premise
stringlengths 923
1.41k
| hypothesis
stringlengths 11
33
| label
stringclasses 4
values |
|---|---|---|
Kyle is not horrible.
Bevis is reserved.
Leslie is modern.
Kyle is not modern.
Shelley is not beige.
Chandler is not magnificent.
Bevis is rude.
Leslie is reserved.
Hartley is beige.
Leslie is not beige.
Leslie is rude.
Leslie is horrible.If Heath is magnificent or Heath is not reserved, then Shelley is not beige.
Hartley being not beige and Kyle being not modern imply that Hartley is not rude.
If someone is reserved or not magnificent, then he is beige.
Shelley being modern is equivalent to Leslie being horrible and Bevis being beige.
It can be concluded that Shelley is beige once knowing that Hartley is reserved.
If someone is beige and not rude, then he is magnificent and not reserved.
Someone who is not modern is always both not horrible and rude.
If there is someone who is not beige, then Shelley is not magnificent.
If someone who is not rude is also reserved, then he is not modern.
As long as someone is either rude or modern, he is not beige and not reserved.
It can be concluded that Leslie is not horrible once knowing that Heath is not modern and Bevis is rude.
Heath being beige is equivalent to Bevis being horrible.
|
Leslie is reserved.
|
self_contradiction
|
Kyle is not horrible.
Bevis is reserved.
Leslie is modern.
Kyle is not modern.
Shelley is not beige.
Chandler is not magnificent.
Bevis is rude.
Leslie is reserved.
Hartley is beige.
Leslie is not beige.
Leslie is rude.
Leslie is horrible.If Heath is magnificent or Heath is not reserved, then Shelley is not beige.
Hartley being not beige and Kyle being not modern imply that Hartley is not rude.
If someone is reserved or not magnificent, then he is beige.
Shelley being modern is equivalent to Leslie being horrible and Bevis being beige.
It can be concluded that Shelley is beige once knowing that Hartley is reserved.
If someone is beige and not rude, then he is magnificent and not reserved.
Someone who is not modern is always both not horrible and rude.
If there is someone who is not beige, then Shelley is not magnificent.
If someone who is not rude is also reserved, then he is not modern.
As long as someone is either rude or modern, he is not beige and not reserved.
It can be concluded that Leslie is not horrible once knowing that Heath is not modern and Bevis is rude.
Heath being beige is equivalent to Bevis being horrible.
|
Leslie is not rude.
|
contradiction
|
Kyle is not horrible.
Bevis is reserved.
Leslie is modern.
Kyle is not modern.
Shelley is not beige.
Chandler is not magnificent.
Bevis is rude.
Leslie is reserved.
Hartley is beige.
Leslie is not beige.
Leslie is rude.
Leslie is horrible.If Heath is magnificent or Heath is not reserved, then Shelley is not beige.
Hartley being not beige and Kyle being not modern imply that Hartley is not rude.
If someone is reserved or not magnificent, then he is beige.
Shelley being modern is equivalent to Leslie being horrible and Bevis being beige.
It can be concluded that Shelley is beige once knowing that Hartley is reserved.
If someone is beige and not rude, then he is magnificent and not reserved.
Someone who is not modern is always both not horrible and rude.
If there is someone who is not beige, then Shelley is not magnificent.
If someone who is not rude is also reserved, then he is not modern.
As long as someone is either rude or modern, he is not beige and not reserved.
It can be concluded that Leslie is not horrible once knowing that Heath is not modern and Bevis is rude.
Heath being beige is equivalent to Bevis being horrible.
|
Chandler is beige.
|
entailment
|
Kyle is not horrible.
Bevis is reserved.
Leslie is modern.
Kyle is not modern.
Shelley is not beige.
Chandler is not magnificent.
Bevis is rude.
Leslie is reserved.
Hartley is beige.
Leslie is not beige.
Leslie is rude.
Leslie is horrible.If Heath is magnificent or Heath is not reserved, then Shelley is not beige.
Hartley being not beige and Kyle being not modern imply that Hartley is not rude.
If someone is reserved or not magnificent, then he is beige.
Shelley being modern is equivalent to Leslie being horrible and Bevis being beige.
It can be concluded that Shelley is beige once knowing that Hartley is reserved.
If someone is beige and not rude, then he is magnificent and not reserved.
Someone who is not modern is always both not horrible and rude.
If there is someone who is not beige, then Shelley is not magnificent.
If someone who is not rude is also reserved, then he is not modern.
As long as someone is either rude or modern, he is not beige and not reserved.
It can be concluded that Leslie is not horrible once knowing that Heath is not modern and Bevis is rude.
Heath being beige is equivalent to Bevis being horrible.
|
Heath is not reserved.
|
neutral
|
Kyle is not horrible.
Bevis is reserved.
Leslie is modern.
Kyle is not modern.
Shelley is not beige.
Chandler is not magnificent.
Bevis is rude.
Leslie is reserved.
Hartley is beige.
Leslie is not beige.
Leslie is rude.
Leslie is horrible.If Heath is magnificent or Heath is not reserved, then Shelley is not beige.
Hartley being not beige and Kyle being not modern imply that Hartley is not rude.
If someone is reserved or not magnificent, then he is beige.
Shelley being modern is equivalent to Leslie being horrible and Bevis being beige.
It can be concluded that Shelley is beige once knowing that Hartley is reserved.
If someone is beige and not rude, then he is magnificent and not reserved.
Someone who is not modern is always both not horrible and rude.
If there is someone who is not beige, then Shelley is not magnificent.
If someone who is not rude is also reserved, then he is not modern.
As long as someone is either rude or modern, he is not beige and not reserved.
It can be concluded that Leslie is not horrible once knowing that Heath is not modern and Bevis is rude.
Heath being beige is equivalent to Bevis being horrible.
|
Heath is beige.
|
neutral
|
Kyle is not horrible.
Bevis is reserved.
Leslie is modern.
Kyle is not modern.
Shelley is not beige.
Chandler is not magnificent.
Bevis is rude.
Leslie is reserved.
Hartley is beige.
Leslie is not beige.
Leslie is rude.
Leslie is horrible.If Heath is magnificent or Heath is not reserved, then Shelley is not beige.
Hartley being not beige and Kyle being not modern imply that Hartley is not rude.
If someone is reserved or not magnificent, then he is beige.
Shelley being modern is equivalent to Leslie being horrible and Bevis being beige.
It can be concluded that Shelley is beige once knowing that Hartley is reserved.
If someone is beige and not rude, then he is magnificent and not reserved.
Someone who is not modern is always both not horrible and rude.
If there is someone who is not beige, then Shelley is not magnificent.
If someone who is not rude is also reserved, then he is not modern.
As long as someone is either rude or modern, he is not beige and not reserved.
It can be concluded that Leslie is not horrible once knowing that Heath is not modern and Bevis is rude.
Heath being beige is equivalent to Bevis being horrible.
|
Shelley is not modern.
|
contradiction
|
Kyle is not horrible.
Bevis is reserved.
Leslie is modern.
Kyle is not modern.
Shelley is not beige.
Chandler is not magnificent.
Bevis is rude.
Leslie is reserved.
Hartley is beige.
Leslie is not beige.
Leslie is rude.
Leslie is horrible.If Heath is magnificent or Heath is not reserved, then Shelley is not beige.
Hartley being not beige and Kyle being not modern imply that Hartley is not rude.
If someone is reserved or not magnificent, then he is beige.
Shelley being modern is equivalent to Leslie being horrible and Bevis being beige.
It can be concluded that Shelley is beige once knowing that Hartley is reserved.
If someone is beige and not rude, then he is magnificent and not reserved.
Someone who is not modern is always both not horrible and rude.
If there is someone who is not beige, then Shelley is not magnificent.
If someone who is not rude is also reserved, then he is not modern.
As long as someone is either rude or modern, he is not beige and not reserved.
It can be concluded that Leslie is not horrible once knowing that Heath is not modern and Bevis is rude.
Heath being beige is equivalent to Bevis being horrible.
|
Kyle is not magnificent.
|
neutral
|
Kyle is not horrible.
Bevis is reserved.
Leslie is modern.
Kyle is not modern.
Shelley is not beige.
Chandler is not magnificent.
Bevis is rude.
Leslie is reserved.
Hartley is beige.
Leslie is not beige.
Leslie is rude.
Leslie is horrible.If Heath is magnificent or Heath is not reserved, then Shelley is not beige.
Hartley being not beige and Kyle being not modern imply that Hartley is not rude.
If someone is reserved or not magnificent, then he is beige.
Shelley being modern is equivalent to Leslie being horrible and Bevis being beige.
It can be concluded that Shelley is beige once knowing that Hartley is reserved.
If someone is beige and not rude, then he is magnificent and not reserved.
Someone who is not modern is always both not horrible and rude.
If there is someone who is not beige, then Shelley is not magnificent.
If someone who is not rude is also reserved, then he is not modern.
As long as someone is either rude or modern, he is not beige and not reserved.
It can be concluded that Leslie is not horrible once knowing that Heath is not modern and Bevis is rude.
Heath being beige is equivalent to Bevis being horrible.
|
Chandler is not magnificent.
|
entailment
|
Kyle is not horrible.
Bevis is reserved.
Leslie is modern.
Kyle is not modern.
Shelley is not beige.
Chandler is not magnificent.
Bevis is rude.
Leslie is reserved.
Hartley is beige.
Leslie is not beige.
Leslie is rude.
Leslie is horrible.If Heath is magnificent or Heath is not reserved, then Shelley is not beige.
Hartley being not beige and Kyle being not modern imply that Hartley is not rude.
If someone is reserved or not magnificent, then he is beige.
Shelley being modern is equivalent to Leslie being horrible and Bevis being beige.
It can be concluded that Shelley is beige once knowing that Hartley is reserved.
If someone is beige and not rude, then he is magnificent and not reserved.
Someone who is not modern is always both not horrible and rude.
If there is someone who is not beige, then Shelley is not magnificent.
If someone who is not rude is also reserved, then he is not modern.
As long as someone is either rude or modern, he is not beige and not reserved.
It can be concluded that Leslie is not horrible once knowing that Heath is not modern and Bevis is rude.
Heath being beige is equivalent to Bevis being horrible.
|
Bevis is not rude.
|
contradiction
|
Kyle is not horrible.
Bevis is reserved.
Leslie is modern.
Kyle is not modern.
Shelley is not beige.
Chandler is not magnificent.
Bevis is rude.
Leslie is reserved.
Hartley is beige.
Leslie is not beige.
Leslie is rude.
Leslie is horrible.If Heath is magnificent or Heath is not reserved, then Shelley is not beige.
Hartley being not beige and Kyle being not modern imply that Hartley is not rude.
If someone is reserved or not magnificent, then he is beige.
Shelley being modern is equivalent to Leslie being horrible and Bevis being beige.
It can be concluded that Shelley is beige once knowing that Hartley is reserved.
If someone is beige and not rude, then he is magnificent and not reserved.
Someone who is not modern is always both not horrible and rude.
If there is someone who is not beige, then Shelley is not magnificent.
If someone who is not rude is also reserved, then he is not modern.
As long as someone is either rude or modern, he is not beige and not reserved.
It can be concluded that Leslie is not horrible once knowing that Heath is not modern and Bevis is rude.
Heath being beige is equivalent to Bevis being horrible.
|
Leslie is not beige.
|
self_contradiction
|
Kyle is not horrible.
Bevis is reserved.
Leslie is modern.
Kyle is not modern.
Shelley is not beige.
Chandler is not magnificent.
Bevis is rude.
Leslie is reserved.
Hartley is beige.
Leslie is not beige.
Leslie is rude.
Leslie is horrible.If Heath is magnificent or Heath is not reserved, then Shelley is not beige.
Hartley being not beige and Kyle being not modern imply that Hartley is not rude.
If someone is reserved or not magnificent, then he is beige.
Shelley being modern is equivalent to Leslie being horrible and Bevis being beige.
It can be concluded that Shelley is beige once knowing that Hartley is reserved.
If someone is beige and not rude, then he is magnificent and not reserved.
Someone who is not modern is always both not horrible and rude.
If there is someone who is not beige, then Shelley is not magnificent.
If someone who is not rude is also reserved, then he is not modern.
As long as someone is either rude or modern, he is not beige and not reserved.
It can be concluded that Leslie is not horrible once knowing that Heath is not modern and Bevis is rude.
Heath being beige is equivalent to Bevis being horrible.
|
Heath is not rude.
|
neutral
|
Kyle is not horrible.
Bevis is reserved.
Leslie is modern.
Kyle is not modern.
Shelley is not beige.
Chandler is not magnificent.
Bevis is rude.
Leslie is reserved.
Hartley is beige.
Leslie is not beige.
Leslie is rude.
Leslie is horrible.If Heath is magnificent or Heath is not reserved, then Shelley is not beige.
Hartley being not beige and Kyle being not modern imply that Hartley is not rude.
If someone is reserved or not magnificent, then he is beige.
Shelley being modern is equivalent to Leslie being horrible and Bevis being beige.
It can be concluded that Shelley is beige once knowing that Hartley is reserved.
If someone is beige and not rude, then he is magnificent and not reserved.
Someone who is not modern is always both not horrible and rude.
If there is someone who is not beige, then Shelley is not magnificent.
If someone who is not rude is also reserved, then he is not modern.
As long as someone is either rude or modern, he is not beige and not reserved.
It can be concluded that Leslie is not horrible once knowing that Heath is not modern and Bevis is rude.
Heath being beige is equivalent to Bevis being horrible.
|
Hartley is modern.
|
neutral
|
Kyle is not horrible.
Bevis is reserved.
Leslie is modern.
Kyle is not modern.
Shelley is not beige.
Chandler is not magnificent.
Bevis is rude.
Leslie is reserved.
Hartley is beige.
Leslie is not beige.
Leslie is rude.
Leslie is horrible.If Heath is magnificent or Heath is not reserved, then Shelley is not beige.
