if the lunette is a Willamette the sunburst is muscular.
sent1: there exists something such that it is a Willamette. sent2: that the sunburst is not a Willamette hold. sent3: if the outpatient is cereal then the byway is a OPCW. sent4: the fact that the fact that the outpatient is a OPCW that is not a kind of a Willamette is incorrect is not incorrect if it is a osmoreceptor. sent5: the triumvir is not a kind of a OPCW. sent6: that something is not a kind of a osmoreceptor and it is not a kind of a cereal does not hold if it does eliminate beer. sent7: that the outpatient is a kind of a OPCW and/or it is not muscular is not correct. sent8: if that the mesa is non-incestuous thing that does not eliminate beer is not correct then the byway is not a cereal. sent9: that the byway is a cereal if there exists something such that the fact that either it is muscular or it is not augitic or both is false is right. sent10: the fact that something is a osmoreceptor but it is not incestuous is not correct if it is a Willamette. sent11: if the mesa is incestuous then the sunburst is muscular. sent12: the byway is incestuous if the fact that the mesa does not eliminate beer and is not a OPCW is not true. sent13: that something is a osmoreceptor but it is not a cereal does not hold if it eliminates beer. sent14: if the fact that the byway is both not a osmoreceptor and not cereal is not true then the lunette is not a Willamette. sent15: that the byway is both a osmoreceptor and not cereal is incorrect. sent16: the outpatient is endogenic. sent17: the fact that that the lunette is not non-augitic or it is not a kind of a osmoreceptor or both is not correct is right if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Willamette. sent18: the byway is a OPCW. sent19: if there is something such that that it is not incestuous hold that the outpatient is either a OPCW or not augitic or both is false. sent20: the fact that the sunburst is muscular and/or it does not eliminate beer is not right. sent21: if that the mesa is non-incestuous thing that is not a kind of a Willamette is not true the byway is not a osmoreceptor. sent22: something eliminates Mandelstam and/or it is non-anticancer. sent23: the fact that the byway does not eliminate beer and it is not muscular does not hold. sent24: if there is something such that the fact that it is cereal and/or it is not augitic does not hold the byway is a Willamette.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the mesa is not incestuous.; assump1 -> int1: something is not incestuous.; int1 & sent19 -> int2: the fact that either the outpatient is a OPCW or it is not augitic or both is incorrect.; int2 -> int3: there exists something such that that it is a OPCW or it is not augitic or both does not hold.; sent6 -> int4: the fact that the byway is not a kind of a osmoreceptor and is not cereal is wrong if it does eliminate beer.;
$hypothesis$ = if the lunette is a Willamette the sunburst is muscular. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is a Willamette. sent2: that the sunburst is not a Willamette hold. sent3: if the outpatient is cereal then the byway is a OPCW. sent4: the fact that the fact that the outpatient is a OPCW that is not a kind of a Willamette is incorrect is not incorrect if it is a osmoreceptor. sent5: the triumvir is not a kind of a OPCW. sent6: that something is not a kind of a osmoreceptor and it is not a kind of a cereal does not hold if it does eliminate beer. sent7: that the outpatient is a kind of a OPCW and/or it is not muscular is not correct. sent8: if that the mesa is non-incestuous thing that does not eliminate beer is not correct then the byway is not a cereal. sent9: that the byway is a cereal if there exists something such that the fact that either it is muscular or it is not augitic or both is false is right. sent10: the fact that something is a osmoreceptor but it is not incestuous is not correct if it is a Willamette. sent11: if the mesa is incestuous then the sunburst is muscular. sent12: the byway is incestuous if the fact that the mesa does not eliminate beer and is not a OPCW is not true. sent13: that something is a osmoreceptor but it is not a cereal does not hold if it eliminates beer. sent14: if the fact that the byway is both not a osmoreceptor and not cereal is not true then the lunette is not a Willamette. sent15: that the byway is both a osmoreceptor and not cereal is incorrect. sent16: the outpatient is endogenic. sent17: the fact that that the lunette is not non-augitic or it is not a kind of a osmoreceptor or both is not correct is right if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Willamette. sent18: the byway is a OPCW. sent19: if there is something such that that it is not incestuous hold that the outpatient is either a OPCW or not augitic or both is false. sent20: the fact that the sunburst is muscular and/or it does not eliminate beer is not right. sent21: if that the mesa is non-incestuous thing that is not a kind of a Willamette is not true the byway is not a osmoreceptor. sent22: something eliminates Mandelstam and/or it is non-anticancer. sent23: the fact that the byway does not eliminate beer and it is not muscular does not hold. sent24: if there is something such that the fact that it is cereal and/or it is not augitic does not hold the byway is a Willamette. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the mesa is not incestuous.; assump1 -> int1: something is not incestuous.; int1 & sent19 -> int2: the fact that either the outpatient is a OPCW or it is not augitic or both is incorrect.; int2 -> int3: there exists something such that that it is a OPCW or it is not augitic or both does not hold.; sent6 -> int4: the fact that the byway is not a kind of a osmoreceptor and is not cereal is wrong if it does eliminate beer.; __UNKNOWN__