eyelang 1.3.8 → 1.4.0

package/examples/output/ideal-gas-law.pl

@@ -1,151 +1,3 @@
 pressure_Pa(cell1, 100000.0).
-why(
-  pressure_Pa(cell1, 100000.0),
-  proof(
-    goal(pressure_Pa(cell1, 100000.0)),
-    by(rule("ideal-gas-law.pl", clause(9))),
-    bindings([binding("Cell", cell1), binding("Pressure", 100000.0)]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(pressure(cell1, 100000.0)),
-        by(rule("ideal-gas-law.pl", clause(7))),
-        bindings([binding("Cell", cell1), binding("Pressure", 100000.0), binding("Moles", 1.0), binding("GasConstant", 8.0), binding("Temperature", 300.0), binding("Volume", 0.024), binding("NR", 8.0), binding("NRT", 2400.0)]),
-        uses([
-          proof(
-            goal(gas_cell(cell1, 1.0, 8.0, 300.0, 0.024)),
-            by(fact("ideal-gas-law.pl", clause(4)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(mul(1.0, 8.0, 8.0)),
-            by(builtin(mul, 3))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(mul(8.0, 300.0, 2400.0)),
-            by(builtin(mul, 3))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(div(2400.0, 0.024, 100000.0)),
-            by(builtin(div, 3))
-          )
-        ])
-      )
-    ])
-  )
-).
-
 status(cell1, near_atmospheric).
-why(
-  status(cell1, near_atmospheric),
-  proof(
-    goal(status(cell1, near_atmospheric)),
-    by(rule("ideal-gas-law.pl", clause(10))),
-    bindings([binding("Cell", cell1)]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(near_atmospheric(cell1)),
-        by(rule("ideal-gas-law.pl", clause(8))),
-        bindings([binding("Cell", cell1), binding("Pressure", 100000.0), binding("Low", 95000.0), binding("High", 105000.0)]),
-        uses([
-          proof(
-            goal(pressure(cell1, 100000.0)),
-            by(rule("ideal-gas-law.pl", clause(7))),
-            bindings([binding("Cell", cell1), binding("Pressure", 100000.0), binding("Moles", 1.0), binding("GasConstant", 8.0), binding("Temperature", 300.0), binding("Volume", 0.024), binding("NR", 8.0), binding("NRT", 2400.0)]),
-            uses([
-              proof(
-                goal(gas_cell(cell1, 1.0, 8.0, 300.0, 0.024)),
-                by(fact("ideal-gas-law.pl", clause(4)))
-              ),
-              proof(
-                goal(mul(1.0, 8.0, 8.0)),
-                by(builtin(mul, 3))
-              ),
-              proof(
-                goal(mul(8.0, 300.0, 2400.0)),
-                by(builtin(mul, 3))
-              ),
-              proof(
-                goal(div(2400.0, 0.024, 100000.0)),
-                by(builtin(div, 3))
-              )
-            ])
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(pressure_limit(cell1, low_Pa, 95000.0)),
-            by(fact("ideal-gas-law.pl", clause(5)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(pressure_limit(cell1, high_Pa, 105000.0)),
-            by(fact("ideal-gas-law.pl", clause(6)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(gt(100000.0, 95000.0)),
-            by(builtin(gt, 2))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(lt(100000.0, 105000.0)),
-            by(builtin(lt, 2))
-          )
-        ])
-      )
-    ])
-  )
-).
-
 reason(cell1, "pressure is inside the one-atmosphere tolerance band").