Hartley being not beige and Kyle being not modern imply that Hartley is not rude.
If someone is reserved or not magnificent, then he is beige.
Shelley being modern is equivalent to Leslie being horrible and Bevis being beige.
It can be concluded that Shelley is beige once knowing that Hartley is reserved.
If someone is beige and not rude, then he is magnificent and not reserved.
Someone who is not modern is always both not horrible and rude.
If there is someone who is not beige, then Shelley is not magnificent.
If someone who is not rude is also reserved, then he is not modern.
As long as someone is either rude or modern, he is not beige and not reserved.
It can be concluded that Leslie is not horrible once knowing that Heath is not modern and Bevis is rude.
Heath being beige is equivalent to Bevis being horrible.
|
Bevis is not reserved.
|
self_contradiction
|
Kyle is not horrible.
Bevis is reserved.
Leslie is modern.
Kyle is not modern.
Shelley is not beige.
Chandler is not magnificent.
Bevis is rude.
Leslie is reserved.
Hartley is beige.
Leslie is not beige.
Leslie is rude.
Leslie is horrible.If Heath is magnificent or Heath is not reserved, then Shelley is not beige.
Hartley being not beige and Kyle being not modern imply that Hartley is not rude.
If someone is reserved or not magnificent, then he is beige.
Shelley being modern is equivalent to Leslie being horrible and Bevis being beige.
It can be concluded that Shelley is beige once knowing that Hartley is reserved.
If someone is beige and not rude, then he is magnificent and not reserved.
Someone who is not modern is always both not horrible and rude.
If there is someone who is not beige, then Shelley is not magnificent.
If someone who is not rude is also reserved, then he is not modern.
As long as someone is either rude or modern, he is not beige and not reserved.
It can be concluded that Leslie is not horrible once knowing that Heath is not modern and Bevis is rude.
Heath being beige is equivalent to Bevis being horrible.
|
Kyle is not horrible.
|
entailment
|
Kyle is not horrible.
Bevis is reserved.
Leslie is modern.
Kyle is not modern.
Shelley is not beige.
Chandler is not magnificent.
Bevis is rude.
Leslie is reserved.
Hartley is beige.
Leslie is not beige.
Leslie is rude.
Leslie is horrible.If Heath is magnificent or Heath is not reserved, then Shelley is not beige.
Hartley being not beige and Kyle being not modern imply that Hartley is not rude.
If someone is reserved or not magnificent, then he is beige.
Shelley being modern is equivalent to Leslie being horrible and Bevis being beige.
It can be concluded that Shelley is beige once knowing that Hartley is reserved.
If someone is beige and not rude, then he is magnificent and not reserved.
Someone who is not modern is always both not horrible and rude.
If there is someone who is not beige, then Shelley is not magnificent.
If someone who is not rude is also reserved, then he is not modern.
As long as someone is either rude or modern, he is not beige and not reserved.
It can be concluded that Leslie is not horrible once knowing that Heath is not modern and Bevis is rude.
Heath being beige is equivalent to Bevis being horrible.
|
Shelley is modern.
|
entailment
|
Kyle is not horrible.
Bevis is reserved.
Leslie is modern.
Kyle is not modern.
Shelley is not beige.
Chandler is not magnificent.
Bevis is rude.
Leslie is reserved.
Hartley is beige.
Leslie is not beige.
Leslie is rude.
Leslie is horrible.If Heath is magnificent or Heath is not reserved, then Shelley is not beige.
Hartley being not beige and Kyle being not modern imply that Hartley is not rude.
If someone is reserved or not magnificent, then he is beige.
Shelley being modern is equivalent to Leslie being horrible and Bevis being beige.
It can be concluded that Shelley is beige once knowing that Hartley is reserved.
If someone is beige and not rude, then he is magnificent and not reserved.
Someone who is not modern is always both not horrible and rude.
If there is someone who is not beige, then Shelley is not magnificent.
If someone who is not rude is also reserved, then he is not modern.
As long as someone is either rude or modern, he is not beige and not reserved.
It can be concluded that Leslie is not horrible once knowing that Heath is not modern and Bevis is rude.
Heath being beige is equivalent to Bevis being horrible.
|
Leslie is beige.
|
self_contradiction
|
Kyle is not horrible.
Bevis is reserved.
Leslie is modern.
Kyle is not modern.
Shelley is not beige.
Chandler is not magnificent.
Bevis is rude.
Leslie is reserved.
Hartley is beige.
Leslie is not beige.
Leslie is rude.
Leslie is horrible.If Heath is magnificent or Heath is not reserved, then Shelley is not beige.
Hartley being not beige and Kyle being not modern imply that Hartley is not rude.
If someone is reserved or not magnificent, then he is beige.
Shelley being modern is equivalent to Leslie being horrible and Bevis being beige.
It can be concluded that Shelley is beige once knowing that Hartley is reserved.
If someone is beige and not rude, then he is magnificent and not reserved.
Someone who is not modern is always both not horrible and rude.
If there is someone who is not beige, then Shelley is not magnificent.
If someone who is not rude is also reserved, then he is not modern.
As long as someone is either rude or modern, he is not beige and not reserved.
It can be concluded that Leslie is not horrible once knowing that Heath is not modern and Bevis is rude.
Heath being beige is equivalent to Bevis being horrible.
|
Bevis is reserved.
|
self_contradiction
|
Kyle is not horrible.
Bevis is reserved.
Leslie is modern.
Kyle is not modern.
Shelley is not beige.
Chandler is not magnificent.
Bevis is rude.
Leslie is reserved.
Hartley is beige.
Leslie is not beige.
Leslie is rude.
Leslie is horrible.If Heath is magnificent or Heath is not reserved, then Shelley is not beige.
Hartley being not beige and Kyle being not modern imply that Hartley is not rude.
If someone is reserved or not magnificent, then he is beige.
Shelley being modern is equivalent to Leslie being horrible and Bevis being beige.
It can be concluded that Shelley is beige once knowing that Hartley is reserved.
If someone is beige and not rude, then he is magnificent and not reserved.
Someone who is not modern is always both not horrible and rude.
If there is someone who is not beige, then Shelley is not magnificent.
If someone who is not rude is also reserved, then he is not modern.
As long as someone is either rude or modern, he is not beige and not reserved.
It can be concluded that Leslie is not horrible once knowing that Heath is not modern and Bevis is rude.
Heath being beige is equivalent to Bevis being horrible.
|
Kyle is not beige.
|
entailment
|
Kyle is not horrible.
Bevis is reserved.
Leslie is modern.
Kyle is not modern.
Shelley is not beige.
Chandler is not magnificent.
Bevis is rude.
Leslie is reserved.
Hartley is beige.
Leslie is not beige.
Leslie is rude.
Leslie is horrible.If Heath is magnificent or Heath is not reserved, then Shelley is not beige.
Hartley being not beige and Kyle being not modern imply that Hartley is not rude.
If someone is reserved or not magnificent, then he is beige.
Shelley being modern is equivalent to Leslie being horrible and Bevis being beige.
It can be concluded that Shelley is beige once knowing that Hartley is reserved.
If someone is beige and not rude, then he is magnificent and not reserved.
Someone who is not modern is always both not horrible and rude.
If there is someone who is not beige, then Shelley is not magnificent.
If someone who is not rude is also reserved, then he is not modern.
As long as someone is either rude or modern, he is not beige and not reserved.
It can be concluded that Leslie is not horrible once knowing that Heath is not modern and Bevis is rude.
Heath being beige is equivalent to Bevis being horrible.
|
Kyle is beige.
|
contradiction
|
Kyle is not horrible.
Bevis is reserved.
Leslie is modern.
Kyle is not modern.
Shelley is not beige.
Chandler is not magnificent.
Bevis is rude.
Leslie is reserved.
Hartley is beige.
Leslie is not beige.
Leslie is rude.
Leslie is horrible.If Heath is magnificent or Heath is not reserved, then Shelley is not beige.
Hartley being not beige and Kyle being not modern imply that Hartley is not rude.
If someone is reserved or not magnificent, then he is beige.
Shelley being modern is equivalent to Leslie being horrible and Bevis being beige.
It can be concluded that Shelley is beige once knowing that Hartley is reserved.
If someone is beige and not rude, then he is magnificent and not reserved.
Someone who is not modern is always both not horrible and rude.
If there is someone who is not beige, then Shelley is not magnificent.
If someone who is not rude is also reserved, then he is not modern.
As long as someone is either rude or modern, he is not beige and not reserved.
It can be concluded that Leslie is not horrible once knowing that Heath is not modern and Bevis is rude.
Heath being beige is equivalent to Bevis being horrible.
|
Chandler is not beige.
|
contradiction
|
Laurence is not entire.
Claude is inner.
Joshua is weak.
Ives is inner.
Alvin is not inner.
Ives is troubled.
Claude is not entire.
Claude is not weak.
Joshua is inner.
Alvin is not solid.
Ives is not weak.
Charlie is solid.It can be concluded that Charlie is not entire and Claude is troubled once knowing that Claude is inner.
If Charlie is solid and Laurence is not entire, then Alvin is better and Laurence is weak, and vice versa.
As long as someone is not entire, he is not weak and not troubled.
It can be concluded that Joshua is not better once knowing that Charlie is not weak.
if there is at least one people who is not troubled and inner, then Ives is entire and Alvin is weak.
If Ives is not solid, then Ives is not entire, and vice versa.
Someone being both solid and inner is equivalent to being not troubled.
Someone being both not inner and solid is equivalent to being not troubled.
It can be concluded that Claude is better once knowing that Joshua is weak or Claude is entire.
Ives being not weak is equivalent to Ives being entire and Scott being not better.
If someone is weak, then he is not better.
If there is someone who is both not solid and not entire, then Scott is better.
|
Laurence is not troubled.
|
entailment
|
Laurence is not entire.
Claude is inner.
Joshua is weak.
Ives is inner.
Alvin is not inner.
Ives is troubled.
Claude is not entire.
Claude is not weak.
Joshua is inner.
Alvin is not solid.
Ives is not weak.
Charlie is solid.It can be concluded that Charlie is not entire and Claude is troubled once knowing that Claude is inner.
If Charlie is solid and Laurence is not entire, then Alvin is better and Laurence is weak, and vice versa.
As long as someone is not entire, he is not weak and not troubled.
It can be concluded that Joshua is not better once knowing that Charlie is not weak.
if there is at least one people who is not troubled and inner, then Ives is entire and Alvin is weak.
If Ives is not solid, then Ives is not entire, and vice versa.
Someone being both solid and inner is equivalent to being not troubled.
Someone being both not inner and solid is equivalent to being not troubled.
It can be concluded that Claude is better once knowing that Joshua is weak or Claude is entire.
Ives being not weak is equivalent to Ives being entire and Scott being not better.
If someone is weak, then he is not better.
If there is someone who is both not solid and not entire, then Scott is better.
|
Laurence is solid.
|
entailment
|
Laurence is not entire.
Claude is inner.
Joshua is weak.
Ives is inner.
Alvin is not inner.
Ives is troubled.
Claude is not entire.
Claude is not weak.
Joshua is inner.
Alvin is not solid.
Ives is not weak.
Charlie is solid.It can be concluded that Charlie is not entire and Claude is troubled once knowing that Claude is inner.
If Charlie is solid and Laurence is not entire, then Alvin is better and Laurence is weak, and vice versa.
As long as someone is not entire, he is not weak and not troubled.
It can be concluded that Joshua is not better once knowing that Charlie is not weak.
if there is at least one people who is not troubled and inner, then Ives is entire and Alvin is weak.
If Ives is not solid, then Ives is not entire, and vice versa.
Someone being both solid and inner is equivalent to being not troubled.
Someone being both not inner and solid is equivalent to being not troubled.
It can be concluded that Claude is better once knowing that Joshua is weak or Claude is entire.
Ives being not weak is equivalent to Ives being entire and Scott being not better.
If someone is weak, then he is not better.
If there is someone who is both not solid and not entire, then Scott is better.
|
Laurence is not inner.
|
self_contradiction
|
Laurence is not entire.
Claude is inner.
Joshua is weak.
Ives is inner.
Alvin is not inner.
Ives is troubled.
Claude is not entire.
Claude is not weak.
Joshua is inner.
Alvin is not solid.
Ives is not weak.
Charlie is solid.It can be concluded that Charlie is not entire and Claude is troubled once knowing that Claude is inner.
If Charlie is solid and Laurence is not entire, then Alvin is better and Laurence is weak, and vice versa.
As long as someone is not entire, he is not weak and not troubled.
It can be concluded that Joshua is not better once knowing that Charlie is not weak.
if there is at least one people who is not troubled and inner, then Ives is entire and Alvin is weak.
If Ives is not solid, then Ives is not entire, and vice versa.
Someone being both solid and inner is equivalent to being not troubled.
Someone being both not inner and solid is equivalent to being not troubled.
It can be concluded that Claude is better once knowing that Joshua is weak or Claude is entire.
Ives being not weak is equivalent to Ives being entire and Scott being not better.
If someone is weak, then he is not better.
If there is someone who is both not solid and not entire, then Scott is better.
|
Ives is not weak.
|
entailment
|
Laurence is not entire.
Claude is inner.
Joshua is weak.
Ives is inner.
Alvin is not inner.
Ives is troubled.
Claude is not entire.
Claude is not weak.
Joshua is inner.
Alvin is not solid.
Ives is not weak.
Charlie is solid.It can be concluded that Charlie is not entire and Claude is troubled once knowing that Claude is inner.
If Charlie is solid and Laurence is not entire, then Alvin is better and Laurence is weak, and vice versa.
As long as someone is not entire, he is not weak and not troubled.
It can be concluded that Joshua is not better once knowing that Charlie is not weak.
if there is at least one people who is not troubled and inner, then Ives is entire and Alvin is weak.
If Ives is not solid, then Ives is not entire, and vice versa.
Someone being both solid and inner is equivalent to being not troubled.
Someone being both not inner and solid is equivalent to being not troubled.
