premise
stringlengths 923
1.41k
| hypothesis
stringlengths 11
33
| label
stringclasses 4
values |
|---|---|---|
Goddard is not conscious.
Goddard is oak.
Bruce is good.
Valentina is not oak.
Valentina is not crooked.
Luisa is crooked.
Chandler is not conscious.
Jerry is crooked.
Luisa is not lucky.
Chandler is oak.
Valentina is good.
Chalmers is not good.Jerry being not lucky implies that Goddard is not crooked and Bruce is not aware.
If Bruce is not crooked and Valentina is good, then Valentina is conscious.
Chalmers is not crooked if and only if Goddard is conscious.
Someone being not oak is equivalent to being not crooked.
If Valentina is not lucky, then Chandler is not conscious.
Bruce being conscious implies that Luisa is crooked.
Someone is oak and not conscious if and only if he is aware and not crooked.
It can be concluded that Luisa is conscious once knowing that Chalmers is not lucky or Chandler is not aware.
All not conscious people are crooked.
If Chalmers is lucky and Bruce is not crooked, then Goddard is not oak and Jerry is conscious.
Someone who is both not lucky and not oak is always aware.
If Luisa is oak or Chandler is conscious, then Luisa is good. | Goddard is not oak. | self_contradiction |
Goddard is not conscious.
Goddard is oak.
Bruce is good.
Valentina is not oak.
Valentina is not crooked.
Luisa is crooked.
Chandler is not conscious.
Jerry is crooked.
Luisa is not lucky.
Chandler is oak.
Valentina is good.
Chalmers is not good.Jerry being not lucky implies that Goddard is not crooked and Bruce is not aware.
If Bruce is not crooked and Valentina is good, then Valentina is conscious.
Chalmers is not crooked if and only if Goddard is conscious.
Someone being not oak is equivalent to being not crooked.
If Valentina is not lucky, then Chandler is not conscious.
Bruce being conscious implies that Luisa is crooked.
Someone is oak and not conscious if and only if he is aware and not crooked.
It can be concluded that Luisa is conscious once knowing that Chalmers is not lucky or Chandler is not aware.
All not conscious people are crooked.
If Chalmers is lucky and Bruce is not crooked, then Goddard is not oak and Jerry is conscious.
Someone who is both not lucky and not oak is always aware.
If Luisa is oak or Chandler is conscious, then Luisa is good. | Bruce is not good. | contradiction |
Goddard is not conscious.
Goddard is oak.
Bruce is good.
Valentina is not oak.
Valentina is not crooked.
Luisa is crooked.
Chandler is not conscious.
Jerry is crooked.
Luisa is not lucky.
Chandler is oak.
Valentina is good.
Chalmers is not good.Jerry being not lucky implies that Goddard is not crooked and Bruce is not aware.
If Bruce is not crooked and Valentina is good, then Valentina is conscious.
Chalmers is not crooked if and only if Goddard is conscious.
Someone being not oak is equivalent to being not crooked.
If Valentina is not lucky, then Chandler is not conscious.
Bruce being conscious implies that Luisa is crooked.
Someone is oak and not conscious if and only if he is aware and not crooked.
It can be concluded that Luisa is conscious once knowing that Chalmers is not lucky or Chandler is not aware.
All not conscious people are crooked.
If Chalmers is lucky and Bruce is not crooked, then Goddard is not oak and Jerry is conscious.
Someone who is both not lucky and not oak is always aware.
If Luisa is oak or Chandler is conscious, then Luisa is good. | Chandler is good. | neutral |
Goddard is not conscious.
Goddard is oak.
Bruce is good.
Valentina is not oak.
Valentina is not crooked.
Luisa is crooked.
Chandler is not conscious.
Jerry is crooked.
Luisa is not lucky.
Chandler is oak.
Valentina is good.
Chalmers is not good.Jerry being not lucky implies that Goddard is not crooked and Bruce is not aware.
If Bruce is not crooked and Valentina is good, then Valentina is conscious.
Chalmers is not crooked if and only if Goddard is conscious.
Someone being not oak is equivalent to being not crooked.
If Valentina is not lucky, then Chandler is not conscious.
Bruce being conscious implies that Luisa is crooked.
Someone is oak and not conscious if and only if he is aware and not crooked.
It can be concluded that Luisa is conscious once knowing that Chalmers is not lucky or Chandler is not aware.
All not conscious people are crooked.
If Chalmers is lucky and Bruce is not crooked, then Goddard is not oak and Jerry is conscious.
Someone who is both not lucky and not oak is always aware.
If Luisa is oak or Chandler is conscious, then Luisa is good. | Chandler is aware. | entailment |
Goddard is not conscious.
Goddard is oak.
Bruce is good.
Valentina is not oak.
Valentina is not crooked.
Luisa is crooked.
Chandler is not conscious.
Jerry is crooked.
Luisa is not lucky.
Chandler is oak.
Valentina is good.
Chalmers is not good.Jerry being not lucky implies that Goddard is not crooked and Bruce is not aware.
If Bruce is not crooked and Valentina is good, then Valentina is conscious.
Chalmers is not crooked if and only if Goddard is conscious.
Someone being not oak is equivalent to being not crooked.
If Valentina is not lucky, then Chandler is not conscious.
Bruce being conscious implies that Luisa is crooked.
Someone is oak and not conscious if and only if he is aware and not crooked.
It can be concluded that Luisa is conscious once knowing that Chalmers is not lucky or Chandler is not aware.
All not conscious people are crooked.
If Chalmers is lucky and Bruce is not crooked, then Goddard is not oak and Jerry is conscious.
Someone who is both not lucky and not oak is always aware.
If Luisa is oak or Chandler is conscious, then Luisa is good. | Bruce is not oak. | neutral |
Goddard is not conscious.
Goddard is oak.
Bruce is good.
Valentina is not oak.
Valentina is not crooked.
Luisa is crooked.
Chandler is not conscious.
Jerry is crooked.
Luisa is not lucky.
Chandler is oak.
Valentina is good.
Chalmers is not good.Jerry being not lucky implies that Goddard is not crooked and Bruce is not aware.
If Bruce is not crooked and Valentina is good, then Valentina is conscious.
Chalmers is not crooked if and only if Goddard is conscious.
Someone being not oak is equivalent to being not crooked.
If Valentina is not lucky, then Chandler is not conscious.
Bruce being conscious implies that Luisa is crooked.
Someone is oak and not conscious if and only if he is aware and not crooked.
It can be concluded that Luisa is conscious once knowing that Chalmers is not lucky or Chandler is not aware.
All not conscious people are crooked.
If Chalmers is lucky and Bruce is not crooked, then Goddard is not oak and Jerry is conscious.
Someone who is both not lucky and not oak is always aware.
If Luisa is oak or Chandler is conscious, then Luisa is good. | Chandler is oak. | self_contradiction |
Goddard is not conscious.
Goddard is oak.
Bruce is good.
Valentina is not oak.
Valentina is not crooked.
Luisa is crooked.
Chandler is not conscious.
Jerry is crooked.
Luisa is not lucky.
Chandler is oak.
Valentina is good.
Chalmers is not good.Jerry being not lucky implies that Goddard is not crooked and Bruce is not aware.
If Bruce is not crooked and Valentina is good, then Valentina is conscious.
Chalmers is not crooked if and only if Goddard is conscious.
Someone being not oak is equivalent to being not crooked.
If Valentina is not lucky, then Chandler is not conscious.
Bruce being conscious implies that Luisa is crooked.
Someone is oak and not conscious if and only if he is aware and not crooked.
It can be concluded that Luisa is conscious once knowing that Chalmers is not lucky or Chandler is not aware.
All not conscious people are crooked.
If Chalmers is lucky and Bruce is not crooked, then Goddard is not oak and Jerry is conscious.
Someone who is both not lucky and not oak is always aware.
If Luisa is oak or Chandler is conscious, then Luisa is good. | Valentina is crooked. | contradiction |
Goddard is not conscious.
Goddard is oak.
Bruce is good.
Valentina is not oak.
Valentina is not crooked.
Luisa is crooked.
Chandler is not conscious.
Jerry is crooked.
Luisa is not lucky.
Chandler is oak.
Valentina is good.
Chalmers is not good.Jerry being not lucky implies that Goddard is not crooked and Bruce is not aware.
If Bruce is not crooked and Valentina is good, then Valentina is conscious.
Chalmers is not crooked if and only if Goddard is conscious.
Someone being not oak is equivalent to being not crooked.
If Valentina is not lucky, then Chandler is not conscious.
Bruce being conscious implies that Luisa is crooked.
Someone is oak and not conscious if and only if he is aware and not crooked.
It can be concluded that Luisa is conscious once knowing that Chalmers is not lucky or Chandler is not aware.
All not conscious people are crooked.
If Chalmers is lucky and Bruce is not crooked, then Goddard is not oak and Jerry is conscious.
Someone who is both not lucky and not oak is always aware.
If Luisa is oak or Chandler is conscious, then Luisa is good. | Goddard is oak. | self_contradiction |
Goddard is not conscious.
Goddard is oak.
Bruce is good.
Valentina is not oak.
Valentina is not crooked.
Luisa is crooked.
Chandler is not conscious.
Jerry is crooked.
Luisa is not lucky.
Chandler is oak.
Valentina is good.
Chalmers is not good.Jerry being not lucky implies that Goddard is not crooked and Bruce is not aware.
If Bruce is not crooked and Valentina is good, then Valentina is conscious.
Chalmers is not crooked if and only if Goddard is conscious.
Someone being not oak is equivalent to being not crooked.
If Valentina is not lucky, then Chandler is not conscious.
Bruce being conscious implies that Luisa is crooked.
Someone is oak and not conscious if and only if he is aware and not crooked.
It can be concluded that Luisa is conscious once knowing that Chalmers is not lucky or Chandler is not aware.
All not conscious people are crooked.
If Chalmers is lucky and Bruce is not crooked, then Goddard is not oak and Jerry is conscious.
Someone who is both not lucky and not oak is always aware.
If Luisa is oak or Chandler is conscious, then Luisa is good. | Valentina is good. | entailment |
Goddard is not conscious.
Goddard is oak.
Bruce is good.
Valentina is not oak.
Valentina is not crooked.
Luisa is crooked.
Chandler is not conscious.
Jerry is crooked.
Luisa is not lucky.
Chandler is oak.
Valentina is good.
Chalmers is not good.Jerry being not lucky implies that Goddard is not crooked and Bruce is not aware.
If Bruce is not crooked and Valentina is good, then Valentina is conscious.
Chalmers is not crooked if and only if Goddard is conscious.
Someone being not oak is equivalent to being not crooked.
If Valentina is not lucky, then Chandler is not conscious.
Bruce being conscious implies that Luisa is crooked.
Someone is oak and not conscious if and only if he is aware and not crooked.
It can be concluded that Luisa is conscious once knowing that Chalmers is not lucky or Chandler is not aware.
All not conscious people are crooked.
If Chalmers is lucky and Bruce is not crooked, then Goddard is not oak and Jerry is conscious.
Someone who is both not lucky and not oak is always aware.
If Luisa is oak or Chandler is conscious, then Luisa is good. | Luisa is aware. | neutral |
Goddard is not conscious.
Goddard is oak.
Bruce is good.
Valentina is not oak.
Valentina is not crooked.
Luisa is crooked.
Chandler is not conscious.
Jerry is crooked.
Luisa is not lucky.
Chandler is oak.
Valentina is good.
Chalmers is not good.Jerry being not lucky implies that Goddard is not crooked and Bruce is not aware.
If Bruce is not crooked and Valentina is good, then Valentina is conscious.
Chalmers is not crooked if and only if Goddard is conscious.
Someone being not oak is equivalent to being not crooked.
If Valentina is not lucky, then Chandler is not conscious.
Bruce being conscious implies that Luisa is crooked.
Someone is oak and not conscious if and only if he is aware and not crooked.
It can be concluded that Luisa is conscious once knowing that Chalmers is not lucky or Chandler is not aware.
All not conscious people are crooked.
If Chalmers is lucky and Bruce is not crooked, then Goddard is not oak and Jerry is conscious.
Someone who is both not lucky and not oak is always aware.
If Luisa is oak or Chandler is conscious, then Luisa is good. | Valentina is not crooked. | entailment |
Goddard is not conscious.
Goddard is oak.
Bruce is good.
Valentina is not oak.
Valentina is not crooked.
Luisa is crooked.
Chandler is not conscious.
Jerry is crooked.
Luisa is not lucky.
Chandler is oak.
Valentina is good.
Chalmers is not good.Jerry being not lucky implies that Goddard is not crooked and Bruce is not aware.
If Bruce is not crooked and Valentina is good, then Valentina is conscious.
Chalmers is not crooked if and only if Goddard is conscious.
Someone being not oak is equivalent to being not crooked.
If Valentina is not lucky, then Chandler is not conscious.
Bruce being conscious implies that Luisa is crooked.
Someone is oak and not conscious if and only if he is aware and not crooked.
It can be concluded that Luisa is conscious once knowing that Chalmers is not lucky or Chandler is not aware.
All not conscious people are crooked.
If Chalmers is lucky and Bruce is not crooked, then Goddard is not oak and Jerry is conscious.
Someone who is both not lucky and not oak is always aware.
If Luisa is oak or Chandler is conscious, then Luisa is good. | Jerry is not good. | neutral |
Goddard is not conscious.
Goddard is oak.
Bruce is good.
Valentina is not oak.
Valentina is not crooked.
Luisa is crooked.
Chandler is not conscious.
Jerry is crooked.
Luisa is not lucky.
Chandler is oak.
Valentina is good.
Chalmers is not good.Jerry being not lucky implies that Goddard is not crooked and Bruce is not aware.
