
If Roy is not good-tempered and Kent is sincere, then Kingston is angry and Joshua is not healthy.
If someone is good-tempered, then he is sincere.
It can be concluded that Brian is not angry once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Merlin is not serious.
It can be concluded that Roy is not serious once knowing that Joshua is sincere or Joshua is healthy.
Joshua being not angry implies that Joe is healthy. | Joshua is not healthy. | entailment |
Ian is harsh.
Lars is happy.
Heath is harsh.
Otis is not crazy.
Sterling is not happy.
Lee is not frail.
Ian is frail.
Lars is visible.
Otis is not visible.
Sterling is not frail.
Kimball is not odd.
Kimball is not crazy.Lars being visible is equivalent to Ian being happy.
Someone who is visible is always both not frail and not harsh.
If all people are visible, then Otis is not frail and Ian is crazy.
If someone is odd and crazy, then he is not frail, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is both happy and crazy, then Heath is odd and Sterling is harsh.
If there is someone who is either not harsh or not frail, then Heath is visible.
If there is at least one people who is both not visible and harsh, then Otis is not frail.
Someone who is eithor not harsh or not frail is always odd.
If someone is either odd or happy, then he is not crazy and not harsh.
If Lars is not crazy or Lars is not odd, then Lee is not harsh.
If someone is not crazy and harsh, then he is both not frail and happy, and vice versa.
If someone is visible, then he is not harsh. | Lee is not odd. | contradiction |
Ian is harsh.
Lars is happy.
Heath is harsh.
Otis is not crazy.
Sterling is not happy.
Lee is not frail.
Ian is frail.
Lars is visible.
Otis is not visible.
Sterling is not frail.
Kimball is not odd.
Kimball is not crazy.Lars being visible is equivalent to Ian being happy.
Someone who is visible is always both not frail and not harsh.
If all people are visible, then Otis is not frail and Ian is crazy.
If someone is odd and crazy, then he is not frail, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is both happy and crazy, then Heath is odd and Sterling is harsh.
If there is someone who is either not harsh or not frail, then Heath is visible.
If there is at least one people who is both not visible and harsh, then Otis is not frail.
Someone who is eithor not harsh or not frail is always odd.
If someone is either odd or happy, then he is not crazy and not harsh.
If Lars is not crazy or Lars is not odd, then Lee is not harsh.
If someone is not crazy and harsh, then he is both not frail and happy, and vice versa.
If someone is visible, then he is not harsh. | Lee is happy. | neutral |
Ian is harsh.
Lars is happy.
Heath is harsh.
Otis is not crazy.
Sterling is not happy.
Lee is not frail.
Ian is frail.
Lars is visible.
Otis is not visible.
Sterling is not frail.
Kimball is not odd.
Kimball is not crazy.Lars being visible is equivalent to Ian being happy.
Someone who is visible is always both not frail and not harsh.
If all people are visible, then Otis is not frail and Ian is crazy.
If someone is odd and crazy, then he is not frail, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is both happy and crazy, then Heath is odd and Sterling is harsh.
If there is someone who is either not harsh or not frail, then Heath is visible.
If there is at least one people who is both not visible and harsh, then Otis is not frail.
Someone who is eithor not harsh or not frail is always odd.
If someone is either odd or happy, then he is not crazy and not harsh.
If Lars is not crazy or Lars is not odd, then Lee is not harsh.
If someone is not crazy and harsh, then he is both not frail and happy, and vice versa.
If someone is visible, then he is not harsh. | Kimball is frail. | neutral |
Ian is harsh.
Lars is happy.
Heath is harsh.
Otis is not crazy.
Sterling is not happy.
Lee is not frail.
Ian is frail.
Lars is visible.
Otis is not visible.
Sterling is not frail.
Kimball is not odd.
Kimball is not crazy.Lars being visible is equivalent to Ian being happy.
Someone who is visible is always both not frail and not harsh.
If all people are visible, then Otis is not frail and Ian is crazy.
If someone is odd and crazy, then he is not frail, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is both happy and crazy, then Heath is odd and Sterling is harsh.
If there is someone who is either not harsh or not frail, then Heath is visible.
If there is at least one people who is both not visible and harsh, then Otis is not frail.
Someone who is eithor not harsh or not frail is always odd.