It can be concluded that Claude is better once knowing that Joshua is weak or Claude is entire.
Ives being not weak is equivalent to Ives being entire and Scott being not better.
If someone is weak, then he is not better.
If there is someone who is both not solid and not entire, then Scott is better.
|
Scott is not entire.
|
neutral
|
Laurence is not entire.
Claude is inner.
Joshua is weak.
Ives is inner.
Alvin is not inner.
Ives is troubled.
Claude is not entire.
Claude is not weak.
Joshua is inner.
Alvin is not solid.
Ives is not weak.
Charlie is solid.It can be concluded that Charlie is not entire and Claude is troubled once knowing that Claude is inner.
If Charlie is solid and Laurence is not entire, then Alvin is better and Laurence is weak, and vice versa.
As long as someone is not entire, he is not weak and not troubled.
It can be concluded that Joshua is not better once knowing that Charlie is not weak.
if there is at least one people who is not troubled and inner, then Ives is entire and Alvin is weak.
If Ives is not solid, then Ives is not entire, and vice versa.
Someone being both solid and inner is equivalent to being not troubled.
Someone being both not inner and solid is equivalent to being not troubled.
It can be concluded that Claude is better once knowing that Joshua is weak or Claude is entire.
Ives being not weak is equivalent to Ives being entire and Scott being not better.
If someone is weak, then he is not better.
If there is someone who is both not solid and not entire, then Scott is better.
|
Joshua is solid.
|
neutral
|
Laurence is not entire.
Claude is inner.
Joshua is weak.
Ives is inner.
Alvin is not inner.
Ives is troubled.
Claude is not entire.
Claude is not weak.
Joshua is inner.
Alvin is not solid.
Ives is not weak.
Charlie is solid.It can be concluded that Charlie is not entire and Claude is troubled once knowing that Claude is inner.
If Charlie is solid and Laurence is not entire, then Alvin is better and Laurence is weak, and vice versa.
As long as someone is not entire, he is not weak and not troubled.
It can be concluded that Joshua is not better once knowing that Charlie is not weak.
if there is at least one people who is not troubled and inner, then Ives is entire and Alvin is weak.
If Ives is not solid, then Ives is not entire, and vice versa.
Someone being both solid and inner is equivalent to being not troubled.
Someone being both not inner and solid is equivalent to being not troubled.
It can be concluded that Claude is better once knowing that Joshua is weak or Claude is entire.
Ives being not weak is equivalent to Ives being entire and Scott being not better.
If someone is weak, then he is not better.
If there is someone who is both not solid and not entire, then Scott is better.
|
Ives is not entire.
|
contradiction
|
Laurence is not entire.
Claude is inner.
Joshua is weak.
Ives is inner.
Alvin is not inner.
Ives is troubled.
Claude is not entire.
Claude is not weak.
Joshua is inner.
Alvin is not solid.
Ives is not weak.
Charlie is solid.It can be concluded that Charlie is not entire and Claude is troubled once knowing that Claude is inner.
If Charlie is solid and Laurence is not entire, then Alvin is better and Laurence is weak, and vice versa.
As long as someone is not entire, he is not weak and not troubled.
It can be concluded that Joshua is not better once knowing that Charlie is not weak.
if there is at least one people who is not troubled and inner, then Ives is entire and Alvin is weak.
If Ives is not solid, then Ives is not entire, and vice versa.
Someone being both solid and inner is equivalent to being not troubled.
Someone being both not inner and solid is equivalent to being not troubled.
It can be concluded that Claude is better once knowing that Joshua is weak or Claude is entire.
Ives being not weak is equivalent to Ives being entire and Scott being not better.
If someone is weak, then he is not better.
If there is someone who is both not solid and not entire, then Scott is better.
|
Charlie is not inner.
|
self_contradiction
|
Laurence is not entire.
Claude is inner.
Joshua is weak.
Ives is inner.
Alvin is not inner.
Ives is troubled.
Claude is not entire.
Claude is not weak.
Joshua is inner.
Alvin is not solid.
Ives is not weak.
Charlie is solid.It can be concluded that Charlie is not entire and Claude is troubled once knowing that Claude is inner.
If Charlie is solid and Laurence is not entire, then Alvin is better and Laurence is weak, and vice versa.
As long as someone is not entire, he is not weak and not troubled.
It can be concluded that Joshua is not better once knowing that Charlie is not weak.
if there is at least one people who is not troubled and inner, then Ives is entire and Alvin is weak.
If Ives is not solid, then Ives is not entire, and vice versa.
Someone being both solid and inner is equivalent to being not troubled.
Someone being both not inner and solid is equivalent to being not troubled.
It can be concluded that Claude is better once knowing that Joshua is weak or Claude is entire.
Ives being not weak is equivalent to Ives being entire and Scott being not better.
If someone is weak, then he is not better.
If there is someone who is both not solid and not entire, then Scott is better.
|
Charlie is better.
|
neutral
|
Laurence is not entire.
Claude is inner.
Joshua is weak.
Ives is inner.
Alvin is not inner.
Ives is troubled.
Claude is not entire.
Claude is not weak.
Joshua is inner.
Alvin is not solid.
Ives is not weak.
Charlie is solid.It can be concluded that Charlie is not entire and Claude is troubled once knowing that Claude is inner.
If Charlie is solid and Laurence is not entire, then Alvin is better and Laurence is weak, and vice versa.
As long as someone is not entire, he is not weak and not troubled.
It can be concluded that Joshua is not better once knowing that Charlie is not weak.
if there is at least one people who is not troubled and inner, then Ives is entire and Alvin is weak.
If Ives is not solid, then Ives is not entire, and vice versa.
Someone being both solid and inner is equivalent to being not troubled.
Someone being both not inner and solid is equivalent to being not troubled.
It can be concluded that Claude is better once knowing that Joshua is weak or Claude is entire.
Ives being not weak is equivalent to Ives being entire and Scott being not better.
If someone is weak, then he is not better.
If there is someone who is both not solid and not entire, then Scott is better.
|
Alvin is inner.
|
contradiction
|
Laurence is not entire.
Claude is inner.
Joshua is weak.
Ives is inner.
Alvin is not inner.
Ives is troubled.
Claude is not entire.
Claude is not weak.
Joshua is inner.
Alvin is not solid.
Ives is not weak.
Charlie is solid.It can be concluded that Charlie is not entire and Claude is troubled once knowing that Claude is inner.
If Charlie is solid and Laurence is not entire, then Alvin is better and Laurence is weak, and vice versa.
As long as someone is not entire, he is not weak and not troubled.
It can be concluded that Joshua is not better once knowing that Charlie is not weak.
if there is at least one people who is not troubled and inner, then Ives is entire and Alvin is weak.
If Ives is not solid, then Ives is not entire, and vice versa.
Someone being both solid and inner is equivalent to being not troubled.
Someone being both not inner and solid is equivalent to being not troubled.
It can be concluded that Claude is better once knowing that Joshua is weak or Claude is entire.
Ives being not weak is equivalent to Ives being entire and Scott being not better.
If someone is weak, then he is not better.
If there is someone who is both not solid and not entire, then Scott is better.
|
Alvin is troubled.
|
neutral
|
Laurence is not entire.
Claude is inner.
Joshua is weak.
Ives is inner.
Alvin is not inner.
Ives is troubled.
Claude is not entire.
Claude is not weak.
Joshua is inner.
Alvin is not solid.
Ives is not weak.
Charlie is solid.It can be concluded that Charlie is not entire and Claude is troubled once knowing that Claude is inner.
If Charlie is solid and Laurence is not entire, then Alvin is better and Laurence is weak, and vice versa.
As long as someone is not entire, he is not weak and not troubled.
It can be concluded that Joshua is not better once knowing that Charlie is not weak.
if there is at least one people who is not troubled and inner, then Ives is entire and Alvin is weak.
If Ives is not solid, then Ives is not entire, and vice versa.
Someone being both solid and inner is equivalent to being not troubled.
Someone being both not inner and solid is equivalent to being not troubled.
It can be concluded that Claude is better once knowing that Joshua is weak or Claude is entire.
Ives being not weak is equivalent to Ives being entire and Scott being not better.
If someone is weak, then he is not better.
If there is someone who is both not solid and not entire, then Scott is better.
|
Claude is inner.
|
self_contradiction
|
Laurence is not entire.
Claude is inner.
Joshua is weak.
Ives is inner.
Alvin is not inner.
Ives is troubled.
Claude is not entire.
Claude is not weak.
Joshua is inner.
Alvin is not solid.
Ives is not weak.
Charlie is solid.It can be concluded that Charlie is not entire and Claude is troubled once knowing that Claude is inner.
If Charlie is solid and Laurence is not entire, then Alvin is better and Laurence is weak, and vice versa.
As long as someone is not entire, he is not weak and not troubled.
It can be concluded that Joshua is not better once knowing that Charlie is not weak.
if there is at least one people who is not troubled and inner, then Ives is entire and Alvin is weak.
If Ives is not solid, then Ives is not entire, and vice versa.
Someone being both solid and inner is equivalent to being not troubled.
Someone being both not inner and solid is equivalent to being not troubled.
It can be concluded that Claude is better once knowing that Joshua is weak or Claude is entire.
Ives being not weak is equivalent to Ives being entire and Scott being not better.
If someone is weak, then he is not better.
If there is someone who is both not solid and not entire, then Scott is better.
|
Charlie is weak.
|
contradiction
|
Laurence is not entire.
Claude is inner.
Joshua is weak.
Ives is inner.
Alvin is not inner.
Ives is troubled.
Claude is not entire.
Claude is not weak.
Joshua is inner.
Alvin is not solid.
Ives is not weak.
Charlie is solid.It can be concluded that Charlie is not entire and Claude is troubled once knowing that Claude is inner.
If Charlie is solid and Laurence is not entire, then Alvin is better and Laurence is weak, and vice versa.
As long as someone is not entire, he is not weak and not troubled.
It can be concluded that Joshua is not better once knowing that Charlie is not weak.
if there is at least one people who is not troubled and inner, then Ives is entire and Alvin is weak.
If Ives is not solid, then Ives is not entire, and vice versa.
Someone being both solid and inner is equivalent to being not troubled.
Someone being both not inner and solid is equivalent to being not troubled.
It can be concluded that Claude is better once knowing that Joshua is weak or Claude is entire.
Ives being not weak is equivalent to Ives being entire and Scott being not better.
If someone is weak, then he is not better.
If there is someone who is both not solid and not entire, then Scott is better.
|
Claude is entire.
|
contradiction
|
Laurence is not entire.
Claude is inner.
Joshua is weak.
Ives is inner.
Alvin is not inner.
Ives is troubled.
Claude is not entire.
Claude is not weak.
Joshua is inner.
Alvin is not solid.
Ives is not weak.
Charlie is solid.It can be concluded that Charlie is not entire and Claude is troubled once knowing that Claude is inner.
If Charlie is solid and Laurence is not entire, then Alvin is better and Laurence is weak, and vice versa.
As long as someone is not entire, he is not weak and not troubled.
It can be concluded that Joshua is not better once knowing that Charlie is not weak.
if there is at least one people who is not troubled and inner, then Ives is entire and Alvin is weak.
If Ives is not solid, then Ives is not entire, and vice versa.
Someone being both solid and inner is equivalent to being not troubled.
Someone being both not inner and solid is equivalent to being not troubled.
It can be concluded that Claude is better once knowing that Joshua is weak or Claude is entire.
Ives being not weak is equivalent to Ives being entire and Scott being not better.
If someone is weak, then he is not better.
If there is someone who is both not solid and not entire, then Scott is better.
|
Claude is not inner.
|
self_contradiction
|
Laurence is not entire.
Claude is inner.
Joshua is weak.
Ives is inner.
Alvin is not inner.
Ives is troubled.
Claude is not entire.
Claude is not weak.
Joshua is inner.
Alvin is not solid.
Ives is not weak.
Charlie is solid.It can be concluded that Charlie is not entire and Claude is troubled once knowing that Claude is inner.
If Charlie is solid and Laurence is not entire, then Alvin is better and Laurence is weak, and vice versa.
As long as someone is not entire, he is not weak and not troubled.
It can be concluded that Joshua is not better once knowing that Charlie is not weak.
if there is at least one people who is not troubled and inner, then Ives is entire and Alvin is weak.
If Ives is not solid, then Ives is not entire, and vice versa.
Someone being both solid and inner is equivalent to being not troubled.
Someone being both not inner and solid is equivalent to being not troubled.
It can be concluded that Claude is better once knowing that Joshua is weak or Claude is entire.
Ives being not weak is equivalent to Ives being entire and Scott being not better.
If someone is weak, then he is not better.
If there is someone who is both not solid and not entire, then Scott is better.
|
Alvin is not inner.
|
entailment
|
Laurence is not entire.
Claude is inner.
Joshua is weak.
Ives is inner.
Alvin is not inner.
Ives is troubled.
Claude is not entire.
Claude is not weak.
Joshua is inner.
Alvin is not solid.
Ives is not weak.
Charlie is solid.It can be concluded that Charlie is not entire and Claude is troubled once knowing that Claude is inner.
If Charlie is solid and Laurence is not entire, then Alvin is better and Laurence is weak, and vice versa.
As long as someone is not entire, he is not weak and not troubled.
It can be concluded that Joshua is not better once knowing that Charlie is not weak.
if there is at least one people who is not troubled and inner, then Ives is entire and Alvin is weak.
If Ives is not solid, then Ives is not entire, and vice versa.
Someone being both solid and inner is equivalent to being not troubled.
Someone being both not inner and solid is equivalent to being not troubled.
It can be concluded that Claude is better once knowing that Joshua is weak or Claude is entire.
Ives being not weak is equivalent to Ives being entire and Scott being not better.
If someone is weak, then he is not better.
If there is someone who is both not solid and not entire, then Scott is better.
|
Laurence is weak.
|
self_contradiction
|
Laurence is not entire.
Claude is inner.
Joshua is weak.
Ives is inner.
Alvin is not inner.