If Bruce is not crooked and Valentina is good, then Valentina is conscious.
Chalmers is not crooked if and only if Goddard is conscious.
Someone being not oak is equivalent to being not crooked.
If Valentina is not lucky, then Chandler is not conscious.
Bruce being conscious implies that Luisa is crooked.
Someone is oak and not conscious if and only if he is aware and not crooked.
It can be concluded that Luisa is conscious once knowing that Chalmers is not lucky or Chandler is not aware.
All not conscious people are crooked.
If Chalmers is lucky and Bruce is not crooked, then Goddard is not oak and Jerry is conscious.
Someone who is both not lucky and not oak is always aware.
If Luisa is oak or Chandler is conscious, then Luisa is good. | Chandler is not aware. | contradiction |
Goddard is not conscious.
Goddard is oak.
Bruce is good.
Valentina is not oak.
Valentina is not crooked.
Luisa is crooked.
Chandler is not conscious.
Jerry is crooked.
Luisa is not lucky.
Chandler is oak.
Valentina is good.
Chalmers is not good.Jerry being not lucky implies that Goddard is not crooked and Bruce is not aware.
If Bruce is not crooked and Valentina is good, then Valentina is conscious.
Chalmers is not crooked if and only if Goddard is conscious.
Someone being not oak is equivalent to being not crooked.
If Valentina is not lucky, then Chandler is not conscious.
Bruce being conscious implies that Luisa is crooked.
Someone is oak and not conscious if and only if he is aware and not crooked.
It can be concluded that Luisa is conscious once knowing that Chalmers is not lucky or Chandler is not aware.
All not conscious people are crooked.
If Chalmers is lucky and Bruce is not crooked, then Goddard is not oak and Jerry is conscious.
Someone who is both not lucky and not oak is always aware.
If Luisa is oak or Chandler is conscious, then Luisa is good. | Goddard is crooked. | self_contradiction |
Goddard is not conscious.
Goddard is oak.
Bruce is good.
Valentina is not oak.
Valentina is not crooked.
Luisa is crooked.
Chandler is not conscious.
Jerry is crooked.
Luisa is not lucky.
Chandler is oak.
Valentina is good.
Chalmers is not good.Jerry being not lucky implies that Goddard is not crooked and Bruce is not aware.
If Bruce is not crooked and Valentina is good, then Valentina is conscious.
Chalmers is not crooked if and only if Goddard is conscious.
Someone being not oak is equivalent to being not crooked.
If Valentina is not lucky, then Chandler is not conscious.
Bruce being conscious implies that Luisa is crooked.
Someone is oak and not conscious if and only if he is aware and not crooked.
It can be concluded that Luisa is conscious once knowing that Chalmers is not lucky or Chandler is not aware.
All not conscious people are crooked.
If Chalmers is lucky and Bruce is not crooked, then Goddard is not oak and Jerry is conscious.
Someone who is both not lucky and not oak is always aware.
If Luisa is oak or Chandler is conscious, then Luisa is good. | Goddard is aware. | entailment |
Goddard is not conscious.
Goddard is oak.
Bruce is good.
Valentina is not oak.
Valentina is not crooked.
Luisa is crooked.
Chandler is not conscious.
Jerry is crooked.
Luisa is not lucky.
Chandler is oak.
Valentina is good.
Chalmers is not good.Jerry being not lucky implies that Goddard is not crooked and Bruce is not aware.
If Bruce is not crooked and Valentina is good, then Valentina is conscious.
Chalmers is not crooked if and only if Goddard is conscious.
Someone being not oak is equivalent to being not crooked.
If Valentina is not lucky, then Chandler is not conscious.
Bruce being conscious implies that Luisa is crooked.
Someone is oak and not conscious if and only if he is aware and not crooked.
It can be concluded that Luisa is conscious once knowing that Chalmers is not lucky or Chandler is not aware.
All not conscious people are crooked.
If Chalmers is lucky and Bruce is not crooked, then Goddard is not oak and Jerry is conscious.
Someone who is both not lucky and not oak is always aware.
If Luisa is oak or Chandler is conscious, then Luisa is good. | Valentina is not oak. | entailment |
Goddard is not conscious.
Goddard is oak.
Bruce is good.
Valentina is not oak.
Valentina is not crooked.
Luisa is crooked.
Chandler is not conscious.
Jerry is crooked.
Luisa is not lucky.
Chandler is oak.
Valentina is good.
Chalmers is not good.Jerry being not lucky implies that Goddard is not crooked and Bruce is not aware.
If Bruce is not crooked and Valentina is good, then Valentina is conscious.
Chalmers is not crooked if and only if Goddard is conscious.
Someone being not oak is equivalent to being not crooked.
If Valentina is not lucky, then Chandler is not conscious.
Bruce being conscious implies that Luisa is crooked.
Someone is oak and not conscious if and only if he is aware and not crooked.
It can be concluded that Luisa is conscious once knowing that Chalmers is not lucky or Chandler is not aware.
All not conscious people are crooked.
If Chalmers is lucky and Bruce is not crooked, then Goddard is not oak and Jerry is conscious.
Someone who is both not lucky and not oak is always aware.
If Luisa is oak or Chandler is conscious, then Luisa is good. | Chandler is not oak. | self_contradiction |
Goddard is not conscious.
Goddard is oak.
Bruce is good.
Valentina is not oak.
Valentina is not crooked.
Luisa is crooked.
Chandler is not conscious.
Jerry is crooked.
Luisa is not lucky.
Chandler is oak.
Valentina is good.
Chalmers is not good.Jerry being not lucky implies that Goddard is not crooked and Bruce is not aware.
If Bruce is not crooked and Valentina is good, then Valentina is conscious.
Chalmers is not crooked if and only if Goddard is conscious.
Someone being not oak is equivalent to being not crooked.
If Valentina is not lucky, then Chandler is not conscious.
Bruce being conscious implies that Luisa is crooked.
Someone is oak and not conscious if and only if he is aware and not crooked.
It can be concluded that Luisa is conscious once knowing that Chalmers is not lucky or Chandler is not aware.
All not conscious people are crooked.
If Chalmers is lucky and Bruce is not crooked, then Goddard is not oak and Jerry is conscious.
Someone who is both not lucky and not oak is always aware.
If Luisa is oak or Chandler is conscious, then Luisa is good. | Valentina is oak. | contradiction |
Goddard is not conscious.
Goddard is oak.
Bruce is good.
Valentina is not oak.
Valentina is not crooked.
Luisa is crooked.
Chandler is not conscious.
Jerry is crooked.
Luisa is not lucky.
Chandler is oak.
Valentina is good.
Chalmers is not good.Jerry being not lucky implies that Goddard is not crooked and Bruce is not aware.
If Bruce is not crooked and Valentina is good, then Valentina is conscious.
Chalmers is not crooked if and only if Goddard is conscious.
Someone being not oak is equivalent to being not crooked.
If Valentina is not lucky, then Chandler is not conscious.
Bruce being conscious implies that Luisa is crooked.
Someone is oak and not conscious if and only if he is aware and not crooked.
It can be concluded that Luisa is conscious once knowing that Chalmers is not lucky or Chandler is not aware.
All not conscious people are crooked.
If Chalmers is lucky and Bruce is not crooked, then Goddard is not oak and Jerry is conscious.
Someone who is both not lucky and not oak is always aware.
If Luisa is oak or Chandler is conscious, then Luisa is good. | Luisa is lucky. | contradiction |
Goddard is not conscious.
Goddard is oak.
Bruce is good.
Valentina is not oak.
Valentina is not crooked.
Luisa is crooked.
Chandler is not conscious.
Jerry is crooked.
Luisa is not lucky.
Chandler is oak.
Valentina is good.
Chalmers is not good.Jerry being not lucky implies that Goddard is not crooked and Bruce is not aware.
If Bruce is not crooked and Valentina is good, then Valentina is conscious.
Chalmers is not crooked if and only if Goddard is conscious.
Someone being not oak is equivalent to being not crooked.
If Valentina is not lucky, then Chandler is not conscious.
Bruce being conscious implies that Luisa is crooked.
Someone is oak and not conscious if and only if he is aware and not crooked.
It can be concluded that Luisa is conscious once knowing that Chalmers is not lucky or Chandler is not aware.
All not conscious people are crooked.
If Chalmers is lucky and Bruce is not crooked, then Goddard is not oak and Jerry is conscious.
Someone who is both not lucky and not oak is always aware.
If Luisa is oak or Chandler is conscious, then Luisa is good. | Jerry is oak. | neutral |
Melody is dull.
Lee is not vivacious.
Lee is not crazy.
Melody is not vivacious.
Andrew is not vivacious.
Lee is consistent.
Lee is not quiet.
Graham is not crazy.
Gideon is not crazy.
Kyle is vivacious.
Kyle is not crazy.
Kyle is not itchy.If there is at least one people who is both not vivacious and not crazy, then Graham is not itchy.
Someone being both crazy and not itchy is equivalent to being vivacious and not dull.
It can be concluded that Melody is quiet once knowing that Andrew is not dull or Lee is vivacious.
If someone is not crazy and not vivacious, then he is both not dull and quiet, and vice versa.
Gideon is not dull if and only if Andrew is not vivacious and Gideon is quiet.
Someone who is not crazy is always both consistent and vivacious.
Someone who is not crazy is always not vivacious.
It can be concluded that Gideon is quiet and Kyle is dull once knowing that Clive is crazy.
If someone is either not dull or not crazy, then he is not quiet and not consistent.
Gideon being not itchy is equivalent to Clive being quiet.
Someone who is both crazy and quiet is always dull.
Melody being not dull and Andrew being consistent are equivalent to Melody being not itchy and Kyle being crazy. | Clive is quiet. | entailment |
Melody is dull.
Lee is not vivacious.
Lee is not crazy.
Melody is not vivacious.
Andrew is not vivacious.
Lee is consistent.
Lee is not quiet.
Graham is not crazy.
Gideon is not crazy.
Kyle is vivacious.
Kyle is not crazy.
Kyle is not itchy.If there is at least one people who is both not vivacious and not crazy, then Graham is not itchy.
Someone being both crazy and not itchy is equivalent to being vivacious and not dull.
It can be concluded that Melody is quiet once knowing that Andrew is not dull or Lee is vivacious.
If someone is not crazy and not vivacious, then he is both not dull and quiet, and vice versa.
Gideon is not dull if and only if Andrew is not vivacious and Gideon is quiet.
Someone who is not crazy is always both consistent and vivacious.
Someone who is not crazy is always not vivacious.
It can be concluded that Gideon is quiet and Kyle is dull once knowing that Clive is crazy.
If someone is either not dull or not crazy, then he is not quiet and not consistent.
Gideon being not itchy is equivalent to Clive being quiet.
Someone who is both crazy and quiet is always dull.
Melody being not dull and Andrew being consistent are equivalent to Melody being not itchy and Kyle being crazy. | Graham is not consistent. | self_contradiction |
Melody is dull.
Lee is not vivacious.
Lee is not crazy.
Melody is not vivacious.
Andrew is not vivacious.
Lee is consistent.
Lee is not quiet.
Graham is not crazy.
Gideon is not crazy.
Kyle is vivacious.
Kyle is not crazy.
Kyle is not itchy.If there is at least one people who is both not vivacious and not crazy, then Graham is not itchy.
Someone being both crazy and not itchy is equivalent to being vivacious and not dull.
It can be concluded that Melody is quiet once knowing that Andrew is not dull or Lee is vivacious.
If someone is not crazy and not vivacious, then he is both not dull and quiet, and vice versa.
Gideon is not dull if and only if Andrew is not vivacious and Gideon is quiet.
Someone who is not crazy is always both consistent and vivacious.
Someone who is not crazy is always not vivacious.
It can be concluded that Gideon is quiet and Kyle is dull once knowing that Clive is crazy.
If someone is either not dull or not crazy, then he is not quiet and not consistent.
Gideon being not itchy is equivalent to Clive being quiet.
Someone who is both crazy and quiet is always dull.
Melody being not dull and Andrew being consistent are equivalent to Melody being not itchy and Kyle being crazy. | Gideon is itchy. | contradiction |
Melody is dull.
Lee is not vivacious.
Lee is not crazy.
Melody is not vivacious.
Andrew is not vivacious.
Lee is consistent.
Lee is not quiet.
Graham is not crazy.
Gideon is not crazy.
Kyle is vivacious.
Kyle is not crazy.
Kyle is not itchy.If there is at least one people who is both not vivacious and not crazy, then Graham is not itchy.
Someone being both crazy and not itchy is equivalent to being vivacious and not dull.
It can be concluded that Melody is quiet once knowing that Andrew is not dull or Lee is vivacious.
If someone is not crazy and not vivacious, then he is both not dull and quiet, and vice versa.
Gideon is not dull if and only if Andrew is not vivacious and Gideon is quiet.
Someone who is not crazy is always both consistent and vivacious.
Someone who is not crazy is always not vivacious.
It can be concluded that Gideon is quiet and Kyle is dull once knowing that Clive is crazy.
If someone is either not dull or not crazy, then he is not quiet and not consistent.
Gideon being not itchy is equivalent to Clive being quiet.
Someone who is both crazy and quiet is always dull.
Melody being not dull and Andrew being consistent are equivalent to Melody being not itchy and Kyle being crazy. | Melody is not quiet. | contradiction |
Melody is dull.
Lee is not vivacious.
Lee is not crazy.
Melody is not vivacious.
Andrew is not vivacious.
Lee is consistent.
Lee is not quiet.
Graham is not crazy.
Gideon is not crazy.
Kyle is vivacious.
Kyle is not crazy.
Kyle is not itchy.If there is at least one people who is both not vivacious and not crazy, then Graham is not itchy.