-why(
-  reason(cell1, "pressure is inside the one-atmosphere tolerance band"),
-  proof(
-    goal(reason(cell1, "pressure is inside the one-atmosphere tolerance band")),
-    by(rule("ideal-gas-law.pl", clause(11))),
-    bindings([binding("Cell", cell1)]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(near_atmospheric(cell1)),
-        by(rule("ideal-gas-law.pl", clause(8))),
-        bindings([binding("Cell", cell1), binding("Pressure", 100000.0), binding("Low", 95000.0), binding("High", 105000.0)]),
-        uses([
-          proof(
-            goal(pressure(cell1, 100000.0)),
-            by(rule("ideal-gas-law.pl", clause(7))),
-            bindings([binding("Cell", cell1), binding("Pressure", 100000.0), binding("Moles", 1.0), binding("GasConstant", 8.0), binding("Temperature", 300.0), binding("Volume", 0.024), binding("NR", 8.0), binding("NRT", 2400.0)]),
-            uses([
-              proof(
-                goal(gas_cell(cell1, 1.0, 8.0, 300.0, 0.024)),
-                by(fact("ideal-gas-law.pl", clause(4)))
-              ),
-              proof(
-                goal(mul(1.0, 8.0, 8.0)),
-                by(builtin(mul, 3))
-              ),
-              proof(
-                goal(mul(8.0, 300.0, 2400.0)),
-                by(builtin(mul, 3))
-              ),
-              proof(
-                goal(div(2400.0, 0.024, 100000.0)),
-                by(builtin(div, 3))
-              )
-            ])
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(pressure_limit(cell1, low_Pa, 95000.0)),
-            by(fact("ideal-gas-law.pl", clause(5)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(pressure_limit(cell1, high_Pa, 105000.0)),
-            by(fact("ideal-gas-law.pl", clause(6)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(gt(100000.0, 95000.0)),
-            by(builtin(gt, 2))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(lt(100000.0, 105000.0)),
-            by(builtin(lt, 2))
-          )
-        ])
-      )
-    ])
-  )
-).
-

package/examples/output/illegitimate-reasoning.pl

@@ -1,545 +1,15 @@
 fallacy(arg_affirming_consequent, affirming_consequent).
-why(
-  fallacy(arg_affirming_consequent, affirming_consequent),
-  proof(
-    goal(fallacy(arg_affirming_consequent, affirming_consequent)),
-    by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(28))),
-    bindings([binding("A", arg_affirming_consequent), binding("Antecedent", rain), binding("Consequent", street_wet)]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(argument(arg_affirming_consequent)),
-        by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(8)))
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(implication(arg_affirming_consequent, rain, street_wet)),
-        by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(9)))
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(observed(arg_affirming_consequent, street_wet)),
-        by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(10)))
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(concludes(arg_affirming_consequent, rain)),
-        by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(11)))
-      )
-    ])
-  )
-).
-
 fallacy(arg_denying_antecedent, denying_antecedent).
-why(
-  fallacy(arg_denying_antecedent, denying_antecedent),
-  proof(
-    goal(fallacy(arg_denying_antecedent, denying_antecedent)),
-    by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(29))),
-    bindings([binding("A", arg_denying_antecedent), binding("Antecedent", key_present), binding("Consequent", door_opens)]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(argument(arg_denying_antecedent)),
-        by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(12)))
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(implication(arg_denying_antecedent, key_present, door_opens)),
-        by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(13)))
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(observed(arg_denying_antecedent, neg(key_present))),
-        by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(14)))
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(concludes(arg_denying_antecedent, neg(door_opens))),
-        by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(15)))
-      )
-    ])
-  )
-).
-
 fallacy(arg_hasty_generalization, hasty_generalization).
-why(
-  fallacy(arg_hasty_generalization, hasty_generalization),
-  proof(
-    goal(fallacy(arg_hasty_generalization, hasty_generalization)),
-    by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(30))),
-    bindings([binding("A", arg_hasty_generalization), binding("N", 3), binding("Min", 30), binding("__anon0", crows), binding("__anon1", black)]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(argument(arg_hasty_generalization)),
-        by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(16)))
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(sample_size(arg_hasty_generalization, 3)),
-        by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(17)))
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(required_sample_size(arg_hasty_generalization, 30)),
-        by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(18)))
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(lt(3, 30)),
-        by(builtin(lt, 2))
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(concludes(arg_hasty_generalization, all(crows, black))),
-        by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(19)))
-      )
-    ])
-  )
-).
-
 fallacy(arg_false_dilemma, false_dilemma).