Ives is troubled.
Claude is not entire.
Claude is not weak.
Joshua is inner.
Alvin is not solid.
Ives is not weak.
Charlie is solid.It can be concluded that Charlie is not entire and Claude is troubled once knowing that Claude is inner.
If Charlie is solid and Laurence is not entire, then Alvin is better and Laurence is weak, and vice versa.
As long as someone is not entire, he is not weak and not troubled.
It can be concluded that Joshua is not better once knowing that Charlie is not weak.
if there is at least one people who is not troubled and inner, then Ives is entire and Alvin is weak.
If Ives is not solid, then Ives is not entire, and vice versa.
Someone being both solid and inner is equivalent to being not troubled.
Someone being both not inner and solid is equivalent to being not troubled.
It can be concluded that Claude is better once knowing that Joshua is weak or Claude is entire.
Ives being not weak is equivalent to Ives being entire and Scott being not better.
If someone is weak, then he is not better.
If there is someone who is both not solid and not entire, then Scott is better.
|
Claude is not weak.
|
entailment
|
Laurence is not entire.
Claude is inner.
Joshua is weak.
Ives is inner.
Alvin is not inner.
Ives is troubled.
Claude is not entire.
Claude is not weak.
Joshua is inner.
Alvin is not solid.
Ives is not weak.
Charlie is solid.It can be concluded that Charlie is not entire and Claude is troubled once knowing that Claude is inner.
If Charlie is solid and Laurence is not entire, then Alvin is better and Laurence is weak, and vice versa.
As long as someone is not entire, he is not weak and not troubled.
It can be concluded that Joshua is not better once knowing that Charlie is not weak.
if there is at least one people who is not troubled and inner, then Ives is entire and Alvin is weak.
If Ives is not solid, then Ives is not entire, and vice versa.
Someone being both solid and inner is equivalent to being not troubled.
Someone being both not inner and solid is equivalent to being not troubled.
It can be concluded that Claude is better once knowing that Joshua is weak or Claude is entire.
Ives being not weak is equivalent to Ives being entire and Scott being not better.
If someone is weak, then he is not better.
If there is someone who is both not solid and not entire, then Scott is better.
|
Charlie is not solid.
|
contradiction
|
Laurence is not entire.
Claude is inner.
Joshua is weak.
Ives is inner.
Alvin is not inner.
Ives is troubled.
Claude is not entire.
Claude is not weak.
Joshua is inner.
Alvin is not solid.
Ives is not weak.
Charlie is solid.It can be concluded that Charlie is not entire and Claude is troubled once knowing that Claude is inner.
If Charlie is solid and Laurence is not entire, then Alvin is better and Laurence is weak, and vice versa.
As long as someone is not entire, he is not weak and not troubled.
It can be concluded that Joshua is not better once knowing that Charlie is not weak.
if there is at least one people who is not troubled and inner, then Ives is entire and Alvin is weak.
If Ives is not solid, then Ives is not entire, and vice versa.
Someone being both solid and inner is equivalent to being not troubled.
Someone being both not inner and solid is equivalent to being not troubled.
It can be concluded that Claude is better once knowing that Joshua is weak or Claude is entire.
Ives being not weak is equivalent to Ives being entire and Scott being not better.
If someone is weak, then he is not better.
If there is someone who is both not solid and not entire, then Scott is better.
|
Scott is not solid.
|
neutral
|
Carroll is unhappy.
Shawn is not ancient.
Colin is dark.
Phoebe is not dark.
Jarvis is dark.
Martin is not dark.
Martin is not unhappy.
Carroll is dark.
Brian is dark.
Martin is strict.
Jarvis is unhappy.
Shawn is elderly.If Colin is not terrible, then Jarvis is strict.
Carroll being not strict implies that Jarvis is ancient.
If someone is not terrible or he is not elderly, then he is unhappy.
If someone is not strict or not dark, then he is unhappy.
Someone being both elderly and not strict is equivalent to being not unhappy.
Brian being unhappy or Shawn being not ancient implies that Jarvis is not strict.
Someone is not unhappy and not strict if and only if he is dark.
If there is someone who is ancient, then Colin is terrible and Phoebe is not dark.
If Shawn is not dark, then Brian is not terrible and Martin is not strict, and vice versa.
If someone who is not terrible is also dark, then he is not ancient.
If someone is strict, then he is both not ancient and not terrible.
Phoebe being ancient implies that Shawn is not strict and Shawn is not elderly.
|
Carroll is not unhappy.
|
self_contradiction
|
Carroll is unhappy.
Shawn is not ancient.
Colin is dark.
Phoebe is not dark.
Jarvis is dark.
Martin is not dark.
Martin is not unhappy.
Carroll is dark.
Brian is dark.
Martin is strict.
Jarvis is unhappy.
Shawn is elderly.If Colin is not terrible, then Jarvis is strict.
Carroll being not strict implies that Jarvis is ancient.
If someone is not terrible or he is not elderly, then he is unhappy.
If someone is not strict or not dark, then he is unhappy.
Someone being both elderly and not strict is equivalent to being not unhappy.
Brian being unhappy or Shawn being not ancient implies that Jarvis is not strict.
Someone is not unhappy and not strict if and only if he is dark.
If there is someone who is ancient, then Colin is terrible and Phoebe is not dark.
If Shawn is not dark, then Brian is not terrible and Martin is not strict, and vice versa.
If someone who is not terrible is also dark, then he is not ancient.
If someone is strict, then he is both not ancient and not terrible.
Phoebe being ancient implies that Shawn is not strict and Shawn is not elderly.
|
Colin is not unhappy.
|
self_contradiction
|
Carroll is unhappy.
Shawn is not ancient.
Colin is dark.
Phoebe is not dark.
Jarvis is dark.
Martin is not dark.
Martin is not unhappy.
Carroll is dark.
Brian is dark.
Martin is strict.
Jarvis is unhappy.
Shawn is elderly.If Colin is not terrible, then Jarvis is strict.
Carroll being not strict implies that Jarvis is ancient.
If someone is not terrible or he is not elderly, then he is unhappy.
If someone is not strict or not dark, then he is unhappy.
Someone being both elderly and not strict is equivalent to being not unhappy.
Brian being unhappy or Shawn being not ancient implies that Jarvis is not strict.
Someone is not unhappy and not strict if and only if he is dark.
If there is someone who is ancient, then Colin is terrible and Phoebe is not dark.
If Shawn is not dark, then Brian is not terrible and Martin is not strict, and vice versa.
If someone who is not terrible is also dark, then he is not ancient.
If someone is strict, then he is both not ancient and not terrible.
Phoebe being ancient implies that Shawn is not strict and Shawn is not elderly.
|
Martin is not strict.
|
self_contradiction
|
Carroll is unhappy.
Shawn is not ancient.
Colin is dark.
Phoebe is not dark.
Jarvis is dark.
Martin is not dark.
Martin is not unhappy.
Carroll is dark.
Brian is dark.
Martin is strict.
Jarvis is unhappy.
Shawn is elderly.If Colin is not terrible, then Jarvis is strict.
Carroll being not strict implies that Jarvis is ancient.
If someone is not terrible or he is not elderly, then he is unhappy.
If someone is not strict or not dark, then he is unhappy.
Someone being both elderly and not strict is equivalent to being not unhappy.
Brian being unhappy or Shawn being not ancient implies that Jarvis is not strict.
Someone is not unhappy and not strict if and only if he is dark.
If there is someone who is ancient, then Colin is terrible and Phoebe is not dark.
If Shawn is not dark, then Brian is not terrible and Martin is not strict, and vice versa.
If someone who is not terrible is also dark, then he is not ancient.
If someone is strict, then he is both not ancient and not terrible.
Phoebe being ancient implies that Shawn is not strict and Shawn is not elderly.
|
Phoebe is terrible.
|
neutral
|
Carroll is unhappy.
Shawn is not ancient.
Colin is dark.
Phoebe is not dark.
Jarvis is dark.
Martin is not dark.
Martin is not unhappy.
Carroll is dark.
Brian is dark.
Martin is strict.
Jarvis is unhappy.
Shawn is elderly.If Colin is not terrible, then Jarvis is strict.
Carroll being not strict implies that Jarvis is ancient.
If someone is not terrible or he is not elderly, then he is unhappy.
If someone is not strict or not dark, then he is unhappy.
Someone being both elderly and not strict is equivalent to being not unhappy.
Brian being unhappy or Shawn being not ancient implies that Jarvis is not strict.
Someone is not unhappy and not strict if and only if he is dark.
If there is someone who is ancient, then Colin is terrible and Phoebe is not dark.
If Shawn is not dark, then Brian is not terrible and Martin is not strict, and vice versa.
If someone who is not terrible is also dark, then he is not ancient.
If someone is strict, then he is both not ancient and not terrible.
Phoebe being ancient implies that Shawn is not strict and Shawn is not elderly.
|
Martin is ancient.
|
contradiction
|
Carroll is unhappy.
Shawn is not ancient.
Colin is dark.
Phoebe is not dark.
Jarvis is dark.
Martin is not dark.
Martin is not unhappy.
Carroll is dark.
Brian is dark.
Martin is strict.
Jarvis is unhappy.
Shawn is elderly.If Colin is not terrible, then Jarvis is strict.
Carroll being not strict implies that Jarvis is ancient.
If someone is not terrible or he is not elderly, then he is unhappy.
If someone is not strict or not dark, then he is unhappy.
Someone being both elderly and not strict is equivalent to being not unhappy.
Brian being unhappy or Shawn being not ancient implies that Jarvis is not strict.
Someone is not unhappy and not strict if and only if he is dark.
If there is someone who is ancient, then Colin is terrible and Phoebe is not dark.
If Shawn is not dark, then Brian is not terrible and Martin is not strict, and vice versa.
If someone who is not terrible is also dark, then he is not ancient.
If someone is strict, then he is both not ancient and not terrible.
Phoebe being ancient implies that Shawn is not strict and Shawn is not elderly.
|
Phoebe is elderly.
|
neutral
|
Carroll is unhappy.
Shawn is not ancient.
Colin is dark.
Phoebe is not dark.
Jarvis is dark.
Martin is not dark.
Martin is not unhappy.
Carroll is dark.
Brian is dark.
Martin is strict.
Jarvis is unhappy.
Shawn is elderly.If Colin is not terrible, then Jarvis is strict.
Carroll being not strict implies that Jarvis is ancient.
If someone is not terrible or he is not elderly, then he is unhappy.
If someone is not strict or not dark, then he is unhappy.
Someone being both elderly and not strict is equivalent to being not unhappy.
Brian being unhappy or Shawn being not ancient implies that Jarvis is not strict.
Someone is not unhappy and not strict if and only if he is dark.
If there is someone who is ancient, then Colin is terrible and Phoebe is not dark.
If Shawn is not dark, then Brian is not terrible and Martin is not strict, and vice versa.
If someone who is not terrible is also dark, then he is not ancient.
If someone is strict, then he is both not ancient and not terrible.
Phoebe being ancient implies that Shawn is not strict and Shawn is not elderly.
|
Shawn is ancient.
|
contradiction
|
Carroll is unhappy.
Shawn is not ancient.
Colin is dark.
Phoebe is not dark.
Jarvis is dark.
Martin is not dark.
Martin is not unhappy.
Carroll is dark.
Brian is dark.
Martin is strict.
Jarvis is unhappy.
Shawn is elderly.If Colin is not terrible, then Jarvis is strict.
Carroll being not strict implies that Jarvis is ancient.
If someone is not terrible or he is not elderly, then he is unhappy.
If someone is not strict or not dark, then he is unhappy.
Someone being both elderly and not strict is equivalent to being not unhappy.
Brian being unhappy or Shawn being not ancient implies that Jarvis is not strict.
Someone is not unhappy and not strict if and only if he is dark.
If there is someone who is ancient, then Colin is terrible and Phoebe is not dark.
If Shawn is not dark, then Brian is not terrible and Martin is not strict, and vice versa.
If someone who is not terrible is also dark, then he is not ancient.
If someone is strict, then he is both not ancient and not terrible.
Phoebe being ancient implies that Shawn is not strict and Shawn is not elderly.
|
Colin is not terrible.
|
contradiction
|
Carroll is unhappy.
Shawn is not ancient.
Colin is dark.
Phoebe is not dark.
Jarvis is dark.
Martin is not dark.
Martin is not unhappy.
Carroll is dark.
Brian is dark.
Martin is strict.
Jarvis is unhappy.
Shawn is elderly.If Colin is not terrible, then Jarvis is strict.
Carroll being not strict implies that Jarvis is ancient.
If someone is not terrible or he is not elderly, then he is unhappy.
If someone is not strict or not dark, then he is unhappy.
Someone being both elderly and not strict is equivalent to being not unhappy.
Brian being unhappy or Shawn being not ancient implies that Jarvis is not strict.
Someone is not unhappy and not strict if and only if he is dark.
If there is someone who is ancient, then Colin is terrible and Phoebe is not dark.
If Shawn is not dark, then Brian is not terrible and Martin is not strict, and vice versa.
If someone who is not terrible is also dark, then he is not ancient.
If someone is strict, then he is both not ancient and not terrible.
Phoebe being ancient implies that Shawn is not strict and Shawn is not elderly.
|
Phoebe is not terrible.
|
neutral
|
Carroll is unhappy.
Shawn is not ancient.
Colin is dark.
Phoebe is not dark.
Jarvis is dark.
Martin is not dark.
Martin is not unhappy.
Carroll is dark.
Brian is dark.
Martin is strict.
Jarvis is unhappy.
Shawn is elderly.If Colin is not terrible, then Jarvis is strict.
Carroll being not strict implies that Jarvis is ancient.
If someone is not terrible or he is not elderly, then he is unhappy.
If someone is not strict or not dark, then he is unhappy.
Someone being both elderly and not strict is equivalent to being not unhappy.
Brian being unhappy or Shawn being not ancient implies that Jarvis is not strict.
Someone is not unhappy and not strict if and only if he is dark.