Someone being both crazy and not itchy is equivalent to being vivacious and not dull.
It can be concluded that Melody is quiet once knowing that Andrew is not dull or Lee is vivacious.
If someone is not crazy and not vivacious, then he is both not dull and quiet, and vice versa.
Gideon is not dull if and only if Andrew is not vivacious and Gideon is quiet.
Someone who is not crazy is always both consistent and vivacious.
Someone who is not crazy is always not vivacious.
It can be concluded that Gideon is quiet and Kyle is dull once knowing that Clive is crazy.
If someone is either not dull or not crazy, then he is not quiet and not consistent.
Gideon being not itchy is equivalent to Clive being quiet.
Someone who is both crazy and quiet is always dull.
Melody being not dull and Andrew being consistent are equivalent to Melody being not itchy and Kyle being crazy. | Andrew is not consistent. | neutral |
Melody is dull.
Lee is not vivacious.
Lee is not crazy.
Melody is not vivacious.
Andrew is not vivacious.
Lee is consistent.
Lee is not quiet.
Graham is not crazy.
Gideon is not crazy.
Kyle is vivacious.
Kyle is not crazy.
Kyle is not itchy.If there is at least one people who is both not vivacious and not crazy, then Graham is not itchy.
Someone being both crazy and not itchy is equivalent to being vivacious and not dull.
It can be concluded that Melody is quiet once knowing that Andrew is not dull or Lee is vivacious.
If someone is not crazy and not vivacious, then he is both not dull and quiet, and vice versa.
Gideon is not dull if and only if Andrew is not vivacious and Gideon is quiet.
Someone who is not crazy is always both consistent and vivacious.
Someone who is not crazy is always not vivacious.
It can be concluded that Gideon is quiet and Kyle is dull once knowing that Clive is crazy.
If someone is either not dull or not crazy, then he is not quiet and not consistent.
Gideon being not itchy is equivalent to Clive being quiet.
Someone who is both crazy and quiet is always dull.
Melody being not dull and Andrew being consistent are equivalent to Melody being not itchy and Kyle being crazy. | Graham is itchy. | contradiction |
Melody is dull.
Lee is not vivacious.
Lee is not crazy.
Melody is not vivacious.
Andrew is not vivacious.
Lee is consistent.
Lee is not quiet.
Graham is not crazy.
Gideon is not crazy.
Kyle is vivacious.
Kyle is not crazy.
Kyle is not itchy.If there is at least one people who is both not vivacious and not crazy, then Graham is not itchy.
Someone being both crazy and not itchy is equivalent to being vivacious and not dull.
It can be concluded that Melody is quiet once knowing that Andrew is not dull or Lee is vivacious.
If someone is not crazy and not vivacious, then he is both not dull and quiet, and vice versa.
Gideon is not dull if and only if Andrew is not vivacious and Gideon is quiet.
Someone who is not crazy is always both consistent and vivacious.
Someone who is not crazy is always not vivacious.
It can be concluded that Gideon is quiet and Kyle is dull once knowing that Clive is crazy.
If someone is either not dull or not crazy, then he is not quiet and not consistent.
Gideon being not itchy is equivalent to Clive being quiet.
Someone who is both crazy and quiet is always dull.
Melody being not dull and Andrew being consistent are equivalent to Melody being not itchy and Kyle being crazy. | Andrew is vivacious. | contradiction |
Melody is dull.
Lee is not vivacious.
Lee is not crazy.
Melody is not vivacious.
Andrew is not vivacious.
Lee is consistent.
Lee is not quiet.
Graham is not crazy.
Gideon is not crazy.
Kyle is vivacious.
Kyle is not crazy.
Kyle is not itchy.If there is at least one people who is both not vivacious and not crazy, then Graham is not itchy.
Someone being both crazy and not itchy is equivalent to being vivacious and not dull.
It can be concluded that Melody is quiet once knowing that Andrew is not dull or Lee is vivacious.
If someone is not crazy and not vivacious, then he is both not dull and quiet, and vice versa.
Gideon is not dull if and only if Andrew is not vivacious and Gideon is quiet.
Someone who is not crazy is always both consistent and vivacious.
Someone who is not crazy is always not vivacious.
It can be concluded that Gideon is quiet and Kyle is dull once knowing that Clive is crazy.
If someone is either not dull or not crazy, then he is not quiet and not consistent.
Gideon being not itchy is equivalent to Clive being quiet.
Someone who is both crazy and quiet is always dull.
Melody being not dull and Andrew being consistent are equivalent to Melody being not itchy and Kyle being crazy. | Graham is not itchy. | entailment |
Melody is dull.
Lee is not vivacious.
Lee is not crazy.
Melody is not vivacious.
Andrew is not vivacious.
Lee is consistent.
Lee is not quiet.
Graham is not crazy.
Gideon is not crazy.
Kyle is vivacious.
Kyle is not crazy.
Kyle is not itchy.If there is at least one people who is both not vivacious and not crazy, then Graham is not itchy.
Someone being both crazy and not itchy is equivalent to being vivacious and not dull.
It can be concluded that Melody is quiet once knowing that Andrew is not dull or Lee is vivacious.
If someone is not crazy and not vivacious, then he is both not dull and quiet, and vice versa.
Gideon is not dull if and only if Andrew is not vivacious and Gideon is quiet.
Someone who is not crazy is always both consistent and vivacious.
Someone who is not crazy is always not vivacious.
It can be concluded that Gideon is quiet and Kyle is dull once knowing that Clive is crazy.
If someone is either not dull or not crazy, then he is not quiet and not consistent.
Gideon being not itchy is equivalent to Clive being quiet.
Someone who is both crazy and quiet is always dull.
Melody being not dull and Andrew being consistent are equivalent to Melody being not itchy and Kyle being crazy. | Clive is crazy. | neutral |
Melody is dull.
Lee is not vivacious.
Lee is not crazy.
Melody is not vivacious.
Andrew is not vivacious.
Lee is consistent.
Lee is not quiet.
Graham is not crazy.
Gideon is not crazy.
Kyle is vivacious.
Kyle is not crazy.
Kyle is not itchy.If there is at least one people who is both not vivacious and not crazy, then Graham is not itchy.
Someone being both crazy and not itchy is equivalent to being vivacious and not dull.
It can be concluded that Melody is quiet once knowing that Andrew is not dull or Lee is vivacious.
If someone is not crazy and not vivacious, then he is both not dull and quiet, and vice versa.
Gideon is not dull if and only if Andrew is not vivacious and Gideon is quiet.
Someone who is not crazy is always both consistent and vivacious.
Someone who is not crazy is always not vivacious.
It can be concluded that Gideon is quiet and Kyle is dull once knowing that Clive is crazy.
If someone is either not dull or not crazy, then he is not quiet and not consistent.
Gideon being not itchy is equivalent to Clive being quiet.
Someone who is both crazy and quiet is always dull.
Melody being not dull and Andrew being consistent are equivalent to Melody being not itchy and Kyle being crazy. | Graham is vivacious. | self_contradiction |
Melody is dull.
Lee is not vivacious.
Lee is not crazy.
Melody is not vivacious.
Andrew is not vivacious.
Lee is consistent.
Lee is not quiet.
Graham is not crazy.
Gideon is not crazy.
Kyle is vivacious.
Kyle is not crazy.
Kyle is not itchy.If there is at least one people who is both not vivacious and not crazy, then Graham is not itchy.
Someone being both crazy and not itchy is equivalent to being vivacious and not dull.
It can be concluded that Melody is quiet once knowing that Andrew is not dull or Lee is vivacious.
If someone is not crazy and not vivacious, then he is both not dull and quiet, and vice versa.
Gideon is not dull if and only if Andrew is not vivacious and Gideon is quiet.
Someone who is not crazy is always both consistent and vivacious.
Someone who is not crazy is always not vivacious.
It can be concluded that Gideon is quiet and Kyle is dull once knowing that Clive is crazy.
If someone is either not dull or not crazy, then he is not quiet and not consistent.
Gideon being not itchy is equivalent to Clive being quiet.
Someone who is both crazy and quiet is always dull.
Melody being not dull and Andrew being consistent are equivalent to Melody being not itchy and Kyle being crazy. | Lee is not itchy. | entailment |
Melody is dull.
Lee is not vivacious.
Lee is not crazy.
Melody is not vivacious.
Andrew is not vivacious.
Lee is consistent.
Lee is not quiet.
Graham is not crazy.
Gideon is not crazy.
Kyle is vivacious.
Kyle is not crazy.
Kyle is not itchy.If there is at least one people who is both not vivacious and not crazy, then Graham is not itchy.
Someone being both crazy and not itchy is equivalent to being vivacious and not dull.
It can be concluded that Melody is quiet once knowing that Andrew is not dull or Lee is vivacious.
If someone is not crazy and not vivacious, then he is both not dull and quiet, and vice versa.
Gideon is not dull if and only if Andrew is not vivacious and Gideon is quiet.
Someone who is not crazy is always both consistent and vivacious.
Someone who is not crazy is always not vivacious.
It can be concluded that Gideon is quiet and Kyle is dull once knowing that Clive is crazy.
If someone is either not dull or not crazy, then he is not quiet and not consistent.
Gideon being not itchy is equivalent to Clive being quiet.
Someone who is both crazy and quiet is always dull.
Melody being not dull and Andrew being consistent are equivalent to Melody being not itchy and Kyle being crazy. | Andrew is itchy. | neutral |
Melody is dull.
Lee is not vivacious.
Lee is not crazy.
Melody is not vivacious.
Andrew is not vivacious.
Lee is consistent.
Lee is not quiet.
Graham is not crazy.
Gideon is not crazy.
Kyle is vivacious.
Kyle is not crazy.
Kyle is not itchy.If there is at least one people who is both not vivacious and not crazy, then Graham is not itchy.
Someone being both crazy and not itchy is equivalent to being vivacious and not dull.
It can be concluded that Melody is quiet once knowing that Andrew is not dull or Lee is vivacious.
If someone is not crazy and not vivacious, then he is both not dull and quiet, and vice versa.
Gideon is not dull if and only if Andrew is not vivacious and Gideon is quiet.
Someone who is not crazy is always both consistent and vivacious.
Someone who is not crazy is always not vivacious.
It can be concluded that Gideon is quiet and Kyle is dull once knowing that Clive is crazy.
If someone is either not dull or not crazy, then he is not quiet and not consistent.
Gideon being not itchy is equivalent to Clive being quiet.
Someone who is both crazy and quiet is always dull.
Melody being not dull and Andrew being consistent are equivalent to Melody being not itchy and Kyle being crazy. | Kyle is not itchy. | entailment |
Melody is dull.
Lee is not vivacious.
Lee is not crazy.
Melody is not vivacious.
Andrew is not vivacious.
Lee is consistent.
Lee is not quiet.
Graham is not crazy.
Gideon is not crazy.
Kyle is vivacious.
Kyle is not crazy.
Kyle is not itchy.If there is at least one people who is both not vivacious and not crazy, then Graham is not itchy.
Someone being both crazy and not itchy is equivalent to being vivacious and not dull.
It can be concluded that Melody is quiet once knowing that Andrew is not dull or Lee is vivacious.
If someone is not crazy and not vivacious, then he is both not dull and quiet, and vice versa.
Gideon is not dull if and only if Andrew is not vivacious and Gideon is quiet.
Someone who is not crazy is always both consistent and vivacious.
Someone who is not crazy is always not vivacious.
It can be concluded that Gideon is quiet and Kyle is dull once knowing that Clive is crazy.
If someone is either not dull or not crazy, then he is not quiet and not consistent.
Gideon being not itchy is equivalent to Clive being quiet.
Someone who is both crazy and quiet is always dull.
Melody being not dull and Andrew being consistent are equivalent to Melody being not itchy and Kyle being crazy. | Lee is not quiet. | self_contradiction |
Melody is dull.
Lee is not vivacious.
Lee is not crazy.
Melody is not vivacious.
Andrew is not vivacious.
Lee is consistent.
Lee is not quiet.
Graham is not crazy.
Gideon is not crazy.
Kyle is vivacious.
Kyle is not crazy.
Kyle is not itchy.If there is at least one people who is both not vivacious and not crazy, then Graham is not itchy.
Someone being both crazy and not itchy is equivalent to being vivacious and not dull.
It can be concluded that Melody is quiet once knowing that Andrew is not dull or Lee is vivacious.
If someone is not crazy and not vivacious, then he is both not dull and quiet, and vice versa.
Gideon is not dull if and only if Andrew is not vivacious and Gideon is quiet.
Someone who is not crazy is always both consistent and vivacious.
Someone who is not crazy is always not vivacious.
It can be concluded that Gideon is quiet and Kyle is dull once knowing that Clive is crazy.
If someone is either not dull or not crazy, then he is not quiet and not consistent.
Gideon being not itchy is equivalent to Clive being quiet.
Someone who is both crazy and quiet is always dull.
Melody being not dull and Andrew being consistent are equivalent to Melody being not itchy and Kyle being crazy. | Andrew is not vivacious. | entailment |
Melody is dull.
Lee is not vivacious.
Lee is not crazy.
Melody is not vivacious.
Andrew is not vivacious.
Lee is consistent.
Lee is not quiet.
Graham is not crazy.
Gideon is not crazy.
Kyle is vivacious.
Kyle is not crazy.
Kyle is not itchy.If there is at least one people who is both not vivacious and not crazy, then Graham is not itchy.
Someone being both crazy and not itchy is equivalent to being vivacious and not dull.
It can be concluded that Melody is quiet once knowing that Andrew is not dull or Lee is vivacious.
If someone is not crazy and not vivacious, then he is both not dull and quiet, and vice versa.
