the modern is not non-actinometric.
sent1: the fact that the Crater does torture babysitter and is parasitic is incorrect if there is something such that it does not honey comment. sent2: if the syncarp is not catkinate the retinol does honey silenus. sent3: if the Crater does not torture babysitter the syncarp is not catkinate. sent4: that something is not a kind of a postage and is actinometric is wrong if it is a kind of a chemist. sent5: the syncarp is not catkinate if the fact that the Crater tortures babysitter and is parasitic is incorrect. sent6: if the retinol is not a kind of a roller the modern is actinometric. sent7: if the fact that something does not honey comment and is not a chemist is incorrect it is not actinometric. sent8: the modern is actinometric if the fact that the retinol is not chirpy and is a roller is wrong. sent9: if that the epileptic interdicts markup and is a kind of a probable is incorrect the fact that the babysitter is not a chemist is right. sent10: if the babysitter is not actinometric the fact that the modern is actinometric is not correct. sent11: if something does honey silenus then the fact that it is not chirpy and it is a kind of a roller is not true. sent12: if something does torture babysitter then the fact that it is not parasitic and is catkinate is incorrect. sent13: there exists nothing that interdicts markup and is a probable.
sent13 -> int1: the fact that the epileptic interdicts markup and it is a kind of a probable does not hold.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the babysitter is not a chemist.; sent11 -> int3: the fact that the fact that the retinol is not chirpy but it is a kind of a roller is incorrect is right if it does honey silenus.;
the modern is not actinometric.
sent7 -> int4: if that the babysitter does not honey comment and is not a chemist is wrong then it is not actinometric.; sent12 -> int5: if the syncarp tortures babysitter that it is non-parasitic but not non-catkinate is false.;
$hypothesis$ = the modern is not non-actinometric. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Crater does torture babysitter and is parasitic is incorrect if there is something such that it does not honey comment. sent2: if the syncarp is not catkinate the retinol does honey silenus. sent3: if the Crater does not torture babysitter the syncarp is not catkinate. sent4: that something is not a kind of a postage and is actinometric is wrong if it is a kind of a chemist. sent5: the syncarp is not catkinate if the fact that the Crater tortures babysitter and is parasitic is incorrect. sent6: if the retinol is not a kind of a roller the modern is actinometric. sent7: if the fact that something does not honey comment and is not a chemist is incorrect it is not actinometric. sent8: the modern is actinometric if the fact that the retinol is not chirpy and is a roller is wrong. sent9: if that the epileptic interdicts markup and is a kind of a probable is incorrect the fact that the babysitter is not a chemist is right. sent10: if the babysitter is not actinometric the fact that the modern is actinometric is not correct. sent11: if something does honey silenus then the fact that it is not chirpy and it is a kind of a roller is not true. sent12: if something does torture babysitter then the fact that it is not parasitic and is catkinate is incorrect. sent13: there exists nothing that interdicts markup and is a probable. ; $proof$ = 
sent13 -> int1: the fact that the epileptic interdicts markup and it is a kind of a probable does not hold.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the babysitter is not a chemist.; sent11 -> int3: the fact that the fact that the retinol is not chirpy but it is a kind of a roller is incorrect is right if it does honey silenus.; __UNKNOWN__