-why(
-  fallacy(arg_false_dilemma, false_dilemma),
-  proof(
-    goal(fallacy(arg_false_dilemma, false_dilemma)),
-    by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(31))),
-    bindings([binding("A", arg_false_dilemma), binding("__anon2", [approve_now, reject_forever]), binding("__anon3", revise_proposal), binding("__anon4", approve_now)]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(argument(arg_false_dilemma)),
-        by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(20)))
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(presented_alternatives(arg_false_dilemma, [approve_now, reject_forever])),
-        by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(21)))
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(omitted_alternative(arg_false_dilemma, revise_proposal)),
-        by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(22)))
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(concludes(arg_false_dilemma, approve_now)),
-        by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(23)))
-      )
-    ])
-  )
-).
-
 type(arg_affirming_consequent, illegitimate_reasoning).
-why(
-  type(arg_affirming_consequent, illegitimate_reasoning),
-  proof(
-    goal(type(arg_affirming_consequent, illegitimate_reasoning)),
-    by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(36))),
-    bindings([binding("A", arg_affirming_consequent), binding("__anon5", affirming_consequent)]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(fallacy(arg_affirming_consequent, affirming_consequent)),
-        by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(28))),
-        bindings([binding("A", arg_affirming_consequent), binding("Antecedent", rain), binding("Consequent", street_wet)]),
-        uses([
-          proof(
-            goal(argument(arg_affirming_consequent)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(8)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(implication(arg_affirming_consequent, rain, street_wet)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(9)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(observed(arg_affirming_consequent, street_wet)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(10)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(concludes(arg_affirming_consequent, rain)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(11)))
-          )
-        ])
-      )
-    ])
-  )
-).
-
 type(arg_denying_antecedent, illegitimate_reasoning).
-why(
-  type(arg_denying_antecedent, illegitimate_reasoning),
-  proof(
-    goal(type(arg_denying_antecedent, illegitimate_reasoning)),
-    by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(36))),
-    bindings([binding("A", arg_denying_antecedent), binding("__anon5", denying_antecedent)]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(fallacy(arg_denying_antecedent, denying_antecedent)),
-        by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(29))),
-        bindings([binding("A", arg_denying_antecedent), binding("Antecedent", key_present), binding("Consequent", door_opens)]),
-        uses([
-          proof(
-            goal(argument(arg_denying_antecedent)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(12)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(implication(arg_denying_antecedent, key_present, door_opens)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(13)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(observed(arg_denying_antecedent, neg(key_present))),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(14)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(concludes(arg_denying_antecedent, neg(door_opens))),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(15)))
-          )
-        ])
-      )
-    ])
-  )
-).
-
 type(arg_hasty_generalization, illegitimate_reasoning).
-why(
-  type(arg_hasty_generalization, illegitimate_reasoning),
-  proof(
-    goal(type(arg_hasty_generalization, illegitimate_reasoning)),
-    by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(36))),
-    bindings([binding("A", arg_hasty_generalization), binding("__anon5", hasty_generalization)]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(fallacy(arg_hasty_generalization, hasty_generalization)),
-        by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(30))),
-        bindings([binding("A", arg_hasty_generalization), binding("N", 3), binding("Min", 30), binding("__anon0", crows), binding("__anon1", black)]),
-        uses([
-          proof(
-            goal(argument(arg_hasty_generalization)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(16)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(sample_size(arg_hasty_generalization, 3)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(17)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(required_sample_size(arg_hasty_generalization, 30)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(18)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(lt(3, 30)),
-            by(builtin(lt, 2))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(concludes(arg_hasty_generalization, all(crows, black))),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(19)))
-          )
-        ])
-      )
-    ])
-  )
-).
-
 type(arg_false_dilemma, illegitimate_reasoning).
-why(
-  type(arg_false_dilemma, illegitimate_reasoning),
-  proof(
-    goal(type(arg_false_dilemma, illegitimate_reasoning)),
-    by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(36))),
-    bindings([binding("A", arg_false_dilemma), binding("__anon5", false_dilemma)]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(fallacy(arg_false_dilemma, false_dilemma)),
-        by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(31))),
-        bindings([binding("A", arg_false_dilemma), binding("__anon2", [approve_now, reject_forever]), binding("__anon3", revise_proposal), binding("__anon4", approve_now)]),
-        uses([
-          proof(
-            goal(argument(arg_false_dilemma)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(20)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(presented_alternatives(arg_false_dilemma, [approve_now, reject_forever])),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(21)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(omitted_alternative(arg_false_dilemma, revise_proposal)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(22)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(concludes(arg_false_dilemma, approve_now)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(23)))
-          )
-        ])
-      )
-    ])
-  )
-).