Gideon is not dull if and only if Andrew is not vivacious and Gideon is quiet.
Someone who is not crazy is always both consistent and vivacious.
Someone who is not crazy is always not vivacious.
It can be concluded that Gideon is quiet and Kyle is dull once knowing that Clive is crazy.
If someone is either not dull or not crazy, then he is not quiet and not consistent.
Gideon being not itchy is equivalent to Clive being quiet.
Someone who is both crazy and quiet is always dull.
Melody being not dull and Andrew being consistent are equivalent to Melody being not itchy and Kyle being crazy. | Clive is not quiet. | contradiction |
Melody is dull.
Lee is not vivacious.
Lee is not crazy.
Melody is not vivacious.
Andrew is not vivacious.
Lee is consistent.
Lee is not quiet.
Graham is not crazy.
Gideon is not crazy.
Kyle is vivacious.
Kyle is not crazy.
Kyle is not itchy.If there is at least one people who is both not vivacious and not crazy, then Graham is not itchy.
Someone being both crazy and not itchy is equivalent to being vivacious and not dull.
It can be concluded that Melody is quiet once knowing that Andrew is not dull or Lee is vivacious.
If someone is not crazy and not vivacious, then he is both not dull and quiet, and vice versa.
Gideon is not dull if and only if Andrew is not vivacious and Gideon is quiet.
Someone who is not crazy is always both consistent and vivacious.
Someone who is not crazy is always not vivacious.
It can be concluded that Gideon is quiet and Kyle is dull once knowing that Clive is crazy.
If someone is either not dull or not crazy, then he is not quiet and not consistent.
Gideon being not itchy is equivalent to Clive being quiet.
Someone who is both crazy and quiet is always dull.
Melody being not dull and Andrew being consistent are equivalent to Melody being not itchy and Kyle being crazy. | Clive is vivacious. | neutral |
Melody is dull.
Lee is not vivacious.
Lee is not crazy.
Melody is not vivacious.
Andrew is not vivacious.
Lee is consistent.
Lee is not quiet.
Graham is not crazy.
Gideon is not crazy.
Kyle is vivacious.
Kyle is not crazy.
Kyle is not itchy.If there is at least one people who is both not vivacious and not crazy, then Graham is not itchy.
Someone being both crazy and not itchy is equivalent to being vivacious and not dull.
It can be concluded that Melody is quiet once knowing that Andrew is not dull or Lee is vivacious.
If someone is not crazy and not vivacious, then he is both not dull and quiet, and vice versa.
Gideon is not dull if and only if Andrew is not vivacious and Gideon is quiet.
Someone who is not crazy is always both consistent and vivacious.
Someone who is not crazy is always not vivacious.
It can be concluded that Gideon is quiet and Kyle is dull once knowing that Clive is crazy.
If someone is either not dull or not crazy, then he is not quiet and not consistent.
Gideon being not itchy is equivalent to Clive being quiet.
Someone who is both crazy and quiet is always dull.
Melody being not dull and Andrew being consistent are equivalent to Melody being not itchy and Kyle being crazy. | Andrew is crazy. | neutral |
Melody is dull.
Lee is not vivacious.
Lee is not crazy.
Melody is not vivacious.
Andrew is not vivacious.
Lee is consistent.
Lee is not quiet.
Graham is not crazy.
Gideon is not crazy.
Kyle is vivacious.
Kyle is not crazy.
Kyle is not itchy.If there is at least one people who is both not vivacious and not crazy, then Graham is not itchy.
Someone being both crazy and not itchy is equivalent to being vivacious and not dull.
It can be concluded that Melody is quiet once knowing that Andrew is not dull or Lee is vivacious.
If someone is not crazy and not vivacious, then he is both not dull and quiet, and vice versa.
Gideon is not dull if and only if Andrew is not vivacious and Gideon is quiet.
Someone who is not crazy is always both consistent and vivacious.
Someone who is not crazy is always not vivacious.
It can be concluded that Gideon is quiet and Kyle is dull once knowing that Clive is crazy.
If someone is either not dull or not crazy, then he is not quiet and not consistent.
Gideon being not itchy is equivalent to Clive being quiet.
Someone who is both crazy and quiet is always dull.
Melody being not dull and Andrew being consistent are equivalent to Melody being not itchy and Kyle being crazy. | Graham is not dull. | self_contradiction |
Melody is dull.
Lee is not vivacious.
Lee is not crazy.
Melody is not vivacious.
Andrew is not vivacious.
Lee is consistent.
Lee is not quiet.
Graham is not crazy.
Gideon is not crazy.
Kyle is vivacious.
Kyle is not crazy.
Kyle is not itchy.If there is at least one people who is both not vivacious and not crazy, then Graham is not itchy.
Someone being both crazy and not itchy is equivalent to being vivacious and not dull.
It can be concluded that Melody is quiet once knowing that Andrew is not dull or Lee is vivacious.
If someone is not crazy and not vivacious, then he is both not dull and quiet, and vice versa.
Gideon is not dull if and only if Andrew is not vivacious and Gideon is quiet.
Someone who is not crazy is always both consistent and vivacious.
Someone who is not crazy is always not vivacious.
It can be concluded that Gideon is quiet and Kyle is dull once knowing that Clive is crazy.
If someone is either not dull or not crazy, then he is not quiet and not consistent.
Gideon being not itchy is equivalent to Clive being quiet.
Someone who is both crazy and quiet is always dull.
Melody being not dull and Andrew being consistent are equivalent to Melody being not itchy and Kyle being crazy. | Kyle is dull. | self_contradiction |
Ambrose is not fine.
Neil is black.
Neil is humble.
Neil is fine.
Hamlin is humble.
Neil is not safe.
Quillan is not black.
Ambrose is smart.
Theobold is safe.
Alastair is not fine.
Alastair is black.
Ambrose is safe.If someone is willing, then he is both not humble and fine.
If there is at least one people who is humble, then Theobold is not smart and Brian is black.
Ambrose is not fine if and only if Brian is black.
If someone is smart or safe, then he is not fine.
It can be concluded that Quillan is black and Alastair is fine once knowing that Ambrose is smart.
As long as someone is humble, he is not safe and willing.
Brian being not black and Ambrose being not safe imply that Brian is fine.
if there is at least one people who is not smart and safe, then Quillan is not willing and Neil is black.
If someone is smart, then he is safe.
Someone being both not black and not smart is equivalent to being willing and safe.
Theobold being not fine or Theobold being humble implies that Hamlin is not willing.
If someone is both safe and willing, then he is not fine. | Neil is not safe. | entailment |
Ambrose is not fine.
Neil is black.
Neil is humble.
Neil is fine.
Hamlin is humble.
Neil is not safe.
Quillan is not black.
Ambrose is smart.
Theobold is safe.
Alastair is not fine.
Alastair is black.
Ambrose is safe.If someone is willing, then he is both not humble and fine.
If there is at least one people who is humble, then Theobold is not smart and Brian is black.
Ambrose is not fine if and only if Brian is black.
If someone is smart or safe, then he is not fine.
It can be concluded that Quillan is black and Alastair is fine once knowing that Ambrose is smart.
As long as someone is humble, he is not safe and willing.
Brian being not black and Ambrose being not safe imply that Brian is fine.
if there is at least one people who is not smart and safe, then Quillan is not willing and Neil is black.
If someone is smart, then he is safe.
Someone being both not black and not smart is equivalent to being willing and safe.
Theobold being not fine or Theobold being humble implies that Hamlin is not willing.
If someone is both safe and willing, then he is not fine. | Neil is not willing. | contradiction |
Ambrose is not fine.
Neil is black.
Neil is humble.
Neil is fine.
Hamlin is humble.
Neil is not safe.
Quillan is not black.
Ambrose is smart.
Theobold is safe.
Alastair is not fine.
Alastair is black.
Ambrose is safe.If someone is willing, then he is both not humble and fine.
If there is at least one people who is humble, then Theobold is not smart and Brian is black.
Ambrose is not fine if and only if Brian is black.
If someone is smart or safe, then he is not fine.
It can be concluded that Quillan is black and Alastair is fine once knowing that Ambrose is smart.
As long as someone is humble, he is not safe and willing.
Brian being not black and Ambrose being not safe imply that Brian is fine.
if there is at least one people who is not smart and safe, then Quillan is not willing and Neil is black.
If someone is smart, then he is safe.
Someone being both not black and not smart is equivalent to being willing and safe.
Theobold being not fine or Theobold being humble implies that Hamlin is not willing.
If someone is both safe and willing, then he is not fine. | Quillan is not smart. | neutral |
Ambrose is not fine.
Neil is black.
Neil is humble.
Neil is fine.
Hamlin is humble.
Neil is not safe.
Quillan is not black.
Ambrose is smart.
Theobold is safe.
Alastair is not fine.
Alastair is black.
Ambrose is safe.If someone is willing, then he is both not humble and fine.
If there is at least one people who is humble, then Theobold is not smart and Brian is black.
Ambrose is not fine if and only if Brian is black.
If someone is smart or safe, then he is not fine.
It can be concluded that Quillan is black and Alastair is fine once knowing that Ambrose is smart.
As long as someone is humble, he is not safe and willing.
Brian being not black and Ambrose being not safe imply that Brian is fine.
if there is at least one people who is not smart and safe, then Quillan is not willing and Neil is black.
If someone is smart, then he is safe.
Someone being both not black and not smart is equivalent to being willing and safe.
Theobold being not fine or Theobold being humble implies that Hamlin is not willing.
If someone is both safe and willing, then he is not fine. | Neil is willing. | entailment |
Ambrose is not fine.
Neil is black.
Neil is humble.
Neil is fine.
Hamlin is humble.
Neil is not safe.
Quillan is not black.
Ambrose is smart.
Theobold is safe.
Alastair is not fine.
Alastair is black.
Ambrose is safe.If someone is willing, then he is both not humble and fine.
If there is at least one people who is humble, then Theobold is not smart and Brian is black.
Ambrose is not fine if and only if Brian is black.
If someone is smart or safe, then he is not fine.
It can be concluded that Quillan is black and Alastair is fine once knowing that Ambrose is smart.
As long as someone is humble, he is not safe and willing.
Brian being not black and Ambrose being not safe imply that Brian is fine.
if there is at least one people who is not smart and safe, then Quillan is not willing and Neil is black.
If someone is smart, then he is safe.
Someone being both not black and not smart is equivalent to being willing and safe.
Theobold being not fine or Theobold being humble implies that Hamlin is not willing.
If someone is both safe and willing, then he is not fine. | Quillan is not black. | self_contradiction |
Ambrose is not fine.
Neil is black.
Neil is humble.
Neil is fine.
Hamlin is humble.
Neil is not safe.
Quillan is not black.
Ambrose is smart.
Theobold is safe.
Alastair is not fine.
Alastair is black.
Ambrose is safe.If someone is willing, then he is both not humble and fine.
If there is at least one people who is humble, then Theobold is not smart and Brian is black.
Ambrose is not fine if and only if Brian is black.
If someone is smart or safe, then he is not fine.
It can be concluded that Quillan is black and Alastair is fine once knowing that Ambrose is smart.
As long as someone is humble, he is not safe and willing.
Brian being not black and Ambrose being not safe imply that Brian is fine.
if there is at least one people who is not smart and safe, then Quillan is not willing and Neil is black.
If someone is smart, then he is safe.
Someone being both not black and not smart is equivalent to being willing and safe.
Theobold being not fine or Theobold being humble implies that Hamlin is not willing.
If someone is both safe and willing, then he is not fine. | Ambrose is fine. | contradiction |
Ambrose is not fine.
Neil is black.
Neil is humble.
Neil is fine.
Hamlin is humble.
Neil is not safe.
Quillan is not black.
Ambrose is smart.
Theobold is safe.
Alastair is not fine.
Alastair is black.
Ambrose is safe.If someone is willing, then he is both not humble and fine.
If there is at least one people who is humble, then Theobold is not smart and Brian is black.
Ambrose is not fine if and only if Brian is black.
If someone is smart or safe, then he is not fine.
It can be concluded that Quillan is black and Alastair is fine once knowing that Ambrose is smart.
As long as someone is humble, he is not safe and willing.
Brian being not black and Ambrose being not safe imply that Brian is fine.
if there is at least one people who is not smart and safe, then Quillan is not willing and Neil is black.
If someone is smart, then he is safe.
Someone being both not black and not smart is equivalent to being willing and safe.
Theobold being not fine or Theobold being humble implies that Hamlin is not willing.
If someone is both safe and willing, then he is not fine. | Quillan is black. | self_contradiction |
Ambrose is not fine.
Neil is black.
Neil is humble.
Neil is fine.
Hamlin is humble.
Neil is not safe.
Quillan is not black.
Ambrose is smart.
Theobold is safe.
Alastair is not fine.
Alastair is black.
Ambrose is safe.If someone is willing, then he is both not humble and fine.
If there is at least one people who is humble, then Theobold is not smart and Brian is black.
Ambrose is not fine if and only if Brian is black.
If someone is smart or safe, then he is not fine.
It can be concluded that Quillan is black and Alastair is fine once knowing that Ambrose is smart.
As long as someone is humble, he is not safe and willing.
Brian being not black and Ambrose being not safe imply that Brian is fine.
if there is at least one people who is not smart and safe, then Quillan is not willing and Neil is black.
If someone is smart, then he is safe.
Someone being both not black and not smart is equivalent to being willing and safe.
Theobold being not fine or Theobold being humble implies that Hamlin is not willing.
If someone is both safe and willing, then he is not fine. | Hamlin is willing. | self_contradiction |
Ambrose is not fine.
Neil is black.
Neil is humble.
Neil is fine.
Hamlin is humble.
Neil is not safe.
Quillan is not black.
