the malacopterygian is non-parhelic.
sent1: if the calciferol is not consolable and it is not syphilitic then the dicumarol is consolable. sent2: something does not slug pretentiousness and/or it does brazen nasality if it skitters. sent3: that the calciferol is not capsular hold if the ram's-head does not brazen eosin and is not a kind of a syphilitic. sent4: the fact that the dicumarol is not harsh but it is a gymnosophy is wrong. sent5: the fact that the dicumarol is harsh and it is a kind of a curry is not correct. sent6: something is not syphilitic if it does not slug pretentiousness and/or it does brazen nasality. sent7: the calciferol brazens eosin. sent8: if something that does slug dragging is pietistic it is not consolable. sent9: The eosin brazens calciferol. sent10: if the fact that the malacopterygian is a gymnosophy and it is parhelic is not true the dicumarol does not encourage Gasterosteus. sent11: if the fact that the ram's-head does not skitter but it is a fife is not correct it does skitter. sent12: if the calciferol is not capsular the reboxetine is consolable and/or does not encourage Gasterosteus. sent13: the ram's-head does not brazen eosin. sent14: the fact that the ram's-head does not skitter and is a kind of a fife is wrong. sent15: if the dicumarol is not pietistic the fact that the reboxetine encourages Gasterosteus and it is not non-capsular does not hold. sent16: the malacopterygian is not parhelic if that the reboxetine does encourage Gasterosteus and it is capsular is not right. sent17: something is not consolable and it is not a syphilitic if it brazens eosin. sent18: the malacopterygian is parhelic if the dicumarol is a kind of non-pietistic thing that is parhelic.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the dicumarol is pietistic.; sent8 -> int1: the dicumarol is not consolable if the fact that it does slug dragging and it is pietistic hold.; sent17 -> int2: if the calciferol brazens eosin then it is not consolable and it is not a kind of a syphilitic.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the calciferol is not consolable and not syphilitic.; sent1 & int3 -> int4: the dicumarol is consolable.;
the malacopterygian is parhelic.
sent6 -> int5: the ram's-head is not syphilitic if either it does not slug pretentiousness or it brazens nasality or both.; sent2 -> int6: if the ram's-head does skitter then it does not slug pretentiousness or does brazen nasality or both.; sent11 & sent14 -> int7: the ram's-head does skitter.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the ram's-head does not slug pretentiousness and/or it brazens nasality.; int5 & int8 -> int9: that the ram's-head is a kind of a syphilitic is wrong.; sent13 & int9 -> int10: the ram's-head does not brazen eosin and it is not a syphilitic.; sent3 & int10 -> int11: the fact that the calciferol is not capsular hold.; sent12 & int11 -> int12: the reboxetine is consolable or it does not encourage Gasterosteus or both.; int12 -> int13: either something is consolable or it does not encourage Gasterosteus or both.;
$hypothesis$ = the malacopterygian is non-parhelic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the calciferol is not consolable and it is not syphilitic then the dicumarol is consolable. sent2: something does not slug pretentiousness and/or it does brazen nasality if it skitters. sent3: that the calciferol is not capsular hold if the ram's-head does not brazen eosin and is not a kind of a syphilitic. sent4: the fact that the dicumarol is not harsh but it is a gymnosophy is wrong. sent5: the fact that the dicumarol is harsh and it is a kind of a curry is not correct. sent6: something is not syphilitic if it does not slug pretentiousness and/or it does brazen nasality. sent7: the calciferol brazens eosin. sent8: if something that does slug dragging is pietistic it is not consolable. sent9: The eosin brazens calciferol. sent10: if the fact that the malacopterygian is a gymnosophy and it is parhelic is not true the dicumarol does not encourage Gasterosteus. sent11: if the fact that the ram's-head does not skitter but it is a fife is not correct it does skitter. sent12: if the calciferol is not capsular the reboxetine is consolable and/or does not encourage Gasterosteus. sent13: the ram's-head does not brazen eosin. sent14: the fact that the ram's-head does not skitter and is a kind of a fife is wrong. sent15: if the dicumarol is not pietistic the fact that the reboxetine encourages Gasterosteus and it is not non-capsular does not hold. sent16: the malacopterygian is not parhelic if that the reboxetine does encourage Gasterosteus and it is capsular is not right. sent17: something is not consolable and it is not a syphilitic if it brazens eosin. sent18: the malacopterygian is parhelic if the dicumarol is a kind of non-pietistic thing that is parhelic. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the dicumarol is pietistic.; sent8 -> int1: the dicumarol is not consolable if the fact that it does slug dragging and it is pietistic hold.; sent17 -> int2: if the calciferol brazens eosin then it is not consolable and it is not a kind of a syphilitic.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the calciferol is not consolable and not syphilitic.; sent1 & int3 -> int4: the dicumarol is consolable.; __UNKNOWN__