If someone is either odd or happy, then he is not crazy and not harsh.
If Lars is not crazy or Lars is not odd, then Lee is not harsh.
If someone is not crazy and harsh, then he is both not frail and happy, and vice versa.
If someone is visible, then he is not harsh. | Otis is happy. | neutral |
Ian is harsh.
Lars is happy.
Heath is harsh.
Otis is not crazy.
Sterling is not happy.
Lee is not frail.
Ian is frail.
Lars is visible.
Otis is not visible.
Sterling is not frail.
Kimball is not odd.
Kimball is not crazy.Lars being visible is equivalent to Ian being happy.
Someone who is visible is always both not frail and not harsh.
If all people are visible, then Otis is not frail and Ian is crazy.
If someone is odd and crazy, then he is not frail, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is both happy and crazy, then Heath is odd and Sterling is harsh.
If there is someone who is either not harsh or not frail, then Heath is visible.
If there is at least one people who is both not visible and harsh, then Otis is not frail.
Someone who is eithor not harsh or not frail is always odd.
If someone is either odd or happy, then he is not crazy and not harsh.
If Lars is not crazy or Lars is not odd, then Lee is not harsh.
If someone is not crazy and harsh, then he is both not frail and happy, and vice versa.
If someone is visible, then he is not harsh. | Ian is harsh. | self_contradiction |
Ian is harsh.
Lars is happy.
Heath is harsh.
Otis is not crazy.
Sterling is not happy.
Lee is not frail.
Ian is frail.
Lars is visible.
Otis is not visible.
Sterling is not frail.
Kimball is not odd.
Kimball is not crazy.Lars being visible is equivalent to Ian being happy.
Someone who is visible is always both not frail and not harsh.
If all people are visible, then Otis is not frail and Ian is crazy.
If someone is odd and crazy, then he is not frail, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is both happy and crazy, then Heath is odd and Sterling is harsh.
If there is someone who is either not harsh or not frail, then Heath is visible.
If there is at least one people who is both not visible and harsh, then Otis is not frail.
Someone who is eithor not harsh or not frail is always odd.
If someone is either odd or happy, then he is not crazy and not harsh.
If Lars is not crazy or Lars is not odd, then Lee is not harsh.
If someone is not crazy and harsh, then he is both not frail and happy, and vice versa.
If someone is visible, then he is not harsh. | Sterling is not frail. | entailment |
Ian is harsh.
Lars is happy.
Heath is harsh.
Otis is not crazy.
Sterling is not happy.
Lee is not frail.
Ian is frail.
Lars is visible.
Otis is not visible.
Sterling is not frail.
Kimball is not odd.
Kimball is not crazy.Lars being visible is equivalent to Ian being happy.
Someone who is visible is always both not frail and not harsh.
If all people are visible, then Otis is not frail and Ian is crazy.
If someone is odd and crazy, then he is not frail, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is both happy and crazy, then Heath is odd and Sterling is harsh.
If there is someone who is either not harsh or not frail, then Heath is visible.
If there is at least one people who is both not visible and harsh, then Otis is not frail.
Someone who is eithor not harsh or not frail is always odd.
If someone is either odd or happy, then he is not crazy and not harsh.
If Lars is not crazy or Lars is not odd, then Lee is not harsh.
If someone is not crazy and harsh, then he is both not frail and happy, and vice versa.
If someone is visible, then he is not harsh. | Sterling is harsh. | self_contradiction |
Ian is harsh.
Lars is happy.
Heath is harsh.
Otis is not crazy.
Sterling is not happy.
Lee is not frail.
Ian is frail.
Lars is visible.
Otis is not visible.
Sterling is not frail.
Kimball is not odd.
Kimball is not crazy.Lars being visible is equivalent to Ian being happy.
Someone who is visible is always both not frail and not harsh.
If all people are visible, then Otis is not frail and Ian is crazy.
If someone is odd and crazy, then he is not frail, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is both happy and crazy, then Heath is odd and Sterling is harsh.
If there is someone who is either not harsh or not frail, then Heath is visible.
If there is at least one people who is both not visible and harsh, then Otis is not frail.
Someone who is eithor not harsh or not frail is always odd.
If someone is either odd or happy, then he is not crazy and not harsh.