Ambrose is smart.
Theobold is safe.
Alastair is not fine.
Alastair is black.
Ambrose is safe.If someone is willing, then he is both not humble and fine.
If there is at least one people who is humble, then Theobold is not smart and Brian is black.
Ambrose is not fine if and only if Brian is black.
If someone is smart or safe, then he is not fine.
It can be concluded that Quillan is black and Alastair is fine once knowing that Ambrose is smart.
As long as someone is humble, he is not safe and willing.
Brian being not black and Ambrose being not safe imply that Brian is fine.
if there is at least one people who is not smart and safe, then Quillan is not willing and Neil is black.
If someone is smart, then he is safe.
Someone being both not black and not smart is equivalent to being willing and safe.
Theobold being not fine or Theobold being humble implies that Hamlin is not willing.
If someone is both safe and willing, then he is not fine. | Alastair is not black. | contradiction |
Ambrose is not fine.
Neil is black.
Neil is humble.
Neil is fine.
Hamlin is humble.
Neil is not safe.
Quillan is not black.
Ambrose is smart.
Theobold is safe.
Alastair is not fine.
Alastair is black.
Ambrose is safe.If someone is willing, then he is both not humble and fine.
If there is at least one people who is humble, then Theobold is not smart and Brian is black.
Ambrose is not fine if and only if Brian is black.
If someone is smart or safe, then he is not fine.
It can be concluded that Quillan is black and Alastair is fine once knowing that Ambrose is smart.
As long as someone is humble, he is not safe and willing.
Brian being not black and Ambrose being not safe imply that Brian is fine.
if there is at least one people who is not smart and safe, then Quillan is not willing and Neil is black.
If someone is smart, then he is safe.
Someone being both not black and not smart is equivalent to being willing and safe.
Theobold being not fine or Theobold being humble implies that Hamlin is not willing.
If someone is both safe and willing, then he is not fine. | Neil is humble. | self_contradiction |
Ambrose is not fine.
Neil is black.
Neil is humble.
Neil is fine.
Hamlin is humble.
Neil is not safe.
Quillan is not black.
Ambrose is smart.
Theobold is safe.
Alastair is not fine.
Alastair is black.
Ambrose is safe.If someone is willing, then he is both not humble and fine.
If there is at least one people who is humble, then Theobold is not smart and Brian is black.
Ambrose is not fine if and only if Brian is black.
If someone is smart or safe, then he is not fine.
It can be concluded that Quillan is black and Alastair is fine once knowing that Ambrose is smart.
As long as someone is humble, he is not safe and willing.
Brian being not black and Ambrose being not safe imply that Brian is fine.
if there is at least one people who is not smart and safe, then Quillan is not willing and Neil is black.
If someone is smart, then he is safe.
Someone being both not black and not smart is equivalent to being willing and safe.
Theobold being not fine or Theobold being humble implies that Hamlin is not willing.
If someone is both safe and willing, then he is not fine. | Ambrose is not humble. | neutral |
Ambrose is not fine.
Neil is black.
Neil is humble.
Neil is fine.
Hamlin is humble.
Neil is not safe.
Quillan is not black.
Ambrose is smart.
Theobold is safe.
Alastair is not fine.
Alastair is black.
Ambrose is safe.If someone is willing, then he is both not humble and fine.
If there is at least one people who is humble, then Theobold is not smart and Brian is black.
Ambrose is not fine if and only if Brian is black.
If someone is smart or safe, then he is not fine.
It can be concluded that Quillan is black and Alastair is fine once knowing that Ambrose is smart.
As long as someone is humble, he is not safe and willing.
Brian being not black and Ambrose being not safe imply that Brian is fine.
if there is at least one people who is not smart and safe, then Quillan is not willing and Neil is black.
If someone is smart, then he is safe.
Someone being both not black and not smart is equivalent to being willing and safe.
Theobold being not fine or Theobold being humble implies that Hamlin is not willing.
If someone is both safe and willing, then he is not fine. | Hamlin is not smart. | neutral |
Ambrose is not fine.
Neil is black.
Neil is humble.
Neil is fine.
Hamlin is humble.
Neil is not safe.
Quillan is not black.
Ambrose is smart.
Theobold is safe.
Alastair is not fine.
Alastair is black.
Ambrose is safe.If someone is willing, then he is both not humble and fine.
If there is at least one people who is humble, then Theobold is not smart and Brian is black.
Ambrose is not fine if and only if Brian is black.
If someone is smart or safe, then he is not fine.
It can be concluded that Quillan is black and Alastair is fine once knowing that Ambrose is smart.
As long as someone is humble, he is not safe and willing.
Brian being not black and Ambrose being not safe imply that Brian is fine.
if there is at least one people who is not smart and safe, then Quillan is not willing and Neil is black.
If someone is smart, then he is safe.
Someone being both not black and not smart is equivalent to being willing and safe.
Theobold being not fine or Theobold being humble implies that Hamlin is not willing.
If someone is both safe and willing, then he is not fine. | Hamlin is fine. | entailment |
Ambrose is not fine.
Neil is black.
Neil is humble.
Neil is fine.
Hamlin is humble.
Neil is not safe.
Quillan is not black.
Ambrose is smart.
Theobold is safe.
Alastair is not fine.
Alastair is black.
Ambrose is safe.If someone is willing, then he is both not humble and fine.
If there is at least one people who is humble, then Theobold is not smart and Brian is black.
Ambrose is not fine if and only if Brian is black.
If someone is smart or safe, then he is not fine.
It can be concluded that Quillan is black and Alastair is fine once knowing that Ambrose is smart.
As long as someone is humble, he is not safe and willing.
Brian being not black and Ambrose being not safe imply that Brian is fine.
if there is at least one people who is not smart and safe, then Quillan is not willing and Neil is black.
If someone is smart, then he is safe.
Someone being both not black and not smart is equivalent to being willing and safe.
Theobold being not fine or Theobold being humble implies that Hamlin is not willing.
If someone is both safe and willing, then he is not fine. | Quillan is not humble. | neutral |
Ambrose is not fine.
Neil is black.
Neil is humble.
Neil is fine.
Hamlin is humble.
Neil is not safe.
Quillan is not black.
Ambrose is smart.
Theobold is safe.
Alastair is not fine.
Alastair is black.
Ambrose is safe.If someone is willing, then he is both not humble and fine.
If there is at least one people who is humble, then Theobold is not smart and Brian is black.
Ambrose is not fine if and only if Brian is black.
If someone is smart or safe, then he is not fine.
It can be concluded that Quillan is black and Alastair is fine once knowing that Ambrose is smart.
As long as someone is humble, he is not safe and willing.
Brian being not black and Ambrose being not safe imply that Brian is fine.
if there is at least one people who is not smart and safe, then Quillan is not willing and Neil is black.
If someone is smart, then he is safe.
Someone being both not black and not smart is equivalent to being willing and safe.
Theobold being not fine or Theobold being humble implies that Hamlin is not willing.
If someone is both safe and willing, then he is not fine. | Alastair is black. | entailment |
Ambrose is not fine.
Neil is black.
Neil is humble.
Neil is fine.
Hamlin is humble.
Neil is not safe.
Quillan is not black.
Ambrose is smart.
Theobold is safe.
Alastair is not fine.
Alastair is black.
Ambrose is safe.If someone is willing, then he is both not humble and fine.
If there is at least one people who is humble, then Theobold is not smart and Brian is black.
Ambrose is not fine if and only if Brian is black.
If someone is smart or safe, then he is not fine.
It can be concluded that Quillan is black and Alastair is fine once knowing that Ambrose is smart.
As long as someone is humble, he is not safe and willing.
Brian being not black and Ambrose being not safe imply that Brian is fine.
if there is at least one people who is not smart and safe, then Quillan is not willing and Neil is black.
If someone is smart, then he is safe.
Someone being both not black and not smart is equivalent to being willing and safe.
Theobold being not fine or Theobold being humble implies that Hamlin is not willing.
If someone is both safe and willing, then he is not fine. | Brian is safe. | neutral |
Ambrose is not fine.
Neil is black.
Neil is humble.
Neil is fine.
Hamlin is humble.
Neil is not safe.
Quillan is not black.
Ambrose is smart.
Theobold is safe.
Alastair is not fine.
Alastair is black.
Ambrose is safe.If someone is willing, then he is both not humble and fine.
If there is at least one people who is humble, then Theobold is not smart and Brian is black.
Ambrose is not fine if and only if Brian is black.
If someone is smart or safe, then he is not fine.
It can be concluded that Quillan is black and Alastair is fine once knowing that Ambrose is smart.
As long as someone is humble, he is not safe and willing.
Brian being not black and Ambrose being not safe imply that Brian is fine.
if there is at least one people who is not smart and safe, then Quillan is not willing and Neil is black.
If someone is smart, then he is safe.
Someone being both not black and not smart is equivalent to being willing and safe.
Theobold being not fine or Theobold being humble implies that Hamlin is not willing.
If someone is both safe and willing, then he is not fine. | Theobold is safe. | entailment |
Ambrose is not fine.
Neil is black.
Neil is humble.
Neil is fine.
Hamlin is humble.
Neil is not safe.
Quillan is not black.
Ambrose is smart.
Theobold is safe.
Alastair is not fine.
Alastair is black.
Ambrose is safe.If someone is willing, then he is both not humble and fine.
If there is at least one people who is humble, then Theobold is not smart and Brian is black.
Ambrose is not fine if and only if Brian is black.
If someone is smart or safe, then he is not fine.
It can be concluded that Quillan is black and Alastair is fine once knowing that Ambrose is smart.
As long as someone is humble, he is not safe and willing.
Brian being not black and Ambrose being not safe imply that Brian is fine.
if there is at least one people who is not smart and safe, then Quillan is not willing and Neil is black.
If someone is smart, then he is safe.
Someone being both not black and not smart is equivalent to being willing and safe.
Theobold being not fine or Theobold being humble implies that Hamlin is not willing.
If someone is both safe and willing, then he is not fine. | Neil is safe. | contradiction |
Ambrose is not fine.
Neil is black.
Neil is humble.
Neil is fine.
Hamlin is humble.
Neil is not safe.
Quillan is not black.
Ambrose is smart.
Theobold is safe.
Alastair is not fine.
Alastair is black.
Ambrose is safe.If someone is willing, then he is both not humble and fine.
If there is at least one people who is humble, then Theobold is not smart and Brian is black.
Ambrose is not fine if and only if Brian is black.
If someone is smart or safe, then he is not fine.
It can be concluded that Quillan is black and Alastair is fine once knowing that Ambrose is smart.
As long as someone is humble, he is not safe and willing.
Brian being not black and Ambrose being not safe imply that Brian is fine.
if there is at least one people who is not smart and safe, then Quillan is not willing and Neil is black.
If someone is smart, then he is safe.
Someone being both not black and not smart is equivalent to being willing and safe.
Theobold being not fine or Theobold being humble implies that Hamlin is not willing.
If someone is both safe and willing, then he is not fine. | Alastair is fine. | self_contradiction |
Ambrose is not fine.
Neil is black.
Neil is humble.
Neil is fine.
Hamlin is humble.
Neil is not safe.
Quillan is not black.
Ambrose is smart.
Theobold is safe.
Alastair is not fine.
Alastair is black.
Ambrose is safe.If someone is willing, then he is both not humble and fine.
If there is at least one people who is humble, then Theobold is not smart and Brian is black.
Ambrose is not fine if and only if Brian is black.
If someone is smart or safe, then he is not fine.
It can be concluded that Quillan is black and Alastair is fine once knowing that Ambrose is smart.
As long as someone is humble, he is not safe and willing.
Brian being not black and Ambrose being not safe imply that Brian is fine.
if there is at least one people who is not smart and safe, then Quillan is not willing and Neil is black.
If someone is smart, then he is safe.
Someone being both not black and not smart is equivalent to being willing and safe.
Theobold being not fine or Theobold being humble implies that Hamlin is not willing.
If someone is both safe and willing, then he is not fine. | Ambrose is not smart. | contradiction |
Silvia is relevant.
Silvia is sane.
Ian is not courageous.
Lombard is not relevant.
Silvia is comprehensive.
Lombard is courageous.
Ian is automatic.
Glenn is relevant.
Silvia is not automatic.
Lombard is not sufficient.
Ian is comprehensive.
Ian is not sufficient.If someone is automatic, then he is both not courageous and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Roswell is comprehensive and Ian is not sufficient.
If Lombard is courageous, then Roswell is sufficient, and vice versa.
Someone who is not sufficient is always both sane and not courageous.
If there is at least one people who is not automatic or sufficient, then Roswell is comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Glenn is not comprehensive and Roswell is relevant.
If someone is both not sane and relevant, then he is not sufficient.
If there is at least one people who is both not automatic and not sane, then Ian is courageous.
It can be concluded that Glenn is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane or Lombard is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Rick is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane.
If there is someone who is not sane, then Ian is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Glenn is not comprehensive and Glenn is not relevant once knowing that Ian is not sufficient. | Ian is automatic. | entailment |
Silvia is relevant.
Silvia is sane.
Ian is not courageous.
Lombard is not relevant.
Silvia is comprehensive.
Lombard is courageous.
Ian is automatic.
Glenn is relevant.
Silvia is not automatic.
Lombard is not sufficient.
Ian is comprehensive.
Ian is not sufficient.If someone is automatic, then he is both not courageous and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Roswell is comprehensive and Ian is not sufficient.
If Lombard is courageous, then Roswell is sufficient, and vice versa.
Someone who is not sufficient is always both sane and not courageous.
If there is at least one people who is not automatic or sufficient, then Roswell is comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Glenn is not comprehensive and Roswell is relevant.