If there is someone who is ancient, then Colin is terrible and Phoebe is not dark.
If Shawn is not dark, then Brian is not terrible and Martin is not strict, and vice versa.
If someone who is not terrible is also dark, then he is not ancient.
If someone is strict, then he is both not ancient and not terrible.
Phoebe being ancient implies that Shawn is not strict and Shawn is not elderly.
|
Jarvis is strict.
|
contradiction
|
Carroll is unhappy.
Shawn is not ancient.
Colin is dark.
Phoebe is not dark.
Jarvis is dark.
Martin is not dark.
Martin is not unhappy.
Carroll is dark.
Brian is dark.
Martin is strict.
Jarvis is unhappy.
Shawn is elderly.If Colin is not terrible, then Jarvis is strict.
Carroll being not strict implies that Jarvis is ancient.
If someone is not terrible or he is not elderly, then he is unhappy.
If someone is not strict or not dark, then he is unhappy.
Someone being both elderly and not strict is equivalent to being not unhappy.
Brian being unhappy or Shawn being not ancient implies that Jarvis is not strict.
Someone is not unhappy and not strict if and only if he is dark.
If there is someone who is ancient, then Colin is terrible and Phoebe is not dark.
If Shawn is not dark, then Brian is not terrible and Martin is not strict, and vice versa.
If someone who is not terrible is also dark, then he is not ancient.
If someone is strict, then he is both not ancient and not terrible.
Phoebe being ancient implies that Shawn is not strict and Shawn is not elderly.
|
Brian is unhappy.
|
self_contradiction
|
Carroll is unhappy.
Shawn is not ancient.
Colin is dark.
Phoebe is not dark.
Jarvis is dark.
Martin is not dark.
Martin is not unhappy.
Carroll is dark.
Brian is dark.
Martin is strict.
Jarvis is unhappy.
Shawn is elderly.If Colin is not terrible, then Jarvis is strict.
Carroll being not strict implies that Jarvis is ancient.
If someone is not terrible or he is not elderly, then he is unhappy.
If someone is not strict or not dark, then he is unhappy.
Someone being both elderly and not strict is equivalent to being not unhappy.
Brian being unhappy or Shawn being not ancient implies that Jarvis is not strict.
Someone is not unhappy and not strict if and only if he is dark.
If there is someone who is ancient, then Colin is terrible and Phoebe is not dark.
If Shawn is not dark, then Brian is not terrible and Martin is not strict, and vice versa.
If someone who is not terrible is also dark, then he is not ancient.
If someone is strict, then he is both not ancient and not terrible.
Phoebe being ancient implies that Shawn is not strict and Shawn is not elderly.
|
Jarvis is ancient.
|
entailment
|
Carroll is unhappy.
Shawn is not ancient.
Colin is dark.
Phoebe is not dark.
Jarvis is dark.
Martin is not dark.
Martin is not unhappy.
Carroll is dark.
Brian is dark.
Martin is strict.
Jarvis is unhappy.
Shawn is elderly.If Colin is not terrible, then Jarvis is strict.
Carroll being not strict implies that Jarvis is ancient.
If someone is not terrible or he is not elderly, then he is unhappy.
If someone is not strict or not dark, then he is unhappy.
Someone being both elderly and not strict is equivalent to being not unhappy.
Brian being unhappy or Shawn being not ancient implies that Jarvis is not strict.
Someone is not unhappy and not strict if and only if he is dark.
If there is someone who is ancient, then Colin is terrible and Phoebe is not dark.
If Shawn is not dark, then Brian is not terrible and Martin is not strict, and vice versa.
If someone who is not terrible is also dark, then he is not ancient.
If someone is strict, then he is both not ancient and not terrible.
Phoebe being ancient implies that Shawn is not strict and Shawn is not elderly.
|
Carroll is dark.
|
entailment
|
Carroll is unhappy.
Shawn is not ancient.
Colin is dark.
Phoebe is not dark.
Jarvis is dark.
Martin is not dark.
Martin is not unhappy.
Carroll is dark.
Brian is dark.
Martin is strict.
Jarvis is unhappy.
Shawn is elderly.If Colin is not terrible, then Jarvis is strict.
Carroll being not strict implies that Jarvis is ancient.
If someone is not terrible or he is not elderly, then he is unhappy.
If someone is not strict or not dark, then he is unhappy.
Someone being both elderly and not strict is equivalent to being not unhappy.
Brian being unhappy or Shawn being not ancient implies that Jarvis is not strict.
Someone is not unhappy and not strict if and only if he is dark.
If there is someone who is ancient, then Colin is terrible and Phoebe is not dark.
If Shawn is not dark, then Brian is not terrible and Martin is not strict, and vice versa.
If someone who is not terrible is also dark, then he is not ancient.
If someone is strict, then he is both not ancient and not terrible.
Phoebe being ancient implies that Shawn is not strict and Shawn is not elderly.
|
Colin is elderly.
|
entailment
|
Carroll is unhappy.
Shawn is not ancient.
Colin is dark.
Phoebe is not dark.
Jarvis is dark.
Martin is not dark.
Martin is not unhappy.
Carroll is dark.
Brian is dark.
Martin is strict.
Jarvis is unhappy.
Shawn is elderly.If Colin is not terrible, then Jarvis is strict.
Carroll being not strict implies that Jarvis is ancient.
If someone is not terrible or he is not elderly, then he is unhappy.
If someone is not strict or not dark, then he is unhappy.
Someone being both elderly and not strict is equivalent to being not unhappy.
Brian being unhappy or Shawn being not ancient implies that Jarvis is not strict.
Someone is not unhappy and not strict if and only if he is dark.
If there is someone who is ancient, then Colin is terrible and Phoebe is not dark.
If Shawn is not dark, then Brian is not terrible and Martin is not strict, and vice versa.
If someone who is not terrible is also dark, then he is not ancient.
If someone is strict, then he is both not ancient and not terrible.
Phoebe being ancient implies that Shawn is not strict and Shawn is not elderly.
|
Shawn is unhappy.
|
neutral
|
Carroll is unhappy.
Shawn is not ancient.
Colin is dark.
Phoebe is not dark.
Jarvis is dark.
Martin is not dark.
Martin is not unhappy.
Carroll is dark.
Brian is dark.
Martin is strict.
Jarvis is unhappy.
Shawn is elderly.If Colin is not terrible, then Jarvis is strict.
Carroll being not strict implies that Jarvis is ancient.
If someone is not terrible or he is not elderly, then he is unhappy.
If someone is not strict or not dark, then he is unhappy.
Someone being both elderly and not strict is equivalent to being not unhappy.
Brian being unhappy or Shawn being not ancient implies that Jarvis is not strict.
Someone is not unhappy and not strict if and only if he is dark.
If there is someone who is ancient, then Colin is terrible and Phoebe is not dark.
If Shawn is not dark, then Brian is not terrible and Martin is not strict, and vice versa.
If someone who is not terrible is also dark, then he is not ancient.
If someone is strict, then he is both not ancient and not terrible.
Phoebe being ancient implies that Shawn is not strict and Shawn is not elderly.
|
Martin is not dark.
|
self_contradiction
|
Carroll is unhappy.
Shawn is not ancient.
Colin is dark.
Phoebe is not dark.
Jarvis is dark.
Martin is not dark.
Martin is not unhappy.
Carroll is dark.
Brian is dark.
Martin is strict.
Jarvis is unhappy.
Shawn is elderly.If Colin is not terrible, then Jarvis is strict.
Carroll being not strict implies that Jarvis is ancient.
If someone is not terrible or he is not elderly, then he is unhappy.
If someone is not strict or not dark, then he is unhappy.
Someone being both elderly and not strict is equivalent to being not unhappy.
Brian being unhappy or Shawn being not ancient implies that Jarvis is not strict.
Someone is not unhappy and not strict if and only if he is dark.
If there is someone who is ancient, then Colin is terrible and Phoebe is not dark.
If Shawn is not dark, then Brian is not terrible and Martin is not strict, and vice versa.
If someone who is not terrible is also dark, then he is not ancient.
If someone is strict, then he is both not ancient and not terrible.
Phoebe being ancient implies that Shawn is not strict and Shawn is not elderly.
|
Martin is not terrible.
|
entailment
|
Carroll is unhappy.
Shawn is not ancient.
Colin is dark.
Phoebe is not dark.
Jarvis is dark.
Martin is not dark.
Martin is not unhappy.
Carroll is dark.
Brian is dark.
Martin is strict.
Jarvis is unhappy.
Shawn is elderly.If Colin is not terrible, then Jarvis is strict.
Carroll being not strict implies that Jarvis is ancient.
If someone is not terrible or he is not elderly, then he is unhappy.
If someone is not strict or not dark, then he is unhappy.
Someone being both elderly and not strict is equivalent to being not unhappy.
Brian being unhappy or Shawn being not ancient implies that Jarvis is not strict.
Someone is not unhappy and not strict if and only if he is dark.
If there is someone who is ancient, then Colin is terrible and Phoebe is not dark.
If Shawn is not dark, then Brian is not terrible and Martin is not strict, and vice versa.
If someone who is not terrible is also dark, then he is not ancient.
If someone is strict, then he is both not ancient and not terrible.
Phoebe being ancient implies that Shawn is not strict and Shawn is not elderly.
|
Brian is not terrible.
|
neutral
|
Carroll is unhappy.
Shawn is not ancient.
Colin is dark.
Phoebe is not dark.
Jarvis is dark.
Martin is not dark.
Martin is not unhappy.
Carroll is dark.
Brian is dark.
Martin is strict.
Jarvis is unhappy.
Shawn is elderly.If Colin is not terrible, then Jarvis is strict.
Carroll being not strict implies that Jarvis is ancient.
If someone is not terrible or he is not elderly, then he is unhappy.
If someone is not strict or not dark, then he is unhappy.
Someone being both elderly and not strict is equivalent to being not unhappy.
Brian being unhappy or Shawn being not ancient implies that Jarvis is not strict.
Someone is not unhappy and not strict if and only if he is dark.
If there is someone who is ancient, then Colin is terrible and Phoebe is not dark.
If Shawn is not dark, then Brian is not terrible and Martin is not strict, and vice versa.
If someone who is not terrible is also dark, then he is not ancient.
If someone is strict, then he is both not ancient and not terrible.
Phoebe being ancient implies that Shawn is not strict and Shawn is not elderly.
|
Carroll is strict.
|
contradiction
|
Carroll is unhappy.
Shawn is not ancient.
Colin is dark.
Phoebe is not dark.
Jarvis is dark.
Martin is not dark.
Martin is not unhappy.
Carroll is dark.
Brian is dark.
Martin is strict.
Jarvis is unhappy.
Shawn is elderly.If Colin is not terrible, then Jarvis is strict.
Carroll being not strict implies that Jarvis is ancient.
If someone is not terrible or he is not elderly, then he is unhappy.
If someone is not strict or not dark, then he is unhappy.
Someone being both elderly and not strict is equivalent to being not unhappy.
Brian being unhappy or Shawn being not ancient implies that Jarvis is not strict.
Someone is not unhappy and not strict if and only if he is dark.
If there is someone who is ancient, then Colin is terrible and Phoebe is not dark.
If Shawn is not dark, then Brian is not terrible and Martin is not strict, and vice versa.
If someone who is not terrible is also dark, then he is not ancient.
If someone is strict, then he is both not ancient and not terrible.
Phoebe being ancient implies that Shawn is not strict and Shawn is not elderly.
|
Brian is dark.
|
entailment
|
Hadwin is cotton.
Hadwin is not foolish.
Neil is not obedient.
Neil is not expensive.
Shamus is not cotton.
Jacob is not rare.
Shamus is not beautiful.
Alexia is obedient.
Hadwin is expensive.
Connell is not foolish.
Neil is foolish.
Connell is beautiful.Kelsey being beautiful or Hadwin being not foolish implies that Shamus is not rare.
If someone is not expensive, then he is foolish, and vice versa.
Someone who is eithor not expensive or beautiful is always not cotton.
As long as someone is either expensive or rare, he is not cotton and not beautiful.
If there is someone who is expensive, then Neil is obedient and Kelsey is not beautiful.
Connell being rare implies that Hadwin is foolish and Alexia is obedient.
If there is someone who is either not expensive or not obedient, then Jacob is not cotton.
If there is at least one people who is obedient or not rare, then Shamus is not expensive.
Someone who is both cotton and expensive is always not rare.
It can be concluded that Alexia is expensive once knowing that Jacob is cotton.
If there is at least one people who is both expensive and rare, then Connell is foolish.
Someone who is obedient is always beautiful.
|
Jacob is not foolish.
|
neutral
|
Hadwin is cotton.
Hadwin is not foolish.
Neil is not obedient.
Neil is not expensive.
Shamus is not cotton.
Jacob is not rare.
Shamus is not beautiful.
Alexia is obedient.
Hadwin is expensive.
Connell is not foolish.
Neil is foolish.
Connell is beautiful.Kelsey being beautiful or Hadwin being not foolish implies that Shamus is not rare.
If someone is not expensive, then he is foolish, and vice versa.
Someone who is eithor not expensive or beautiful is always not cotton.
As long as someone is either expensive or rare, he is not cotton and not beautiful.
If there is someone who is expensive, then Neil is obedient and Kelsey is not beautiful.
Connell being rare implies that Hadwin is foolish and Alexia is obedient.
If there is someone who is either not expensive or not obedient, then Jacob is not cotton.
If there is at least one people who is obedient or not rare, then Shamus is not expensive.
Someone who is both cotton and expensive is always not rare.
It can be concluded that Alexia is expensive once knowing that Jacob is cotton.
If there is at least one people who is both expensive and rare, then Connell is foolish.
Someone who is obedient is always beautiful.
|
Shamus is foolish.
|
entailment
|
Hadwin is cotton.
Hadwin is not foolish.
Neil is not obedient.
Neil is not expensive.
Shamus is not cotton.
Jacob is not rare.
Shamus is not beautiful.