-
 conclusion(arg_affirming_consequent, rain).
-why(
-  conclusion(arg_affirming_consequent, rain),
-  proof(
-    goal(conclusion(arg_affirming_consequent, rain)),
-    by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(37))),
-    bindings([binding("A", arg_affirming_consequent), binding("C", rain), binding("__anon6", affirming_consequent)]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(fallacy(arg_affirming_consequent, affirming_consequent)),
-        by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(28))),
-        bindings([binding("A", arg_affirming_consequent), binding("Antecedent", rain), binding("Consequent", street_wet)]),
-        uses([
-          proof(
-            goal(argument(arg_affirming_consequent)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(8)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(implication(arg_affirming_consequent, rain, street_wet)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(9)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(observed(arg_affirming_consequent, street_wet)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(10)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(concludes(arg_affirming_consequent, rain)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(11)))
-          )
-        ])
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(concludes(arg_affirming_consequent, rain)),
-        by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(11)))
-      )
-    ])
-  )
-).
-
 conclusion(arg_denying_antecedent, neg(door_opens)).
-why(
-  conclusion(arg_denying_antecedent, neg(door_opens)),
-  proof(
-    goal(conclusion(arg_denying_antecedent, neg(door_opens))),
-    by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(37))),
-    bindings([binding("A", arg_denying_antecedent), binding("C", neg(door_opens)), binding("__anon6", denying_antecedent)]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(fallacy(arg_denying_antecedent, denying_antecedent)),
-        by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(29))),
-        bindings([binding("A", arg_denying_antecedent), binding("Antecedent", key_present), binding("Consequent", door_opens)]),
-        uses([
-          proof(
-            goal(argument(arg_denying_antecedent)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(12)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(implication(arg_denying_antecedent, key_present, door_opens)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(13)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(observed(arg_denying_antecedent, neg(key_present))),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(14)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(concludes(arg_denying_antecedent, neg(door_opens))),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(15)))
-          )
-        ])
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(concludes(arg_denying_antecedent, neg(door_opens))),
-        by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(15)))
-      )
-    ])
-  )
-).
-
 conclusion(arg_hasty_generalization, all(crows, black)).
-why(
-  conclusion(arg_hasty_generalization, all(crows, black)),
-  proof(
-    goal(conclusion(arg_hasty_generalization, all(crows, black))),
-    by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(37))),
-    bindings([binding("A", arg_hasty_generalization), binding("C", all(crows, black)), binding("__anon6", hasty_generalization)]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(fallacy(arg_hasty_generalization, hasty_generalization)),
-        by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(30))),
-        bindings([binding("A", arg_hasty_generalization), binding("N", 3), binding("Min", 30), binding("__anon0", crows), binding("__anon1", black)]),
-        uses([
-          proof(
-            goal(argument(arg_hasty_generalization)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(16)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(sample_size(arg_hasty_generalization, 3)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(17)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(required_sample_size(arg_hasty_generalization, 30)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(18)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(lt(3, 30)),
-            by(builtin(lt, 2))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(concludes(arg_hasty_generalization, all(crows, black))),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(19)))
-          )
-        ])
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(concludes(arg_hasty_generalization, all(crows, black))),
-        by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(19)))
-      )
-    ])
-  )
-).
-
 conclusion(arg_false_dilemma, approve_now).