If someone is both not sane and relevant, then he is not sufficient.
If there is at least one people who is both not automatic and not sane, then Ian is courageous.
It can be concluded that Glenn is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane or Lombard is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Rick is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane.
If there is someone who is not sane, then Ian is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Glenn is not comprehensive and Glenn is not relevant once knowing that Ian is not sufficient. | Rick is automatic. | neutral |
Silvia is relevant.
Silvia is sane.
Ian is not courageous.
Lombard is not relevant.
Silvia is comprehensive.
Lombard is courageous.
Ian is automatic.
Glenn is relevant.
Silvia is not automatic.
Lombard is not sufficient.
Ian is comprehensive.
Ian is not sufficient.If someone is automatic, then he is both not courageous and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Roswell is comprehensive and Ian is not sufficient.
If Lombard is courageous, then Roswell is sufficient, and vice versa.
Someone who is not sufficient is always both sane and not courageous.
If there is at least one people who is not automatic or sufficient, then Roswell is comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Glenn is not comprehensive and Roswell is relevant.
If someone is both not sane and relevant, then he is not sufficient.
If there is at least one people who is both not automatic and not sane, then Ian is courageous.
It can be concluded that Glenn is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane or Lombard is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Rick is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane.
If there is someone who is not sane, then Ian is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Glenn is not comprehensive and Glenn is not relevant once knowing that Ian is not sufficient. | Roswell is not relevant. | neutral |
Silvia is relevant.
Silvia is sane.
Ian is not courageous.
Lombard is not relevant.
Silvia is comprehensive.
Lombard is courageous.
Ian is automatic.
Glenn is relevant.
Silvia is not automatic.
Lombard is not sufficient.
Ian is comprehensive.
Ian is not sufficient.If someone is automatic, then he is both not courageous and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Roswell is comprehensive and Ian is not sufficient.
If Lombard is courageous, then Roswell is sufficient, and vice versa.
Someone who is not sufficient is always both sane and not courageous.
If there is at least one people who is not automatic or sufficient, then Roswell is comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Glenn is not comprehensive and Roswell is relevant.
If someone is both not sane and relevant, then he is not sufficient.
If there is at least one people who is both not automatic and not sane, then Ian is courageous.
It can be concluded that Glenn is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane or Lombard is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Rick is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane.
If there is someone who is not sane, then Ian is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Glenn is not comprehensive and Glenn is not relevant once knowing that Ian is not sufficient. | Ian is courageous. | self_contradiction |
Silvia is relevant.
Silvia is sane.
Ian is not courageous.
Lombard is not relevant.
Silvia is comprehensive.
Lombard is courageous.
Ian is automatic.
Glenn is relevant.
Silvia is not automatic.
Lombard is not sufficient.
Ian is comprehensive.
Ian is not sufficient.If someone is automatic, then he is both not courageous and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Roswell is comprehensive and Ian is not sufficient.
If Lombard is courageous, then Roswell is sufficient, and vice versa.
Someone who is not sufficient is always both sane and not courageous.
If there is at least one people who is not automatic or sufficient, then Roswell is comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Glenn is not comprehensive and Roswell is relevant.
If someone is both not sane and relevant, then he is not sufficient.
If there is at least one people who is both not automatic and not sane, then Ian is courageous.
It can be concluded that Glenn is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane or Lombard is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Rick is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane.
If there is someone who is not sane, then Ian is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Glenn is not comprehensive and Glenn is not relevant once knowing that Ian is not sufficient. | Glenn is not comprehensive. | entailment |
Silvia is relevant.
Silvia is sane.
Ian is not courageous.
Lombard is not relevant.
Silvia is comprehensive.
Lombard is courageous.
Ian is automatic.
Glenn is relevant.
Silvia is not automatic.
Lombard is not sufficient.
Ian is comprehensive.
Ian is not sufficient.If someone is automatic, then he is both not courageous and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Roswell is comprehensive and Ian is not sufficient.
If Lombard is courageous, then Roswell is sufficient, and vice versa.
Someone who is not sufficient is always both sane and not courageous.
If there is at least one people who is not automatic or sufficient, then Roswell is comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Glenn is not comprehensive and Roswell is relevant.
If someone is both not sane and relevant, then he is not sufficient.
If there is at least one people who is both not automatic and not sane, then Ian is courageous.
It can be concluded that Glenn is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane or Lombard is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Rick is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane.
If there is someone who is not sane, then Ian is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Glenn is not comprehensive and Glenn is not relevant once knowing that Ian is not sufficient. | Rick is sufficient. | neutral |
Silvia is relevant.
Silvia is sane.
Ian is not courageous.
Lombard is not relevant.
Silvia is comprehensive.
Lombard is courageous.
Ian is automatic.
Glenn is relevant.
Silvia is not automatic.
Lombard is not sufficient.
Ian is comprehensive.
Ian is not sufficient.If someone is automatic, then he is both not courageous and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Roswell is comprehensive and Ian is not sufficient.
If Lombard is courageous, then Roswell is sufficient, and vice versa.
Someone who is not sufficient is always both sane and not courageous.
If there is at least one people who is not automatic or sufficient, then Roswell is comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Glenn is not comprehensive and Roswell is relevant.
If someone is both not sane and relevant, then he is not sufficient.
If there is at least one people who is both not automatic and not sane, then Ian is courageous.
It can be concluded that Glenn is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane or Lombard is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Rick is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane.
If there is someone who is not sane, then Ian is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Glenn is not comprehensive and Glenn is not relevant once knowing that Ian is not sufficient. | Lombard is not courageous. | self_contradiction |
Silvia is relevant.
Silvia is sane.
Ian is not courageous.
Lombard is not relevant.
Silvia is comprehensive.
Lombard is courageous.
Ian is automatic.
Glenn is relevant.
Silvia is not automatic.
Lombard is not sufficient.
Ian is comprehensive.
Ian is not sufficient.If someone is automatic, then he is both not courageous and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Roswell is comprehensive and Ian is not sufficient.
If Lombard is courageous, then Roswell is sufficient, and vice versa.
Someone who is not sufficient is always both sane and not courageous.
If there is at least one people who is not automatic or sufficient, then Roswell is comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Glenn is not comprehensive and Roswell is relevant.
If someone is both not sane and relevant, then he is not sufficient.
If there is at least one people who is both not automatic and not sane, then Ian is courageous.
It can be concluded that Glenn is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane or Lombard is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Rick is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane.
If there is someone who is not sane, then Ian is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Glenn is not comprehensive and Glenn is not relevant once knowing that Ian is not sufficient. | Silvia is courageous. | neutral |
Silvia is relevant.
Silvia is sane.
Ian is not courageous.
Lombard is not relevant.
Silvia is comprehensive.
Lombard is courageous.
Ian is automatic.
Glenn is relevant.
Silvia is not automatic.
Lombard is not sufficient.
Ian is comprehensive.
Ian is not sufficient.If someone is automatic, then he is both not courageous and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Roswell is comprehensive and Ian is not sufficient.
If Lombard is courageous, then Roswell is sufficient, and vice versa.
Someone who is not sufficient is always both sane and not courageous.
If there is at least one people who is not automatic or sufficient, then Roswell is comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Glenn is not comprehensive and Roswell is relevant.
If someone is both not sane and relevant, then he is not sufficient.
If there is at least one people who is both not automatic and not sane, then Ian is courageous.
It can be concluded that Glenn is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane or Lombard is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Rick is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane.
If there is someone who is not sane, then Ian is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Glenn is not comprehensive and Glenn is not relevant once knowing that Ian is not sufficient. | Silvia is not comprehensive. | contradiction |
Silvia is relevant.
Silvia is sane.
Ian is not courageous.
Lombard is not relevant.
Silvia is comprehensive.
Lombard is courageous.
Ian is automatic.
Glenn is relevant.
Silvia is not automatic.
Lombard is not sufficient.
Ian is comprehensive.
Ian is not sufficient.If someone is automatic, then he is both not courageous and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Roswell is comprehensive and Ian is not sufficient.
If Lombard is courageous, then Roswell is sufficient, and vice versa.
Someone who is not sufficient is always both sane and not courageous.
If there is at least one people who is not automatic or sufficient, then Roswell is comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Glenn is not comprehensive and Roswell is relevant.
If someone is both not sane and relevant, then he is not sufficient.
If there is at least one people who is both not automatic and not sane, then Ian is courageous.
It can be concluded that Glenn is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane or Lombard is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Rick is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane.
If there is someone who is not sane, then Ian is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Glenn is not comprehensive and Glenn is not relevant once knowing that Ian is not sufficient. | Ian is not sane. | contradiction |
Silvia is relevant.
Silvia is sane.
Ian is not courageous.
Lombard is not relevant.
Silvia is comprehensive.
Lombard is courageous.
Ian is automatic.
Glenn is relevant.
Silvia is not automatic.
Lombard is not sufficient.
Ian is comprehensive.
Ian is not sufficient.If someone is automatic, then he is both not courageous and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Roswell is comprehensive and Ian is not sufficient.
If Lombard is courageous, then Roswell is sufficient, and vice versa.
Someone who is not sufficient is always both sane and not courageous.
If there is at least one people who is not automatic or sufficient, then Roswell is comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Glenn is not comprehensive and Roswell is relevant.
If someone is both not sane and relevant, then he is not sufficient.
If there is at least one people who is both not automatic and not sane, then Ian is courageous.
It can be concluded that Glenn is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane or Lombard is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Rick is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane.
If there is someone who is not sane, then Ian is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Glenn is not comprehensive and Glenn is not relevant once knowing that Ian is not sufficient. | Lombard is courageous. | self_contradiction |
Silvia is relevant.
Silvia is sane.
Ian is not courageous.
Lombard is not relevant.
Silvia is comprehensive.
Lombard is courageous.
Ian is automatic.
Glenn is relevant.
Silvia is not automatic.
Lombard is not sufficient.
Ian is comprehensive.
Ian is not sufficient.If someone is automatic, then he is both not courageous and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Roswell is comprehensive and Ian is not sufficient.
If Lombard is courageous, then Roswell is sufficient, and vice versa.
Someone who is not sufficient is always both sane and not courageous.
If there is at least one people who is not automatic or sufficient, then Roswell is comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Glenn is not comprehensive and Roswell is relevant.
If someone is both not sane and relevant, then he is not sufficient.
If there is at least one people who is both not automatic and not sane, then Ian is courageous.
It can be concluded that Glenn is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane or Lombard is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Rick is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane.
If there is someone who is not sane, then Ian is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Glenn is not comprehensive and Glenn is not relevant once knowing that Ian is not sufficient. | Roswell is not comprehensive. | contradiction |
Silvia is relevant.
Silvia is sane.
Ian is not courageous.
Lombard is not relevant.
Silvia is comprehensive.
Lombard is courageous.
Ian is automatic.
Glenn is relevant.
Silvia is not automatic.
Lombard is not sufficient.
Ian is comprehensive.
Ian is not sufficient.If someone is automatic, then he is both not courageous and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Roswell is comprehensive and Ian is not sufficient.
If Lombard is courageous, then Roswell is sufficient, and vice versa.
Someone who is not sufficient is always both sane and not courageous.
If there is at least one people who is not automatic or sufficient, then Roswell is comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Glenn is not comprehensive and Roswell is relevant.
If someone is both not sane and relevant, then he is not sufficient.
If there is at least one people who is both not automatic and not sane, then Ian is courageous.
It can be concluded that Glenn is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane or Lombard is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Rick is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane.
If there is someone who is not sane, then Ian is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Glenn is not comprehensive and Glenn is not relevant once knowing that Ian is not sufficient. | Silvia is automatic. | contradiction |
Silvia is relevant.
Silvia is sane.
Ian is not courageous.
Lombard is not relevant.
Silvia is comprehensive.
Lombard is courageous.
Ian is automatic.
Glenn is relevant.
Silvia is not automatic.
Lombard is not sufficient.
Ian is comprehensive.
Ian is not sufficient.If someone is automatic, then he is both not courageous and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Roswell is comprehensive and Ian is not sufficient.
If Lombard is courageous, then Roswell is sufficient, and vice versa.
Someone who is not sufficient is always both sane and not courageous.
If there is at least one people who is not automatic or sufficient, then Roswell is comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Glenn is not comprehensive and Roswell is relevant.
If someone is both not sane and relevant, then he is not sufficient.
If there is at least one people who is both not automatic and not sane, then Ian is courageous.
It can be concluded that Glenn is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane or Lombard is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Rick is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane.
If there is someone who is not sane, then Ian is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Glenn is not comprehensive and Glenn is not relevant once knowing that Ian is not sufficient. | Ian is not courageous. | self_contradiction |
Silvia is relevant.
Silvia is sane.
Ian is not courageous.
Lombard is not relevant.
Silvia is comprehensive.
Lombard is courageous.
Ian is automatic.
Glenn is relevant.
Silvia is not automatic.
Lombard is not sufficient.
Ian is comprehensive.
Ian is not sufficient.If someone is automatic, then he is both not courageous and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Roswell is comprehensive and Ian is not sufficient.
If Lombard is courageous, then Roswell is sufficient, and vice versa.
Someone who is not sufficient is always both sane and not courageous.
If there is at least one people who is not automatic or sufficient, then Roswell is comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Glenn is not comprehensive and Roswell is relevant.
If someone is both not sane and relevant, then he is not sufficient.
If there is at least one people who is both not automatic and not sane, then Ian is courageous.
It can be concluded that Glenn is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane or Lombard is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Rick is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane.
If there is someone who is not sane, then Ian is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Glenn is not comprehensive and Glenn is not relevant once knowing that Ian is not sufficient. | Rick is sane. | neutral |
Silvia is relevant.