Alexia is obedient.
Hadwin is expensive.
Connell is not foolish.
Neil is foolish.
Connell is beautiful.Kelsey being beautiful or Hadwin being not foolish implies that Shamus is not rare.
If someone is not expensive, then he is foolish, and vice versa.
Someone who is eithor not expensive or beautiful is always not cotton.
As long as someone is either expensive or rare, he is not cotton and not beautiful.
If there is someone who is expensive, then Neil is obedient and Kelsey is not beautiful.
Connell being rare implies that Hadwin is foolish and Alexia is obedient.
If there is someone who is either not expensive or not obedient, then Jacob is not cotton.
If there is at least one people who is obedient or not rare, then Shamus is not expensive.
Someone who is both cotton and expensive is always not rare.
It can be concluded that Alexia is expensive once knowing that Jacob is cotton.
If there is at least one people who is both expensive and rare, then Connell is foolish.
Someone who is obedient is always beautiful.
|
Jacob is rare.
|
contradiction
|
Hadwin is cotton.
Hadwin is not foolish.
Neil is not obedient.
Neil is not expensive.
Shamus is not cotton.
Jacob is not rare.
Shamus is not beautiful.
Alexia is obedient.
Hadwin is expensive.
Connell is not foolish.
Neil is foolish.
Connell is beautiful.Kelsey being beautiful or Hadwin being not foolish implies that Shamus is not rare.
If someone is not expensive, then he is foolish, and vice versa.
Someone who is eithor not expensive or beautiful is always not cotton.
As long as someone is either expensive or rare, he is not cotton and not beautiful.
If there is someone who is expensive, then Neil is obedient and Kelsey is not beautiful.
Connell being rare implies that Hadwin is foolish and Alexia is obedient.
If there is someone who is either not expensive or not obedient, then Jacob is not cotton.
If there is at least one people who is obedient or not rare, then Shamus is not expensive.
Someone who is both cotton and expensive is always not rare.
It can be concluded that Alexia is expensive once knowing that Jacob is cotton.
If there is at least one people who is both expensive and rare, then Connell is foolish.
Someone who is obedient is always beautiful.
|
Shamus is not rare.
|
entailment
|
Hadwin is cotton.
Hadwin is not foolish.
Neil is not obedient.
Neil is not expensive.
Shamus is not cotton.
Jacob is not rare.
Shamus is not beautiful.
Alexia is obedient.
Hadwin is expensive.
Connell is not foolish.
Neil is foolish.
Connell is beautiful.Kelsey being beautiful or Hadwin being not foolish implies that Shamus is not rare.
If someone is not expensive, then he is foolish, and vice versa.
Someone who is eithor not expensive or beautiful is always not cotton.
As long as someone is either expensive or rare, he is not cotton and not beautiful.
If there is someone who is expensive, then Neil is obedient and Kelsey is not beautiful.
Connell being rare implies that Hadwin is foolish and Alexia is obedient.
If there is someone who is either not expensive or not obedient, then Jacob is not cotton.
If there is at least one people who is obedient or not rare, then Shamus is not expensive.
Someone who is both cotton and expensive is always not rare.
It can be concluded that Alexia is expensive once knowing that Jacob is cotton.
If there is at least one people who is both expensive and rare, then Connell is foolish.
Someone who is obedient is always beautiful.
|
Neil is not beautiful.
|
contradiction
|
Hadwin is cotton.
Hadwin is not foolish.
Neil is not obedient.
Neil is not expensive.
Shamus is not cotton.
Jacob is not rare.
Shamus is not beautiful.
Alexia is obedient.
Hadwin is expensive.
Connell is not foolish.
Neil is foolish.
Connell is beautiful.Kelsey being beautiful or Hadwin being not foolish implies that Shamus is not rare.
If someone is not expensive, then he is foolish, and vice versa.
Someone who is eithor not expensive or beautiful is always not cotton.
As long as someone is either expensive or rare, he is not cotton and not beautiful.
If there is someone who is expensive, then Neil is obedient and Kelsey is not beautiful.
Connell being rare implies that Hadwin is foolish and Alexia is obedient.
If there is someone who is either not expensive or not obedient, then Jacob is not cotton.
If there is at least one people who is obedient or not rare, then Shamus is not expensive.
Someone who is both cotton and expensive is always not rare.
It can be concluded that Alexia is expensive once knowing that Jacob is cotton.
If there is at least one people who is both expensive and rare, then Connell is foolish.
Someone who is obedient is always beautiful.
|
Connell is cotton.
|
contradiction
|
Hadwin is cotton.
Hadwin is not foolish.
Neil is not obedient.
Neil is not expensive.
Shamus is not cotton.
Jacob is not rare.
Shamus is not beautiful.
Alexia is obedient.
Hadwin is expensive.
Connell is not foolish.
Neil is foolish.
Connell is beautiful.Kelsey being beautiful or Hadwin being not foolish implies that Shamus is not rare.
If someone is not expensive, then he is foolish, and vice versa.
Someone who is eithor not expensive or beautiful is always not cotton.
As long as someone is either expensive or rare, he is not cotton and not beautiful.
If there is someone who is expensive, then Neil is obedient and Kelsey is not beautiful.
Connell being rare implies that Hadwin is foolish and Alexia is obedient.
If there is someone who is either not expensive or not obedient, then Jacob is not cotton.
If there is at least one people who is obedient or not rare, then Shamus is not expensive.
Someone who is both cotton and expensive is always not rare.
It can be concluded that Alexia is expensive once knowing that Jacob is cotton.
If there is at least one people who is both expensive and rare, then Connell is foolish.
Someone who is obedient is always beautiful.
|
Connell is foolish.
|
self_contradiction
|
Hadwin is cotton.
Hadwin is not foolish.
Neil is not obedient.
Neil is not expensive.
Shamus is not cotton.
Jacob is not rare.
Shamus is not beautiful.
Alexia is obedient.
Hadwin is expensive.
Connell is not foolish.
Neil is foolish.
Connell is beautiful.Kelsey being beautiful or Hadwin being not foolish implies that Shamus is not rare.
If someone is not expensive, then he is foolish, and vice versa.
Someone who is eithor not expensive or beautiful is always not cotton.
As long as someone is either expensive or rare, he is not cotton and not beautiful.
If there is someone who is expensive, then Neil is obedient and Kelsey is not beautiful.
Connell being rare implies that Hadwin is foolish and Alexia is obedient.
If there is someone who is either not expensive or not obedient, then Jacob is not cotton.
If there is at least one people who is obedient or not rare, then Shamus is not expensive.
Someone who is both cotton and expensive is always not rare.
It can be concluded that Alexia is expensive once knowing that Jacob is cotton.
If there is at least one people who is both expensive and rare, then Connell is foolish.
Someone who is obedient is always beautiful.
|
Hadwin is not cotton.
|
self_contradiction
|
Hadwin is cotton.
Hadwin is not foolish.
Neil is not obedient.
Neil is not expensive.
Shamus is not cotton.
Jacob is not rare.
Shamus is not beautiful.
Alexia is obedient.
Hadwin is expensive.
Connell is not foolish.
Neil is foolish.
Connell is beautiful.Kelsey being beautiful or Hadwin being not foolish implies that Shamus is not rare.
If someone is not expensive, then he is foolish, and vice versa.
Someone who is eithor not expensive or beautiful is always not cotton.
As long as someone is either expensive or rare, he is not cotton and not beautiful.
If there is someone who is expensive, then Neil is obedient and Kelsey is not beautiful.
Connell being rare implies that Hadwin is foolish and Alexia is obedient.
If there is someone who is either not expensive or not obedient, then Jacob is not cotton.
If there is at least one people who is obedient or not rare, then Shamus is not expensive.
Someone who is both cotton and expensive is always not rare.
It can be concluded that Alexia is expensive once knowing that Jacob is cotton.
If there is at least one people who is both expensive and rare, then Connell is foolish.
Someone who is obedient is always beautiful.
|
Alexia is foolish.
|
neutral
|
Hadwin is cotton.
Hadwin is not foolish.
Neil is not obedient.
Neil is not expensive.
Shamus is not cotton.
Jacob is not rare.
Shamus is not beautiful.
Alexia is obedient.
Hadwin is expensive.
Connell is not foolish.
Neil is foolish.
Connell is beautiful.Kelsey being beautiful or Hadwin being not foolish implies that Shamus is not rare.
If someone is not expensive, then he is foolish, and vice versa.
Someone who is eithor not expensive or beautiful is always not cotton.
As long as someone is either expensive or rare, he is not cotton and not beautiful.
If there is someone who is expensive, then Neil is obedient and Kelsey is not beautiful.
Connell being rare implies that Hadwin is foolish and Alexia is obedient.
If there is someone who is either not expensive or not obedient, then Jacob is not cotton.
If there is at least one people who is obedient or not rare, then Shamus is not expensive.
Someone who is both cotton and expensive is always not rare.
It can be concluded that Alexia is expensive once knowing that Jacob is cotton.
If there is at least one people who is both expensive and rare, then Connell is foolish.
Someone who is obedient is always beautiful.
|
Neil is not obedient.
|
self_contradiction
|
Hadwin is cotton.
Hadwin is not foolish.
Neil is not obedient.
Neil is not expensive.
Shamus is not cotton.
Jacob is not rare.
Shamus is not beautiful.
Alexia is obedient.
Hadwin is expensive.
Connell is not foolish.
Neil is foolish.
Connell is beautiful.Kelsey being beautiful or Hadwin being not foolish implies that Shamus is not rare.
If someone is not expensive, then he is foolish, and vice versa.
Someone who is eithor not expensive or beautiful is always not cotton.
As long as someone is either expensive or rare, he is not cotton and not beautiful.
If there is someone who is expensive, then Neil is obedient and Kelsey is not beautiful.
Connell being rare implies that Hadwin is foolish and Alexia is obedient.
If there is someone who is either not expensive or not obedient, then Jacob is not cotton.
If there is at least one people who is obedient or not rare, then Shamus is not expensive.
Someone who is both cotton and expensive is always not rare.
It can be concluded that Alexia is expensive once knowing that Jacob is cotton.
If there is at least one people who is both expensive and rare, then Connell is foolish.
Someone who is obedient is always beautiful.
|
Alexia is not cotton.
|
entailment
|
Hadwin is cotton.
Hadwin is not foolish.
Neil is not obedient.
Neil is not expensive.
Shamus is not cotton.
Jacob is not rare.
Shamus is not beautiful.
Alexia is obedient.
Hadwin is expensive.
Connell is not foolish.
Neil is foolish.
Connell is beautiful.Kelsey being beautiful or Hadwin being not foolish implies that Shamus is not rare.
If someone is not expensive, then he is foolish, and vice versa.
Someone who is eithor not expensive or beautiful is always not cotton.
As long as someone is either expensive or rare, he is not cotton and not beautiful.
If there is someone who is expensive, then Neil is obedient and Kelsey is not beautiful.
Connell being rare implies that Hadwin is foolish and Alexia is obedient.
If there is someone who is either not expensive or not obedient, then Jacob is not cotton.
If there is at least one people who is obedient or not rare, then Shamus is not expensive.
Someone who is both cotton and expensive is always not rare.
It can be concluded that Alexia is expensive once knowing that Jacob is cotton.
If there is at least one people who is both expensive and rare, then Connell is foolish.
Someone who is obedient is always beautiful.
|
Alexia is not expensive.
|
neutral
|
Hadwin is cotton.
Hadwin is not foolish.
Neil is not obedient.
Neil is not expensive.
Shamus is not cotton.
Jacob is not rare.
Shamus is not beautiful.
Alexia is obedient.
Hadwin is expensive.
Connell is not foolish.
Neil is foolish.
Connell is beautiful.Kelsey being beautiful or Hadwin being not foolish implies that Shamus is not rare.
If someone is not expensive, then he is foolish, and vice versa.
Someone who is eithor not expensive or beautiful is always not cotton.
As long as someone is either expensive or rare, he is not cotton and not beautiful.
If there is someone who is expensive, then Neil is obedient and Kelsey is not beautiful.
Connell being rare implies that Hadwin is foolish and Alexia is obedient.
If there is someone who is either not expensive or not obedient, then Jacob is not cotton.
If there is at least one people who is obedient or not rare, then Shamus is not expensive.
Someone who is both cotton and expensive is always not rare.
It can be concluded that Alexia is expensive once knowing that Jacob is cotton.
If there is at least one people who is both expensive and rare, then Connell is foolish.
Someone who is obedient is always beautiful.
|
Hadwin is cotton.
|
self_contradiction
|
Hadwin is cotton.
Hadwin is not foolish.
Neil is not obedient.
Neil is not expensive.
Shamus is not cotton.
Jacob is not rare.
Shamus is not beautiful.
Alexia is obedient.
Hadwin is expensive.
Connell is not foolish.
Neil is foolish.
Connell is beautiful.Kelsey being beautiful or Hadwin being not foolish implies that Shamus is not rare.
If someone is not expensive, then he is foolish, and vice versa.
Someone who is eithor not expensive or beautiful is always not cotton.
As long as someone is either expensive or rare, he is not cotton and not beautiful.
If there is someone who is expensive, then Neil is obedient and Kelsey is not beautiful.
Connell being rare implies that Hadwin is foolish and Alexia is obedient.
If there is someone who is either not expensive or not obedient, then Jacob is not cotton.
If there is at least one people who is obedient or not rare, then Shamus is not expensive.
Someone who is both cotton and expensive is always not rare.
It can be concluded that Alexia is expensive once knowing that Jacob is cotton.
If there is at least one people who is both expensive and rare, then Connell is foolish.
Someone who is obedient is always beautiful.
|
Kelsey is rare.
|
neutral
|
Hadwin is cotton.
Hadwin is not foolish.
Neil is not obedient.
Neil is not expensive.
Shamus is not cotton.
Jacob is not rare.
Shamus is not beautiful.
Alexia is obedient.
Hadwin is expensive.
Connell is not foolish.