-why(
-  conclusion(arg_false_dilemma, approve_now),
-  proof(
-    goal(conclusion(arg_false_dilemma, approve_now)),
-    by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(37))),
-    bindings([binding("A", arg_false_dilemma), binding("C", approve_now), binding("__anon6", false_dilemma)]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(fallacy(arg_false_dilemma, false_dilemma)),
-        by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(31))),
-        bindings([binding("A", arg_false_dilemma), binding("__anon2", [approve_now, reject_forever]), binding("__anon3", revise_proposal), binding("__anon4", approve_now)]),
-        uses([
-          proof(
-            goal(argument(arg_false_dilemma)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(20)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(presented_alternatives(arg_false_dilemma, [approve_now, reject_forever])),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(21)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(omitted_alternative(arg_false_dilemma, revise_proposal)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(22)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(concludes(arg_false_dilemma, approve_now)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(23)))
-          )
-        ])
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(concludes(arg_false_dilemma, approve_now)),
-        by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(23)))
-      )
-    ])
-  )
-).
-
 sampleSize(arg_hasty_generalization, 3).
-why(
-  sampleSize(arg_hasty_generalization, 3),
-  proof(
-    goal(sampleSize(arg_hasty_generalization, 3)),
-    by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(39))),
-    bindings([binding("A", arg_hasty_generalization), binding("N", 3)]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(fallacy(arg_hasty_generalization, hasty_generalization)),
-        by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(30))),
-        bindings([binding("A", arg_hasty_generalization), binding("N", 3), binding("Min", 30), binding("__anon0", crows), binding("__anon1", black)]),
-        uses([
-          proof(
-            goal(argument(arg_hasty_generalization)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(16)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(sample_size(arg_hasty_generalization, 3)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(17)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(required_sample_size(arg_hasty_generalization, 30)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(18)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(lt(3, 30)),
-            by(builtin(lt, 2))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(concludes(arg_hasty_generalization, all(crows, black))),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(19)))
-          )
-        ])
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(sample_size(arg_hasty_generalization, 3)),
-        by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(17)))
-      )
-    ])
-  )
-).
-
 requiredSampleSize(arg_hasty_generalization, 30).
-why(
-  requiredSampleSize(arg_hasty_generalization, 30),
-  proof(
-    goal(requiredSampleSize(arg_hasty_generalization, 30)),
-    by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(40))),
-    bindings([binding("A", arg_hasty_generalization), binding("Min", 30)]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(fallacy(arg_hasty_generalization, hasty_generalization)),
-        by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(30))),
-        bindings([binding("A", arg_hasty_generalization), binding("N", 3), binding("Min", 30), binding("__anon0", crows), binding("__anon1", black)]),
-        uses([
-          proof(
-            goal(argument(arg_hasty_generalization)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(16)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(sample_size(arg_hasty_generalization, 3)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(17)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(required_sample_size(arg_hasty_generalization, 30)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(18)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(lt(3, 30)),
-            by(builtin(lt, 2))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(concludes(arg_hasty_generalization, all(crows, black))),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(19)))
-          )
-        ])
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(required_sample_size(arg_hasty_generalization, 30)),
-        by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(18)))
-      )
-    ])
-  )
-).
-
 omittedAlternative(arg_false_dilemma, revise_proposal).
-why(
-  omittedAlternative(arg_false_dilemma, revise_proposal),
-  proof(
-    goal(omittedAlternative(arg_false_dilemma, revise_proposal)),
-    by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(41))),
-    bindings([binding("A", arg_false_dilemma), binding("Alt", revise_proposal)]),
-    uses([
-      proof(
-        goal(fallacy(arg_false_dilemma, false_dilemma)),
-        by(rule("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(31))),
-        bindings([binding("A", arg_false_dilemma), binding("__anon2", [approve_now, reject_forever]), binding("__anon3", revise_proposal), binding("__anon4", approve_now)]),
-        uses([
-          proof(
-            goal(argument(arg_false_dilemma)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(20)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(presented_alternatives(arg_false_dilemma, [approve_now, reject_forever])),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(21)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(omitted_alternative(arg_false_dilemma, revise_proposal)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(22)))
-          ),
-          proof(
-            goal(concludes(arg_false_dilemma, approve_now)),
-            by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(23)))
-          )
-        ])
-      ),
-      proof(
-        goal(omitted_alternative(arg_false_dilemma, revise_proposal)),
-        by(fact("illegitimate-reasoning.pl", clause(22)))
-      )
-    ])
-  )
-).
-