Silvia is sane.
Ian is not courageous.
Lombard is not relevant.
Silvia is comprehensive.
Lombard is courageous.
Ian is automatic.
Glenn is relevant.
Silvia is not automatic.
Lombard is not sufficient.
Ian is comprehensive.
Ian is not sufficient.If someone is automatic, then he is both not courageous and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Roswell is comprehensive and Ian is not sufficient.
If Lombard is courageous, then Roswell is sufficient, and vice versa.
Someone who is not sufficient is always both sane and not courageous.
If there is at least one people who is not automatic or sufficient, then Roswell is comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Glenn is not comprehensive and Roswell is relevant.
If someone is both not sane and relevant, then he is not sufficient.
If there is at least one people who is both not automatic and not sane, then Ian is courageous.
It can be concluded that Glenn is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane or Lombard is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Rick is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane.
If there is someone who is not sane, then Ian is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Glenn is not comprehensive and Glenn is not relevant once knowing that Ian is not sufficient. | Silvia is not automatic. | entailment |
Silvia is relevant.
Silvia is sane.
Ian is not courageous.
Lombard is not relevant.
Silvia is comprehensive.
Lombard is courageous.
Ian is automatic.
Glenn is relevant.
Silvia is not automatic.
Lombard is not sufficient.
Ian is comprehensive.
Ian is not sufficient.If someone is automatic, then he is both not courageous and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Roswell is comprehensive and Ian is not sufficient.
If Lombard is courageous, then Roswell is sufficient, and vice versa.
Someone who is not sufficient is always both sane and not courageous.
If there is at least one people who is not automatic or sufficient, then Roswell is comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Glenn is not comprehensive and Roswell is relevant.
If someone is both not sane and relevant, then he is not sufficient.
If there is at least one people who is both not automatic and not sane, then Ian is courageous.
It can be concluded that Glenn is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane or Lombard is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Rick is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane.
If there is someone who is not sane, then Ian is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Glenn is not comprehensive and Glenn is not relevant once knowing that Ian is not sufficient. | Glenn is comprehensive. | contradiction |
Silvia is relevant.
Silvia is sane.
Ian is not courageous.
Lombard is not relevant.
Silvia is comprehensive.
Lombard is courageous.
Ian is automatic.
Glenn is relevant.
Silvia is not automatic.
Lombard is not sufficient.
Ian is comprehensive.
Ian is not sufficient.If someone is automatic, then he is both not courageous and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Roswell is comprehensive and Ian is not sufficient.
If Lombard is courageous, then Roswell is sufficient, and vice versa.
Someone who is not sufficient is always both sane and not courageous.
If there is at least one people who is not automatic or sufficient, then Roswell is comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Glenn is not comprehensive and Roswell is relevant.
If someone is both not sane and relevant, then he is not sufficient.
If there is at least one people who is both not automatic and not sane, then Ian is courageous.
It can be concluded that Glenn is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane or Lombard is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Rick is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane.
If there is someone who is not sane, then Ian is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Glenn is not comprehensive and Glenn is not relevant once knowing that Ian is not sufficient. | Glenn is not relevant. | self_contradiction |
Silvia is relevant.
Silvia is sane.
Ian is not courageous.
Lombard is not relevant.
Silvia is comprehensive.
Lombard is courageous.
Ian is automatic.
Glenn is relevant.
Silvia is not automatic.
Lombard is not sufficient.
Ian is comprehensive.
Ian is not sufficient.If someone is automatic, then he is both not courageous and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Roswell is comprehensive and Ian is not sufficient.
If Lombard is courageous, then Roswell is sufficient, and vice versa.
Someone who is not sufficient is always both sane and not courageous.
If there is at least one people who is not automatic or sufficient, then Roswell is comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Glenn is not comprehensive and Roswell is relevant.
If someone is both not sane and relevant, then he is not sufficient.
If there is at least one people who is both not automatic and not sane, then Ian is courageous.
It can be concluded that Glenn is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane or Lombard is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Rick is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane.
If there is someone who is not sane, then Ian is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Glenn is not comprehensive and Glenn is not relevant once knowing that Ian is not sufficient. | Roswell is sufficient. | entailment |
Silvia is relevant.
Silvia is sane.
Ian is not courageous.
Lombard is not relevant.
Silvia is comprehensive.
Lombard is courageous.
Ian is automatic.
Glenn is relevant.
Silvia is not automatic.
Lombard is not sufficient.
Ian is comprehensive.
Ian is not sufficient.If someone is automatic, then he is both not courageous and comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Roswell is comprehensive and Ian is not sufficient.
If Lombard is courageous, then Roswell is sufficient, and vice versa.
Someone who is not sufficient is always both sane and not courageous.
If there is at least one people who is not automatic or sufficient, then Roswell is comprehensive.
If there is at least one people who is not sane, then Glenn is not comprehensive and Roswell is relevant.
If someone is both not sane and relevant, then he is not sufficient.
If there is at least one people who is both not automatic and not sane, then Ian is courageous.
It can be concluded that Glenn is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane or Lombard is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Rick is comprehensive once knowing that Glenn is sane.
If there is someone who is not sane, then Ian is not automatic.
It can be concluded that Glenn is not comprehensive and Glenn is not relevant once knowing that Ian is not sufficient. | Ian is sane. | entailment |
Hardy is dead.
Hardy is sweet.
Gale is not panicky.
Dave is not sweet.
Angelique is not tall.
Lester is dead.
Bud is elegant.
Roswell is not dead.
Roswell is tall.
Bud is sweet.
Roswell is not elegant.
Gale is elegant.Someone who is both not elegant and not tall is always crooked.
Someone being both not tall and panicky is equivalent to being elegant and crooked.
It can be concluded that Bud is elegant once knowing that Angelique is tall.
If Gale is not dead or Roswell is not tall, then Dave is not panicky.
Someone who is panicky or sweet is always not crooked and elegant.
If Lester is dead, then Roswell is not crooked and Lester is not elegant, and vice versa.
Gale being panicky or Dave being not tall implies that Bud is not sweet.
if there is at least one people who is crooked and not panicky, then Angelique is not elegant and Lester is not sweet.
All not panicky people are crooked.
If Roswell is elegant, then Angelique is not panicky.
If Lester is dead, then Hardy is not crooked, and vice versa.
Someone being both not sweet and tall is equivalent to being not elegant and not panicky. | Bud is not crooked. | entailment |
Hardy is dead.
Hardy is sweet.
Gale is not panicky.
Dave is not sweet.
Angelique is not tall.
Lester is dead.
Bud is elegant.
Roswell is not dead.
Roswell is tall.
Bud is sweet.
Roswell is not elegant.
Gale is elegant.Someone who is both not elegant and not tall is always crooked.
Someone being both not tall and panicky is equivalent to being elegant and crooked.
It can be concluded that Bud is elegant once knowing that Angelique is tall.
If Gale is not dead or Roswell is not tall, then Dave is not panicky.
Someone who is panicky or sweet is always not crooked and elegant.
If Lester is dead, then Roswell is not crooked and Lester is not elegant, and vice versa.
Gale being panicky or Dave being not tall implies that Bud is not sweet.
if there is at least one people who is crooked and not panicky, then Angelique is not elegant and Lester is not sweet.
All not panicky people are crooked.
If Roswell is elegant, then Angelique is not panicky.
If Lester is dead, then Hardy is not crooked, and vice versa.
Someone being both not sweet and tall is equivalent to being not elegant and not panicky. | Hardy is not crooked. | entailment |
Hardy is dead.
Hardy is sweet.
Gale is not panicky.
Dave is not sweet.
Angelique is not tall.
Lester is dead.
Bud is elegant.
Roswell is not dead.
Roswell is tall.
Bud is sweet.
Roswell is not elegant.
Gale is elegant.Someone who is both not elegant and not tall is always crooked.
Someone being both not tall and panicky is equivalent to being elegant and crooked.
It can be concluded that Bud is elegant once knowing that Angelique is tall.
If Gale is not dead or Roswell is not tall, then Dave is not panicky.
Someone who is panicky or sweet is always not crooked and elegant.
If Lester is dead, then Roswell is not crooked and Lester is not elegant, and vice versa.
Gale being panicky or Dave being not tall implies that Bud is not sweet.
if there is at least one people who is crooked and not panicky, then Angelique is not elegant and Lester is not sweet.
All not panicky people are crooked.
If Roswell is elegant, then Angelique is not panicky.
If Lester is dead, then Hardy is not crooked, and vice versa.
Someone being both not sweet and tall is equivalent to being not elegant and not panicky. | Gale is not crooked. | self_contradiction |
Hardy is dead.
Hardy is sweet.
Gale is not panicky.
Dave is not sweet.
Angelique is not tall.
Lester is dead.
Bud is elegant.
Roswell is not dead.
Roswell is tall.
Bud is sweet.
Roswell is not elegant.
Gale is elegant.Someone who is both not elegant and not tall is always crooked.
Someone being both not tall and panicky is equivalent to being elegant and crooked.
It can be concluded that Bud is elegant once knowing that Angelique is tall.
If Gale is not dead or Roswell is not tall, then Dave is not panicky.
Someone who is panicky or sweet is always not crooked and elegant.
If Lester is dead, then Roswell is not crooked and Lester is not elegant, and vice versa.
Gale being panicky or Dave being not tall implies that Bud is not sweet.
if there is at least one people who is crooked and not panicky, then Angelique is not elegant and Lester is not sweet.
All not panicky people are crooked.
If Roswell is elegant, then Angelique is not panicky.
If Lester is dead, then Hardy is not crooked, and vice versa.
Someone being both not sweet and tall is equivalent to being not elegant and not panicky. | Angelique is not sweet. | neutral |
Hardy is dead.
Hardy is sweet.
Gale is not panicky.
Dave is not sweet.
Angelique is not tall.
Lester is dead.
Bud is elegant.
Roswell is not dead.
Roswell is tall.
Bud is sweet.
Roswell is not elegant.
Gale is elegant.Someone who is both not elegant and not tall is always crooked.
Someone being both not tall and panicky is equivalent to being elegant and crooked.
It can be concluded that Bud is elegant once knowing that Angelique is tall.
If Gale is not dead or Roswell is not tall, then Dave is not panicky.
Someone who is panicky or sweet is always not crooked and elegant.
If Lester is dead, then Roswell is not crooked and Lester is not elegant, and vice versa.
Gale being panicky or Dave being not tall implies that Bud is not sweet.
if there is at least one people who is crooked and not panicky, then Angelique is not elegant and Lester is not sweet.
All not panicky people are crooked.
If Roswell is elegant, then Angelique is not panicky.
If Lester is dead, then Hardy is not crooked, and vice versa.
Someone being both not sweet and tall is equivalent to being not elegant and not panicky. | Roswell is tall. | entailment |
Hardy is dead.
Hardy is sweet.
Gale is not panicky.
Dave is not sweet.
Angelique is not tall.
Lester is dead.
Bud is elegant.
Roswell is not dead.
Roswell is tall.
Bud is sweet.
Roswell is not elegant.
Gale is elegant.Someone who is both not elegant and not tall is always crooked.
Someone being both not tall and panicky is equivalent to being elegant and crooked.
It can be concluded that Bud is elegant once knowing that Angelique is tall.
If Gale is not dead or Roswell is not tall, then Dave is not panicky.
Someone who is panicky or sweet is always not crooked and elegant.
If Lester is dead, then Roswell is not crooked and Lester is not elegant, and vice versa.
Gale being panicky or Dave being not tall implies that Bud is not sweet.
if there is at least one people who is crooked and not panicky, then Angelique is not elegant and Lester is not sweet.
All not panicky people are crooked.
If Roswell is elegant, then Angelique is not panicky.
If Lester is dead, then Hardy is not crooked, and vice versa.
Someone being both not sweet and tall is equivalent to being not elegant and not panicky. | Roswell is crooked. | contradiction |
Hardy is dead.
Hardy is sweet.
Gale is not panicky.
Dave is not sweet.
Angelique is not tall.
Lester is dead.
Bud is elegant.
Roswell is not dead.
Roswell is tall.
Bud is sweet.
Roswell is not elegant.
Gale is elegant.Someone who is both not elegant and not tall is always crooked.
Someone being both not tall and panicky is equivalent to being elegant and crooked.
It can be concluded that Bud is elegant once knowing that Angelique is tall.
If Gale is not dead or Roswell is not tall, then Dave is not panicky.
Someone who is panicky or sweet is always not crooked and elegant.
If Lester is dead, then Roswell is not crooked and Lester is not elegant, and vice versa.
Gale being panicky or Dave being not tall implies that Bud is not sweet.
if there is at least one people who is crooked and not panicky, then Angelique is not elegant and Lester is not sweet.
All not panicky people are crooked.
If Roswell is elegant, then Angelique is not panicky.
If Lester is dead, then Hardy is not crooked, and vice versa.
Someone being both not sweet and tall is equivalent to being not elegant and not panicky. | Bud is not elegant. | contradiction |
Hardy is dead.
Hardy is sweet.
Gale is not panicky.
Dave is not sweet.
Angelique is not tall.
Lester is dead.
Bud is elegant.
Roswell is not dead.
Roswell is tall.
Bud is sweet.
Roswell is not elegant.
Gale is elegant.Someone who is both not elegant and not tall is always crooked.
Someone being both not tall and panicky is equivalent to being elegant and crooked.
It can be concluded that Bud is elegant once knowing that Angelique is tall.
If Gale is not dead or Roswell is not tall, then Dave is not panicky.
Someone who is panicky or sweet is always not crooked and elegant.
If Lester is dead, then Roswell is not crooked and Lester is not elegant, and vice versa.