If Lars is not crazy or Lars is not odd, then Lee is not harsh.
If someone is not crazy and harsh, then he is both not frail and happy, and vice versa.
If someone is visible, then he is not harsh. | Kimball is not frail. | neutral |
Ian is harsh.
Lars is happy.
Heath is harsh.
Otis is not crazy.
Sterling is not happy.
Lee is not frail.
Ian is frail.
Lars is visible.
Otis is not visible.
Sterling is not frail.
Kimball is not odd.
Kimball is not crazy.Lars being visible is equivalent to Ian being happy.
Someone who is visible is always both not frail and not harsh.
If all people are visible, then Otis is not frail and Ian is crazy.
If someone is odd and crazy, then he is not frail, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is both happy and crazy, then Heath is odd and Sterling is harsh.
If there is someone who is either not harsh or not frail, then Heath is visible.
If there is at least one people who is both not visible and harsh, then Otis is not frail.
Someone who is eithor not harsh or not frail is always odd.
If someone is either odd or happy, then he is not crazy and not harsh.
If Lars is not crazy or Lars is not odd, then Lee is not harsh.
If someone is not crazy and harsh, then he is both not frail and happy, and vice versa.
If someone is visible, then he is not harsh. | Heath is happy. | entailment |
Ian is harsh.
Lars is happy.
Heath is harsh.
Otis is not crazy.
Sterling is not happy.
Lee is not frail.
Ian is frail.
Lars is visible.
Otis is not visible.
Sterling is not frail.
Kimball is not odd.
Kimball is not crazy.Lars being visible is equivalent to Ian being happy.
Someone who is visible is always both not frail and not harsh.
If all people are visible, then Otis is not frail and Ian is crazy.
If someone is odd and crazy, then he is not frail, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is both happy and crazy, then Heath is odd and Sterling is harsh.
If there is someone who is either not harsh or not frail, then Heath is visible.
If there is at least one people who is both not visible and harsh, then Otis is not frail.
Someone who is eithor not harsh or not frail is always odd.
If someone is either odd or happy, then he is not crazy and not harsh.
If Lars is not crazy or Lars is not odd, then Lee is not harsh.
If someone is not crazy and harsh, then he is both not frail and happy, and vice versa.
If someone is visible, then he is not harsh. | Kimball is odd. | contradiction |
Ian is harsh.
Lars is happy.
Heath is harsh.
Otis is not crazy.
Sterling is not happy.
Lee is not frail.
Ian is frail.
Lars is visible.
Otis is not visible.
Sterling is not frail.
Kimball is not odd.
Kimball is not crazy.Lars being visible is equivalent to Ian being happy.
Someone who is visible is always both not frail and not harsh.
If all people are visible, then Otis is not frail and Ian is crazy.
If someone is odd and crazy, then he is not frail, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is both happy and crazy, then Heath is odd and Sterling is harsh.
If there is someone who is either not harsh or not frail, then Heath is visible.
If there is at least one people who is both not visible and harsh, then Otis is not frail.
Someone who is eithor not harsh or not frail is always odd.
If someone is either odd or happy, then he is not crazy and not harsh.
If Lars is not crazy or Lars is not odd, then Lee is not harsh.
If someone is not crazy and harsh, then he is both not frail and happy, and vice versa.
If someone is visible, then he is not harsh. | Lars is harsh. | self_contradiction |
Ian is harsh.
Lars is happy.
Heath is harsh.
Otis is not crazy.
Sterling is not happy.
Lee is not frail.
Ian is frail.
Lars is visible.
Otis is not visible.
Sterling is not frail.
Kimball is not odd.
Kimball is not crazy.Lars being visible is equivalent to Ian being happy.
Someone who is visible is always both not frail and not harsh.
If all people are visible, then Otis is not frail and Ian is crazy.
If someone is odd and crazy, then he is not frail, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is both happy and crazy, then Heath is odd and Sterling is harsh.
If there is someone who is either not harsh or not frail, then Heath is visible.
If there is at least one people who is both not visible and harsh, then Otis is not frail.
Someone who is eithor not harsh or not frail is always odd.
If someone is either odd or happy, then he is not crazy and not harsh.
If Lars is not crazy or Lars is not odd, then Lee is not harsh.