Neil is foolish.
Connell is beautiful.Kelsey being beautiful or Hadwin being not foolish implies that Shamus is not rare.
If someone is not expensive, then he is foolish, and vice versa.
Someone who is eithor not expensive or beautiful is always not cotton.
As long as someone is either expensive or rare, he is not cotton and not beautiful.
If there is someone who is expensive, then Neil is obedient and Kelsey is not beautiful.
Connell being rare implies that Hadwin is foolish and Alexia is obedient.
If there is someone who is either not expensive or not obedient, then Jacob is not cotton.
If there is at least one people who is obedient or not rare, then Shamus is not expensive.
Someone who is both cotton and expensive is always not rare.
It can be concluded that Alexia is expensive once knowing that Jacob is cotton.
If there is at least one people who is both expensive and rare, then Connell is foolish.
Someone who is obedient is always beautiful.
|
Connell is not foolish.
|
self_contradiction
|
Hadwin is cotton.
Hadwin is not foolish.
Neil is not obedient.
Neil is not expensive.
Shamus is not cotton.
Jacob is not rare.
Shamus is not beautiful.
Alexia is obedient.
Hadwin is expensive.
Connell is not foolish.
Neil is foolish.
Connell is beautiful.Kelsey being beautiful or Hadwin being not foolish implies that Shamus is not rare.
If someone is not expensive, then he is foolish, and vice versa.
Someone who is eithor not expensive or beautiful is always not cotton.
As long as someone is either expensive or rare, he is not cotton and not beautiful.
If there is someone who is expensive, then Neil is obedient and Kelsey is not beautiful.
Connell being rare implies that Hadwin is foolish and Alexia is obedient.
If there is someone who is either not expensive or not obedient, then Jacob is not cotton.
If there is at least one people who is obedient or not rare, then Shamus is not expensive.
Someone who is both cotton and expensive is always not rare.
It can be concluded that Alexia is expensive once knowing that Jacob is cotton.
If there is at least one people who is both expensive and rare, then Connell is foolish.
Someone who is obedient is always beautiful.
|
Neil is beautiful.
|
entailment
|
Hadwin is cotton.
Hadwin is not foolish.
Neil is not obedient.
Neil is not expensive.
Shamus is not cotton.
Jacob is not rare.
Shamus is not beautiful.
Alexia is obedient.
Hadwin is expensive.
Connell is not foolish.
Neil is foolish.
Connell is beautiful.Kelsey being beautiful or Hadwin being not foolish implies that Shamus is not rare.
If someone is not expensive, then he is foolish, and vice versa.
Someone who is eithor not expensive or beautiful is always not cotton.
As long as someone is either expensive or rare, he is not cotton and not beautiful.
If there is someone who is expensive, then Neil is obedient and Kelsey is not beautiful.
Connell being rare implies that Hadwin is foolish and Alexia is obedient.
If there is someone who is either not expensive or not obedient, then Jacob is not cotton.
If there is at least one people who is obedient or not rare, then Shamus is not expensive.
Someone who is both cotton and expensive is always not rare.
It can be concluded that Alexia is expensive once knowing that Jacob is cotton.
If there is at least one people who is both expensive and rare, then Connell is foolish.
Someone who is obedient is always beautiful.
|
Hadwin is not foolish.
|
entailment
|
Hadwin is cotton.
Hadwin is not foolish.
Neil is not obedient.
Neil is not expensive.
Shamus is not cotton.
Jacob is not rare.
Shamus is not beautiful.
Alexia is obedient.
Hadwin is expensive.
Connell is not foolish.
Neil is foolish.
Connell is beautiful.Kelsey being beautiful or Hadwin being not foolish implies that Shamus is not rare.
If someone is not expensive, then he is foolish, and vice versa.
Someone who is eithor not expensive or beautiful is always not cotton.
As long as someone is either expensive or rare, he is not cotton and not beautiful.
If there is someone who is expensive, then Neil is obedient and Kelsey is not beautiful.
Connell being rare implies that Hadwin is foolish and Alexia is obedient.
If there is someone who is either not expensive or not obedient, then Jacob is not cotton.
If there is at least one people who is obedient or not rare, then Shamus is not expensive.
Someone who is both cotton and expensive is always not rare.
It can be concluded that Alexia is expensive once knowing that Jacob is cotton.
If there is at least one people who is both expensive and rare, then Connell is foolish.
Someone who is obedient is always beautiful.
|
Alexia is not beautiful.
|
contradiction
|
Hadwin is cotton.
Hadwin is not foolish.
Neil is not obedient.
Neil is not expensive.
Shamus is not cotton.
Jacob is not rare.
Shamus is not beautiful.
Alexia is obedient.
Hadwin is expensive.
Connell is not foolish.
Neil is foolish.
Connell is beautiful.Kelsey being beautiful or Hadwin being not foolish implies that Shamus is not rare.
If someone is not expensive, then he is foolish, and vice versa.
Someone who is eithor not expensive or beautiful is always not cotton.
As long as someone is either expensive or rare, he is not cotton and not beautiful.
If there is someone who is expensive, then Neil is obedient and Kelsey is not beautiful.
Connell being rare implies that Hadwin is foolish and Alexia is obedient.
If there is someone who is either not expensive or not obedient, then Jacob is not cotton.
If there is at least one people who is obedient or not rare, then Shamus is not expensive.
Someone who is both cotton and expensive is always not rare.
It can be concluded that Alexia is expensive once knowing that Jacob is cotton.
If there is at least one people who is both expensive and rare, then Connell is foolish.
Someone who is obedient is always beautiful.
|
Hadwin is foolish.
|
contradiction
|
Hadwin is cotton.
Hadwin is not foolish.
Neil is not obedient.
Neil is not expensive.
Shamus is not cotton.
Jacob is not rare.
Shamus is not beautiful.
Alexia is obedient.
Hadwin is expensive.
Connell is not foolish.
Neil is foolish.
Connell is beautiful.Kelsey being beautiful or Hadwin being not foolish implies that Shamus is not rare.
If someone is not expensive, then he is foolish, and vice versa.
Someone who is eithor not expensive or beautiful is always not cotton.
As long as someone is either expensive or rare, he is not cotton and not beautiful.
If there is someone who is expensive, then Neil is obedient and Kelsey is not beautiful.
Connell being rare implies that Hadwin is foolish and Alexia is obedient.
If there is someone who is either not expensive or not obedient, then Jacob is not cotton.
If there is at least one people who is obedient or not rare, then Shamus is not expensive.
Someone who is both cotton and expensive is always not rare.
It can be concluded that Alexia is expensive once knowing that Jacob is cotton.
If there is at least one people who is both expensive and rare, then Connell is foolish.
Someone who is obedient is always beautiful.
|
Jacob is not expensive.
|
neutral
|
Bond is not brown.
Kurt is cooperative.
Charlie is selfish.
Sterling is curious.
Rory is not cloudy.
Kurt is curious.
Bond is cloudy.
Charlie is brown.
Lombard is not brown.
Lombard is not cloudy.
Charlie is not dead.
Rory is cooperative.If someone is not curious, then he is not cloudy.
If someone is cloudy, then he is brown, and vice versa.
Bond being cooperative implies that Sterling is brown and Lombard is dead.
Someone is cloudy and curious if and only if he is not cooperative and dead.
If someone is cooperative and dead, then he is selfish, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is selfish, then Sterling is not dead.
Someone who is both cloudy and brown is always curious.
It can be concluded that Charlie is cloudy once knowing that Lombard is not selfish and Lombard is not curious.
If there is at least one people who is not dead, then Rory is cooperative and Lombard is selfish.
Someone who is cloudy is always both cooperative and selfish.
Someone being not dead is equivalent to being not cloudy.
Someone who is eithor cooperative or not dead is always not cloudy.
|
Kurt is not curious.
|
contradiction
|
Bond is not brown.
Kurt is cooperative.
Charlie is selfish.
Sterling is curious.
Rory is not cloudy.
Kurt is curious.
Bond is cloudy.
Charlie is brown.
Lombard is not brown.
Lombard is not cloudy.
Charlie is not dead.
Rory is cooperative.If someone is not curious, then he is not cloudy.
If someone is cloudy, then he is brown, and vice versa.
Bond being cooperative implies that Sterling is brown and Lombard is dead.
Someone is cloudy and curious if and only if he is not cooperative and dead.
If someone is cooperative and dead, then he is selfish, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is selfish, then Sterling is not dead.
Someone who is both cloudy and brown is always curious.
It can be concluded that Charlie is cloudy once knowing that Lombard is not selfish and Lombard is not curious.
If there is at least one people who is not dead, then Rory is cooperative and Lombard is selfish.
Someone who is cloudy is always both cooperative and selfish.
Someone being not dead is equivalent to being not cloudy.
Someone who is eithor cooperative or not dead is always not cloudy.
|
Kurt is brown.
|
neutral
|
Bond is not brown.
Kurt is cooperative.
Charlie is selfish.
Sterling is curious.
Rory is not cloudy.
Kurt is curious.
Bond is cloudy.
Charlie is brown.
Lombard is not brown.
Lombard is not cloudy.
Charlie is not dead.
Rory is cooperative.If someone is not curious, then he is not cloudy.
If someone is cloudy, then he is brown, and vice versa.
Bond being cooperative implies that Sterling is brown and Lombard is dead.
Someone is cloudy and curious if and only if he is not cooperative and dead.
If someone is cooperative and dead, then he is selfish, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is selfish, then Sterling is not dead.
Someone who is both cloudy and brown is always curious.
It can be concluded that Charlie is cloudy once knowing that Lombard is not selfish and Lombard is not curious.
If there is at least one people who is not dead, then Rory is cooperative and Lombard is selfish.
Someone who is cloudy is always both cooperative and selfish.
Someone being not dead is equivalent to being not cloudy.
Someone who is eithor cooperative or not dead is always not cloudy.
|
Lombard is cloudy.
|
contradiction
|
Bond is not brown.
Kurt is cooperative.
Charlie is selfish.
Sterling is curious.
Rory is not cloudy.
Kurt is curious.
Bond is cloudy.
Charlie is brown.
Lombard is not brown.
Lombard is not cloudy.
Charlie is not dead.
Rory is cooperative.If someone is not curious, then he is not cloudy.
If someone is cloudy, then he is brown, and vice versa.
Bond being cooperative implies that Sterling is brown and Lombard is dead.
Someone is cloudy and curious if and only if he is not cooperative and dead.
If someone is cooperative and dead, then he is selfish, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is selfish, then Sterling is not dead.
Someone who is both cloudy and brown is always curious.
It can be concluded that Charlie is cloudy once knowing that Lombard is not selfish and Lombard is not curious.
If there is at least one people who is not dead, then Rory is cooperative and Lombard is selfish.
Someone who is cloudy is always both cooperative and selfish.
Someone being not dead is equivalent to being not cloudy.
Someone who is eithor cooperative or not dead is always not cloudy.
|
Charlie is brown.
|
entailment
|
Bond is not brown.
Kurt is cooperative.
Charlie is selfish.
Sterling is curious.
Rory is not cloudy.
Kurt is curious.
Bond is cloudy.
Charlie is brown.
Lombard is not brown.
Lombard is not cloudy.
Charlie is not dead.
Rory is cooperative.If someone is not curious, then he is not cloudy.
If someone is cloudy, then he is brown, and vice versa.
Bond being cooperative implies that Sterling is brown and Lombard is dead.
Someone is cloudy and curious if and only if he is not cooperative and dead.
If someone is cooperative and dead, then he is selfish, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is selfish, then Sterling is not dead.
Someone who is both cloudy and brown is always curious.
It can be concluded that Charlie is cloudy once knowing that Lombard is not selfish and Lombard is not curious.
If there is at least one people who is not dead, then Rory is cooperative and Lombard is selfish.
Someone who is cloudy is always both cooperative and selfish.
Someone being not dead is equivalent to being not cloudy.
Someone who is eithor cooperative or not dead is always not cloudy.
|
Kurt is not brown.
|
neutral
|
Bond is not brown.
Kurt is cooperative.
Charlie is selfish.
Sterling is curious.
Rory is not cloudy.
Kurt is curious.
Bond is cloudy.
Charlie is brown.
Lombard is not brown.
Lombard is not cloudy.
Charlie is not dead.
Rory is cooperative.If someone is not curious, then he is not cloudy.
If someone is cloudy, then he is brown, and vice versa.
Bond being cooperative implies that Sterling is brown and Lombard is dead.
Someone is cloudy and curious if and only if he is not cooperative and dead.
If someone is cooperative and dead, then he is selfish, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is selfish, then Sterling is not dead.
Someone who is both cloudy and brown is always curious.
It can be concluded that Charlie is cloudy once knowing that Lombard is not selfish and Lombard is not curious.
If there is at least one people who is not dead, then Rory is cooperative and Lombard is selfish.
Someone who is cloudy is always both cooperative and selfish.
Someone being not dead is equivalent to being not cloudy.
Someone who is eithor cooperative or not dead is always not cloudy.
|
Bond is cloudy.
|
self_contradiction
|
Bond is not brown.
Kurt is cooperative.
Charlie is selfish.
Sterling is curious.
Rory is not cloudy.
Kurt is curious.
Bond is cloudy.
Charlie is brown.
Lombard is not brown.
Lombard is not cloudy.
Charlie is not dead.
Rory is cooperative.If someone is not curious, then he is not cloudy.
If someone is cloudy, then he is brown, and vice versa.
Bond being cooperative implies that Sterling is brown and Lombard is dead.
Someone is cloudy and curious if and only if he is not cooperative and dead.
If someone is cooperative and dead, then he is selfish, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is selfish, then Sterling is not dead.
Someone who is both cloudy and brown is always curious.
It can be concluded that Charlie is cloudy once knowing that Lombard is not selfish and Lombard is not curious.
If there is at least one people who is not dead, then Rory is cooperative and Lombard is selfish.
Someone who is cloudy is always both cooperative and selfish.
Someone being not dead is equivalent to being not cloudy.