Gale being panicky or Dave being not tall implies that Bud is not sweet.
if there is at least one people who is crooked and not panicky, then Angelique is not elegant and Lester is not sweet.
All not panicky people are crooked.
If Roswell is elegant, then Angelique is not panicky.
If Lester is dead, then Hardy is not crooked, and vice versa.
Someone being both not sweet and tall is equivalent to being not elegant and not panicky. | Roswell is panicky. | neutral |
Hardy is dead.
Hardy is sweet.
Gale is not panicky.
Dave is not sweet.
Angelique is not tall.
Lester is dead.
Bud is elegant.
Roswell is not dead.
Roswell is tall.
Bud is sweet.
Roswell is not elegant.
Gale is elegant.Someone who is both not elegant and not tall is always crooked.
Someone being both not tall and panicky is equivalent to being elegant and crooked.
It can be concluded that Bud is elegant once knowing that Angelique is tall.
If Gale is not dead or Roswell is not tall, then Dave is not panicky.
Someone who is panicky or sweet is always not crooked and elegant.
If Lester is dead, then Roswell is not crooked and Lester is not elegant, and vice versa.
Gale being panicky or Dave being not tall implies that Bud is not sweet.
if there is at least one people who is crooked and not panicky, then Angelique is not elegant and Lester is not sweet.
All not panicky people are crooked.
If Roswell is elegant, then Angelique is not panicky.
If Lester is dead, then Hardy is not crooked, and vice versa.
Someone being both not sweet and tall is equivalent to being not elegant and not panicky. | Angelique is not elegant. | neutral |
Hardy is dead.
Hardy is sweet.
Gale is not panicky.
Dave is not sweet.
Angelique is not tall.
Lester is dead.
Bud is elegant.
Roswell is not dead.
Roswell is tall.
Bud is sweet.
Roswell is not elegant.
Gale is elegant.Someone who is both not elegant and not tall is always crooked.
Someone being both not tall and panicky is equivalent to being elegant and crooked.
It can be concluded that Bud is elegant once knowing that Angelique is tall.
If Gale is not dead or Roswell is not tall, then Dave is not panicky.
Someone who is panicky or sweet is always not crooked and elegant.
If Lester is dead, then Roswell is not crooked and Lester is not elegant, and vice versa.
Gale being panicky or Dave being not tall implies that Bud is not sweet.
if there is at least one people who is crooked and not panicky, then Angelique is not elegant and Lester is not sweet.
All not panicky people are crooked.
If Roswell is elegant, then Angelique is not panicky.
If Lester is dead, then Hardy is not crooked, and vice versa.
Someone being both not sweet and tall is equivalent to being not elegant and not panicky. | Angelique is tall. | contradiction |
Hardy is dead.
Hardy is sweet.
Gale is not panicky.
Dave is not sweet.
Angelique is not tall.
Lester is dead.
Bud is elegant.
Roswell is not dead.
Roswell is tall.
Bud is sweet.
Roswell is not elegant.
Gale is elegant.Someone who is both not elegant and not tall is always crooked.
Someone being both not tall and panicky is equivalent to being elegant and crooked.
It can be concluded that Bud is elegant once knowing that Angelique is tall.
If Gale is not dead or Roswell is not tall, then Dave is not panicky.
Someone who is panicky or sweet is always not crooked and elegant.
If Lester is dead, then Roswell is not crooked and Lester is not elegant, and vice versa.
Gale being panicky or Dave being not tall implies that Bud is not sweet.
if there is at least one people who is crooked and not panicky, then Angelique is not elegant and Lester is not sweet.
All not panicky people are crooked.
If Roswell is elegant, then Angelique is not panicky.
If Lester is dead, then Hardy is not crooked, and vice versa.
Someone being both not sweet and tall is equivalent to being not elegant and not panicky. | Lester is not sweet. | neutral |
Hardy is dead.
Hardy is sweet.
Gale is not panicky.
Dave is not sweet.
Angelique is not tall.
Lester is dead.
Bud is elegant.
Roswell is not dead.
Roswell is tall.
Bud is sweet.
Roswell is not elegant.
Gale is elegant.Someone who is both not elegant and not tall is always crooked.
Someone being both not tall and panicky is equivalent to being elegant and crooked.
It can be concluded that Bud is elegant once knowing that Angelique is tall.
If Gale is not dead or Roswell is not tall, then Dave is not panicky.
Someone who is panicky or sweet is always not crooked and elegant.
If Lester is dead, then Roswell is not crooked and Lester is not elegant, and vice versa.
Gale being panicky or Dave being not tall implies that Bud is not sweet.
if there is at least one people who is crooked and not panicky, then Angelique is not elegant and Lester is not sweet.
All not panicky people are crooked.
If Roswell is elegant, then Angelique is not panicky.
If Lester is dead, then Hardy is not crooked, and vice versa.
Someone being both not sweet and tall is equivalent to being not elegant and not panicky. | Gale is not panicky. | self_contradiction |
Hardy is dead.
Hardy is sweet.
Gale is not panicky.
Dave is not sweet.
Angelique is not tall.
Lester is dead.
Bud is elegant.
Roswell is not dead.
Roswell is tall.
Bud is sweet.
Roswell is not elegant.
Gale is elegant.Someone who is both not elegant and not tall is always crooked.
Someone being both not tall and panicky is equivalent to being elegant and crooked.
It can be concluded that Bud is elegant once knowing that Angelique is tall.
If Gale is not dead or Roswell is not tall, then Dave is not panicky.
Someone who is panicky or sweet is always not crooked and elegant.
If Lester is dead, then Roswell is not crooked and Lester is not elegant, and vice versa.
Gale being panicky or Dave being not tall implies that Bud is not sweet.
if there is at least one people who is crooked and not panicky, then Angelique is not elegant and Lester is not sweet.
All not panicky people are crooked.
If Roswell is elegant, then Angelique is not panicky.
If Lester is dead, then Hardy is not crooked, and vice versa.
Someone being both not sweet and tall is equivalent to being not elegant and not panicky. | Hardy is crooked. | contradiction |
Hardy is dead.
Hardy is sweet.
Gale is not panicky.
Dave is not sweet.
Angelique is not tall.
Lester is dead.
Bud is elegant.
Roswell is not dead.
Roswell is tall.
Bud is sweet.
Roswell is not elegant.
Gale is elegant.Someone who is both not elegant and not tall is always crooked.
Someone being both not tall and panicky is equivalent to being elegant and crooked.
It can be concluded that Bud is elegant once knowing that Angelique is tall.
If Gale is not dead or Roswell is not tall, then Dave is not panicky.
Someone who is panicky or sweet is always not crooked and elegant.
If Lester is dead, then Roswell is not crooked and Lester is not elegant, and vice versa.
Gale being panicky or Dave being not tall implies that Bud is not sweet.
if there is at least one people who is crooked and not panicky, then Angelique is not elegant and Lester is not sweet.
All not panicky people are crooked.
If Roswell is elegant, then Angelique is not panicky.
If Lester is dead, then Hardy is not crooked, and vice versa.
Someone being both not sweet and tall is equivalent to being not elegant and not panicky. | Gale is panicky. | self_contradiction |
Hardy is dead.
Hardy is sweet.
Gale is not panicky.
Dave is not sweet.
Angelique is not tall.
Lester is dead.
Bud is elegant.
Roswell is not dead.
Roswell is tall.
Bud is sweet.
Roswell is not elegant.
Gale is elegant.Someone who is both not elegant and not tall is always crooked.
Someone being both not tall and panicky is equivalent to being elegant and crooked.
It can be concluded that Bud is elegant once knowing that Angelique is tall.
If Gale is not dead or Roswell is not tall, then Dave is not panicky.
Someone who is panicky or sweet is always not crooked and elegant.
If Lester is dead, then Roswell is not crooked and Lester is not elegant, and vice versa.
Gale being panicky or Dave being not tall implies that Bud is not sweet.
if there is at least one people who is crooked and not panicky, then Angelique is not elegant and Lester is not sweet.
All not panicky people are crooked.
If Roswell is elegant, then Angelique is not panicky.
If Lester is dead, then Hardy is not crooked, and vice versa.
Someone being both not sweet and tall is equivalent to being not elegant and not panicky. | Bud is not sweet. | self_contradiction |
Hardy is dead.
Hardy is sweet.
Gale is not panicky.
Dave is not sweet.
Angelique is not tall.
Lester is dead.
Bud is elegant.
Roswell is not dead.
Roswell is tall.
Bud is sweet.
Roswell is not elegant.
Gale is elegant.Someone who is both not elegant and not tall is always crooked.
Someone being both not tall and panicky is equivalent to being elegant and crooked.
It can be concluded that Bud is elegant once knowing that Angelique is tall.
If Gale is not dead or Roswell is not tall, then Dave is not panicky.
Someone who is panicky or sweet is always not crooked and elegant.
If Lester is dead, then Roswell is not crooked and Lester is not elegant, and vice versa.
Gale being panicky or Dave being not tall implies that Bud is not sweet.
if there is at least one people who is crooked and not panicky, then Angelique is not elegant and Lester is not sweet.
All not panicky people are crooked.
If Roswell is elegant, then Angelique is not panicky.
If Lester is dead, then Hardy is not crooked, and vice versa.
Someone being both not sweet and tall is equivalent to being not elegant and not panicky. | Bud is sweet. | self_contradiction |
Hardy is dead.
Hardy is sweet.
Gale is not panicky.
Dave is not sweet.
Angelique is not tall.
Lester is dead.
Bud is elegant.
Roswell is not dead.
Roswell is tall.
Bud is sweet.
Roswell is not elegant.
Gale is elegant.Someone who is both not elegant and not tall is always crooked.
Someone being both not tall and panicky is equivalent to being elegant and crooked.
It can be concluded that Bud is elegant once knowing that Angelique is tall.
If Gale is not dead or Roswell is not tall, then Dave is not panicky.
Someone who is panicky or sweet is always not crooked and elegant.
If Lester is dead, then Roswell is not crooked and Lester is not elegant, and vice versa.
Gale being panicky or Dave being not tall implies that Bud is not sweet.
if there is at least one people who is crooked and not panicky, then Angelique is not elegant and Lester is not sweet.
All not panicky people are crooked.
If Roswell is elegant, then Angelique is not panicky.
If Lester is dead, then Hardy is not crooked, and vice versa.
Someone being both not sweet and tall is equivalent to being not elegant and not panicky. | Lester is not elegant. | entailment |
Hardy is dead.
Hardy is sweet.
Gale is not panicky.
Dave is not sweet.
Angelique is not tall.
Lester is dead.
Bud is elegant.
Roswell is not dead.
Roswell is tall.
Bud is sweet.
Roswell is not elegant.
Gale is elegant.Someone who is both not elegant and not tall is always crooked.
Someone being both not tall and panicky is equivalent to being elegant and crooked.
It can be concluded that Bud is elegant once knowing that Angelique is tall.
If Gale is not dead or Roswell is not tall, then Dave is not panicky.
Someone who is panicky or sweet is always not crooked and elegant.
If Lester is dead, then Roswell is not crooked and Lester is not elegant, and vice versa.
Gale being panicky or Dave being not tall implies that Bud is not sweet.
if there is at least one people who is crooked and not panicky, then Angelique is not elegant and Lester is not sweet.
All not panicky people are crooked.
If Roswell is elegant, then Angelique is not panicky.
If Lester is dead, then Hardy is not crooked, and vice versa.
Someone being both not sweet and tall is equivalent to being not elegant and not panicky. | Angelique is not crooked. | neutral |
Hardy is dead.
Hardy is sweet.
Gale is not panicky.
Dave is not sweet.
Angelique is not tall.
Lester is dead.
Bud is elegant.
Roswell is not dead.
Roswell is tall.
Bud is sweet.
Roswell is not elegant.
Gale is elegant.Someone who is both not elegant and not tall is always crooked.
Someone being both not tall and panicky is equivalent to being elegant and crooked.
It can be concluded that Bud is elegant once knowing that Angelique is tall.
If Gale is not dead or Roswell is not tall, then Dave is not panicky.
Someone who is panicky or sweet is always not crooked and elegant.
If Lester is dead, then Roswell is not crooked and Lester is not elegant, and vice versa.
Gale being panicky or Dave being not tall implies that Bud is not sweet.
if there is at least one people who is crooked and not panicky, then Angelique is not elegant and Lester is not sweet.
All not panicky people are crooked.
If Roswell is elegant, then Angelique is not panicky.
If Lester is dead, then Hardy is not crooked, and vice versa.
Someone being both not sweet and tall is equivalent to being not elegant and not panicky. | Gale is not tall. | entailment |
Hardy is dead.
Hardy is sweet.
Gale is not panicky.
Dave is not sweet.
Angelique is not tall.
Lester is dead.
Bud is elegant.
Roswell is not dead.
Roswell is tall.
Bud is sweet.
Roswell is not elegant.
Gale is elegant.Someone who is both not elegant and not tall is always crooked.
Someone being both not tall and panicky is equivalent to being elegant and crooked.
It can be concluded that Bud is elegant once knowing that Angelique is tall.
If Gale is not dead or Roswell is not tall, then Dave is not panicky.
Someone who is panicky or sweet is always not crooked and elegant.
If Lester is dead, then Roswell is not crooked and Lester is not elegant, and vice versa.
Gale being panicky or Dave being not tall implies that Bud is not sweet.
if there is at least one people who is crooked and not panicky, then Angelique is not elegant and Lester is not sweet.
All not panicky people are crooked.
If Roswell is elegant, then Angelique is not panicky.
If Lester is dead, then Hardy is not crooked, and vice versa.
Someone being both not sweet and tall is equivalent to being not elegant and not panicky. | Hardy is not dead. | contradiction |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.