If someone is not crazy and harsh, then he is both not frail and happy, and vice versa.
If someone is visible, then he is not harsh. | Sterling is not odd. | contradiction |
Ian is harsh.
Lars is happy.
Heath is harsh.
Otis is not crazy.
Sterling is not happy.
Lee is not frail.
Ian is frail.
Lars is visible.
Otis is not visible.
Sterling is not frail.
Kimball is not odd.
Kimball is not crazy.Lars being visible is equivalent to Ian being happy.
Someone who is visible is always both not frail and not harsh.
If all people are visible, then Otis is not frail and Ian is crazy.
If someone is odd and crazy, then he is not frail, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is both happy and crazy, then Heath is odd and Sterling is harsh.
If there is someone who is either not harsh or not frail, then Heath is visible.
If there is at least one people who is both not visible and harsh, then Otis is not frail.
Someone who is eithor not harsh or not frail is always odd.
If someone is either odd or happy, then he is not crazy and not harsh.
If Lars is not crazy or Lars is not odd, then Lee is not harsh.
If someone is not crazy and harsh, then he is both not frail and happy, and vice versa.
If someone is visible, then he is not harsh. | Lars is odd. | entailment |
Ian is harsh.
Lars is happy.
Heath is harsh.
Otis is not crazy.
Sterling is not happy.
Lee is not frail.
Ian is frail.
Lars is visible.
Otis is not visible.
Sterling is not frail.
Kimball is not odd.
Kimball is not crazy.Lars being visible is equivalent to Ian being happy.
Someone who is visible is always both not frail and not harsh.
If all people are visible, then Otis is not frail and Ian is crazy.
If someone is odd and crazy, then he is not frail, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is both happy and crazy, then Heath is odd and Sterling is harsh.
If there is someone who is either not harsh or not frail, then Heath is visible.
If there is at least one people who is both not visible and harsh, then Otis is not frail.
Someone who is eithor not harsh or not frail is always odd.
If someone is either odd or happy, then he is not crazy and not harsh.
If Lars is not crazy or Lars is not odd, then Lee is not harsh.
If someone is not crazy and harsh, then he is both not frail and happy, and vice versa.
If someone is visible, then he is not harsh. | Lars is not frail. | entailment |
Ian is harsh.
Lars is happy.
Heath is harsh.
Otis is not crazy.
Sterling is not happy.
Lee is not frail.
Ian is frail.
Lars is visible.
Otis is not visible.
Sterling is not frail.
Kimball is not odd.
Kimball is not crazy.Lars being visible is equivalent to Ian being happy.
Someone who is visible is always both not frail and not harsh.
If all people are visible, then Otis is not frail and Ian is crazy.
If someone is odd and crazy, then he is not frail, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is both happy and crazy, then Heath is odd and Sterling is harsh.
If there is someone who is either not harsh or not frail, then Heath is visible.
If there is at least one people who is both not visible and harsh, then Otis is not frail.
Someone who is eithor not harsh or not frail is always odd.
If someone is either odd or happy, then he is not crazy and not harsh.
If Lars is not crazy or Lars is not odd, then Lee is not harsh.
If someone is not crazy and harsh, then he is both not frail and happy, and vice versa.
If someone is visible, then he is not harsh. | Kimball is crazy. | contradiction |
Ian is harsh.
Lars is happy.
Heath is harsh.
Otis is not crazy.
Sterling is not happy.
Lee is not frail.
Ian is frail.
Lars is visible.
Otis is not visible.
Sterling is not frail.
Kimball is not odd.
Kimball is not crazy.Lars being visible is equivalent to Ian being happy.
Someone who is visible is always both not frail and not harsh.
If all people are visible, then Otis is not frail and Ian is crazy.
If someone is odd and crazy, then he is not frail, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is both happy and crazy, then Heath is odd and Sterling is harsh.
If there is someone who is either not harsh or not frail, then Heath is visible.
If there is at least one people who is both not visible and harsh, then Otis is not frail.
Someone who is eithor not harsh or not frail is always odd.
If someone is either odd or happy, then he is not crazy and not harsh.
If Lars is not crazy or Lars is not odd, then Lee is not harsh.
If someone is not crazy and harsh, then he is both not frail and happy, and vice versa.