Someone who is eithor cooperative or not dead is always not cloudy.
|
Charlie is curious.
|
entailment
|
Bond is not brown.
Kurt is cooperative.
Charlie is selfish.
Sterling is curious.
Rory is not cloudy.
Kurt is curious.
Bond is cloudy.
Charlie is brown.
Lombard is not brown.
Lombard is not cloudy.
Charlie is not dead.
Rory is cooperative.If someone is not curious, then he is not cloudy.
If someone is cloudy, then he is brown, and vice versa.
Bond being cooperative implies that Sterling is brown and Lombard is dead.
Someone is cloudy and curious if and only if he is not cooperative and dead.
If someone is cooperative and dead, then he is selfish, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is selfish, then Sterling is not dead.
Someone who is both cloudy and brown is always curious.
It can be concluded that Charlie is cloudy once knowing that Lombard is not selfish and Lombard is not curious.
If there is at least one people who is not dead, then Rory is cooperative and Lombard is selfish.
Someone who is cloudy is always both cooperative and selfish.
Someone being not dead is equivalent to being not cloudy.
Someone who is eithor cooperative or not dead is always not cloudy.
|
Bond is not brown.
|
self_contradiction
|
Bond is not brown.
Kurt is cooperative.
Charlie is selfish.
Sterling is curious.
Rory is not cloudy.
Kurt is curious.
Bond is cloudy.
Charlie is brown.
Lombard is not brown.
Lombard is not cloudy.
Charlie is not dead.
Rory is cooperative.If someone is not curious, then he is not cloudy.
If someone is cloudy, then he is brown, and vice versa.
Bond being cooperative implies that Sterling is brown and Lombard is dead.
Someone is cloudy and curious if and only if he is not cooperative and dead.
If someone is cooperative and dead, then he is selfish, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is selfish, then Sterling is not dead.
Someone who is both cloudy and brown is always curious.
It can be concluded that Charlie is cloudy once knowing that Lombard is not selfish and Lombard is not curious.
If there is at least one people who is not dead, then Rory is cooperative and Lombard is selfish.
Someone who is cloudy is always both cooperative and selfish.
Someone being not dead is equivalent to being not cloudy.
Someone who is eithor cooperative or not dead is always not cloudy.
|
Charlie is not curious.
|
contradiction
|
Bond is not brown.
Kurt is cooperative.
Charlie is selfish.
Sterling is curious.
Rory is not cloudy.
Kurt is curious.
Bond is cloudy.
Charlie is brown.
Lombard is not brown.
Lombard is not cloudy.
Charlie is not dead.
Rory is cooperative.If someone is not curious, then he is not cloudy.
If someone is cloudy, then he is brown, and vice versa.
Bond being cooperative implies that Sterling is brown and Lombard is dead.
Someone is cloudy and curious if and only if he is not cooperative and dead.
If someone is cooperative and dead, then he is selfish, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is selfish, then Sterling is not dead.
Someone who is both cloudy and brown is always curious.
It can be concluded that Charlie is cloudy once knowing that Lombard is not selfish and Lombard is not curious.
If there is at least one people who is not dead, then Rory is cooperative and Lombard is selfish.
Someone who is cloudy is always both cooperative and selfish.
Someone being not dead is equivalent to being not cloudy.
Someone who is eithor cooperative or not dead is always not cloudy.
|
Roland is cooperative.
|
neutral
|
Bond is not brown.
Kurt is cooperative.
Charlie is selfish.
Sterling is curious.
Rory is not cloudy.
Kurt is curious.
Bond is cloudy.
Charlie is brown.
Lombard is not brown.
Lombard is not cloudy.
Charlie is not dead.
Rory is cooperative.If someone is not curious, then he is not cloudy.
If someone is cloudy, then he is brown, and vice versa.
Bond being cooperative implies that Sterling is brown and Lombard is dead.
Someone is cloudy and curious if and only if he is not cooperative and dead.
If someone is cooperative and dead, then he is selfish, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is selfish, then Sterling is not dead.
Someone who is both cloudy and brown is always curious.
It can be concluded that Charlie is cloudy once knowing that Lombard is not selfish and Lombard is not curious.
If there is at least one people who is not dead, then Rory is cooperative and Lombard is selfish.
Someone who is cloudy is always both cooperative and selfish.
Someone being not dead is equivalent to being not cloudy.
Someone who is eithor cooperative or not dead is always not cloudy.
|
Sterling is not cloudy.
|
self_contradiction
|
Bond is not brown.
Kurt is cooperative.
Charlie is selfish.
Sterling is curious.
Rory is not cloudy.
Kurt is curious.
Bond is cloudy.
Charlie is brown.
Lombard is not brown.
Lombard is not cloudy.
Charlie is not dead.
Rory is cooperative.If someone is not curious, then he is not cloudy.
If someone is cloudy, then he is brown, and vice versa.
Bond being cooperative implies that Sterling is brown and Lombard is dead.
Someone is cloudy and curious if and only if he is not cooperative and dead.
If someone is cooperative and dead, then he is selfish, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is selfish, then Sterling is not dead.
Someone who is both cloudy and brown is always curious.
It can be concluded that Charlie is cloudy once knowing that Lombard is not selfish and Lombard is not curious.
If there is at least one people who is not dead, then Rory is cooperative and Lombard is selfish.
Someone who is cloudy is always both cooperative and selfish.
Someone being not dead is equivalent to being not cloudy.
Someone who is eithor cooperative or not dead is always not cloudy.
|
Charlie is selfish.
|
entailment
|
Bond is not brown.
Kurt is cooperative.
Charlie is selfish.
Sterling is curious.
Rory is not cloudy.
Kurt is curious.
Bond is cloudy.
Charlie is brown.
Lombard is not brown.
Lombard is not cloudy.
Charlie is not dead.
Rory is cooperative.If someone is not curious, then he is not cloudy.
If someone is cloudy, then he is brown, and vice versa.
Bond being cooperative implies that Sterling is brown and Lombard is dead.
Someone is cloudy and curious if and only if he is not cooperative and dead.
If someone is cooperative and dead, then he is selfish, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is selfish, then Sterling is not dead.
Someone who is both cloudy and brown is always curious.
It can be concluded that Charlie is cloudy once knowing that Lombard is not selfish and Lombard is not curious.
If there is at least one people who is not dead, then Rory is cooperative and Lombard is selfish.
Someone who is cloudy is always both cooperative and selfish.
Someone being not dead is equivalent to being not cloudy.
Someone who is eithor cooperative or not dead is always not cloudy.
|
Sterling is not selfish.
|
contradiction
|
Bond is not brown.
Kurt is cooperative.
Charlie is selfish.
Sterling is curious.
Rory is not cloudy.
Kurt is curious.
Bond is cloudy.
Charlie is brown.
Lombard is not brown.
Lombard is not cloudy.
Charlie is not dead.
Rory is cooperative.If someone is not curious, then he is not cloudy.
If someone is cloudy, then he is brown, and vice versa.
Bond being cooperative implies that Sterling is brown and Lombard is dead.
Someone is cloudy and curious if and only if he is not cooperative and dead.
If someone is cooperative and dead, then he is selfish, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is selfish, then Sterling is not dead.
Someone who is both cloudy and brown is always curious.
It can be concluded that Charlie is cloudy once knowing that Lombard is not selfish and Lombard is not curious.
If there is at least one people who is not dead, then Rory is cooperative and Lombard is selfish.
Someone who is cloudy is always both cooperative and selfish.
Someone being not dead is equivalent to being not cloudy.
Someone who is eithor cooperative or not dead is always not cloudy.
|
Sterling is cloudy.
|
self_contradiction
|
Bond is not brown.
Kurt is cooperative.
Charlie is selfish.
Sterling is curious.
Rory is not cloudy.
Kurt is curious.
Bond is cloudy.
Charlie is brown.
Lombard is not brown.
Lombard is not cloudy.
Charlie is not dead.
Rory is cooperative.If someone is not curious, then he is not cloudy.
If someone is cloudy, then he is brown, and vice versa.
Bond being cooperative implies that Sterling is brown and Lombard is dead.
Someone is cloudy and curious if and only if he is not cooperative and dead.
If someone is cooperative and dead, then he is selfish, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is selfish, then Sterling is not dead.
Someone who is both cloudy and brown is always curious.
It can be concluded that Charlie is cloudy once knowing that Lombard is not selfish and Lombard is not curious.
If there is at least one people who is not dead, then Rory is cooperative and Lombard is selfish.
Someone who is cloudy is always both cooperative and selfish.
Someone being not dead is equivalent to being not cloudy.
Someone who is eithor cooperative or not dead is always not cloudy.
|
Bond is not cooperative.
|
self_contradiction
|
Bond is not brown.
Kurt is cooperative.
Charlie is selfish.
Sterling is curious.
Rory is not cloudy.
Kurt is curious.
Bond is cloudy.
Charlie is brown.
Lombard is not brown.
Lombard is not cloudy.
Charlie is not dead.
Rory is cooperative.If someone is not curious, then he is not cloudy.
If someone is cloudy, then he is brown, and vice versa.
Bond being cooperative implies that Sterling is brown and Lombard is dead.
Someone is cloudy and curious if and only if he is not cooperative and dead.
If someone is cooperative and dead, then he is selfish, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is selfish, then Sterling is not dead.
Someone who is both cloudy and brown is always curious.
It can be concluded that Charlie is cloudy once knowing that Lombard is not selfish and Lombard is not curious.
If there is at least one people who is not dead, then Rory is cooperative and Lombard is selfish.
Someone who is cloudy is always both cooperative and selfish.
Someone being not dead is equivalent to being not cloudy.
Someone who is eithor cooperative or not dead is always not cloudy.
|
Kurt is dead.
|
contradiction
|
Bond is not brown.
Kurt is cooperative.
Charlie is selfish.
Sterling is curious.
Rory is not cloudy.
Kurt is curious.
Bond is cloudy.
Charlie is brown.
Lombard is not brown.
Lombard is not cloudy.
Charlie is not dead.
Rory is cooperative.If someone is not curious, then he is not cloudy.
If someone is cloudy, then he is brown, and vice versa.
Bond being cooperative implies that Sterling is brown and Lombard is dead.
Someone is cloudy and curious if and only if he is not cooperative and dead.
If someone is cooperative and dead, then he is selfish, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is selfish, then Sterling is not dead.
Someone who is both cloudy and brown is always curious.
It can be concluded that Charlie is cloudy once knowing that Lombard is not selfish and Lombard is not curious.
If there is at least one people who is not dead, then Rory is cooperative and Lombard is selfish.
Someone who is cloudy is always both cooperative and selfish.
Someone being not dead is equivalent to being not cloudy.
Someone who is eithor cooperative or not dead is always not cloudy.
|
Lombard is not cloudy.
|
entailment
|
Bond is not brown.
Kurt is cooperative.
Charlie is selfish.
Sterling is curious.
Rory is not cloudy.
Kurt is curious.
Bond is cloudy.
Charlie is brown.
Lombard is not brown.
Lombard is not cloudy.
Charlie is not dead.
Rory is cooperative.If someone is not curious, then he is not cloudy.
If someone is cloudy, then he is brown, and vice versa.
Bond being cooperative implies that Sterling is brown and Lombard is dead.
Someone is cloudy and curious if and only if he is not cooperative and dead.
If someone is cooperative and dead, then he is selfish, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is selfish, then Sterling is not dead.
Someone who is both cloudy and brown is always curious.
It can be concluded that Charlie is cloudy once knowing that Lombard is not selfish and Lombard is not curious.
If there is at least one people who is not dead, then Rory is cooperative and Lombard is selfish.
Someone who is cloudy is always both cooperative and selfish.
Someone being not dead is equivalent to being not cloudy.
Someone who is eithor cooperative or not dead is always not cloudy.
|
Roland is brown.
|
neutral
|
Bond is not brown.
Kurt is cooperative.
Charlie is selfish.
Sterling is curious.
Rory is not cloudy.
Kurt is curious.
Bond is cloudy.
Charlie is brown.
Lombard is not brown.
Lombard is not cloudy.
Charlie is not dead.
Rory is cooperative.If someone is not curious, then he is not cloudy.
If someone is cloudy, then he is brown, and vice versa.
Bond being cooperative implies that Sterling is brown and Lombard is dead.
Someone is cloudy and curious if and only if he is not cooperative and dead.
If someone is cooperative and dead, then he is selfish, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is selfish, then Sterling is not dead.
Someone who is both cloudy and brown is always curious.
It can be concluded that Charlie is cloudy once knowing that Lombard is not selfish and Lombard is not curious.
If there is at least one people who is not dead, then Rory is cooperative and Lombard is selfish.
Someone who is cloudy is always both cooperative and selfish.
Someone being not dead is equivalent to being not cloudy.
Someone who is eithor cooperative or not dead is always not cloudy.
|
Kurt is not selfish.
|
neutral
|
Bond is not brown.
Kurt is cooperative.
Charlie is selfish.
Sterling is curious.
Rory is not cloudy.
Kurt is curious.
Bond is cloudy.
Charlie is brown.
Lombard is not brown.
Lombard is not cloudy.
Charlie is not dead.
Rory is cooperative.If someone is not curious, then he is not cloudy.
If someone is cloudy, then he is brown, and vice versa.
Bond being cooperative implies that Sterling is brown and Lombard is dead.
Someone is cloudy and curious if and only if he is not cooperative and dead.
If someone is cooperative and dead, then he is selfish, and vice versa.
If there is at least one people who is selfish, then Sterling is not dead.
Someone who is both cloudy and brown is always curious.
It can be concluded that Charlie is cloudy once knowing that Lombard is not selfish and Lombard is not curious.
If there is at least one people who is not dead, then Rory is cooperative and Lombard is selfish.
Someone who is cloudy is always both cooperative and selfish.
Someone being not dead is equivalent to being not cloudy.
Someone who is eithor cooperative or not dead is always not cloudy.
|
Rory is not cloudy.
|
entailment
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.