If someone is visible, then he is not harsh. | Heath is frail. | contradiction |
Ian is harsh.
Lars is happy.
Heath is harsh.
Otis is not crazy.
Sterling is not happy.
Lee is not frail.
Ian is frail.
Lars is visible.
Otis is not visible.
Sterling is not frail.
Kimball is not odd.
Kimball is not crazy.Lars being visible is equivalent to Ian being happy.
Someone who is visible is always both not frail and not harsh.
If all people are visible, then Otis is not frail and Ian is crazy.
If someone is odd and crazy, then he is not frail, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is both happy and crazy, then Heath is odd and Sterling is harsh.
If there is someone who is either not harsh or not frail, then Heath is visible.
If there is at least one people who is both not visible and harsh, then Otis is not frail.
Someone who is eithor not harsh or not frail is always odd.
If someone is either odd or happy, then he is not crazy and not harsh.
If Lars is not crazy or Lars is not odd, then Lee is not harsh.
If someone is not crazy and harsh, then he is both not frail and happy, and vice versa.
If someone is visible, then he is not harsh. | Sterling is not happy. | self_contradiction |
Ian is harsh.
Lars is happy.
Heath is harsh.
Otis is not crazy.
Sterling is not happy.
Lee is not frail.
Ian is frail.
Lars is visible.
Otis is not visible.
Sterling is not frail.
Kimball is not odd.
Kimball is not crazy.Lars being visible is equivalent to Ian being happy.
Someone who is visible is always both not frail and not harsh.
If all people are visible, then Otis is not frail and Ian is crazy.
If someone is odd and crazy, then he is not frail, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is both happy and crazy, then Heath is odd and Sterling is harsh.
If there is someone who is either not harsh or not frail, then Heath is visible.
If there is at least one people who is both not visible and harsh, then Otis is not frail.
Someone who is eithor not harsh or not frail is always odd.
If someone is either odd or happy, then he is not crazy and not harsh.
If Lars is not crazy or Lars is not odd, then Lee is not harsh.
If someone is not crazy and harsh, then he is both not frail and happy, and vice versa.
If someone is visible, then he is not harsh. | Ian is frail. | self_contradiction |
Ian is harsh.
Lars is happy.
Heath is harsh.
Otis is not crazy.
Sterling is not happy.
Lee is not frail.
Ian is frail.
Lars is visible.
Otis is not visible.
Sterling is not frail.
Kimball is not odd.
Kimball is not crazy.Lars being visible is equivalent to Ian being happy.
Someone who is visible is always both not frail and not harsh.
If all people are visible, then Otis is not frail and Ian is crazy.
If someone is odd and crazy, then he is not frail, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is both happy and crazy, then Heath is odd and Sterling is harsh.
If there is someone who is either not harsh or not frail, then Heath is visible.
If there is at least one people who is both not visible and harsh, then Otis is not frail.
Someone who is eithor not harsh or not frail is always odd.
If someone is either odd or happy, then he is not crazy and not harsh.
If Lars is not crazy or Lars is not odd, then Lee is not harsh.
If someone is not crazy and harsh, then he is both not frail and happy, and vice versa.
If someone is visible, then he is not harsh. | Kimball is not crazy. | entailment |
Ian is harsh.
Lars is happy.
Heath is harsh.
Otis is not crazy.
Sterling is not happy.
Lee is not frail.
Ian is frail.
Lars is visible.
Otis is not visible.
Sterling is not frail.
Kimball is not odd.
Kimball is not crazy.Lars being visible is equivalent to Ian being happy.
Someone who is visible is always both not frail and not harsh.
If all people are visible, then Otis is not frail and Ian is crazy.
If someone is odd and crazy, then he is not frail, and vice versa.
If there is someone who is both happy and crazy, then Heath is odd and Sterling is harsh.
If there is someone who is either not harsh or not frail, then Heath is visible.
If there is at least one people who is both not visible and harsh, then Otis is not frail.
Someone who is eithor not harsh or not frail is always odd.
If someone is either odd or happy, then he is not crazy and not harsh.
If Lars is not crazy or Lars is not odd, then Lee is not harsh.
If someone is not crazy and harsh, then he is both not frail and happy, and vice versa.
If someone is visible, then he is not harsh. | Otis is frail. | neutral |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.