the filet does sparge sou'-sou'-east and it is a Gelsemium.
sent1: the dinner does not speak curtailment. sent2: the amphotericin is not a Gelsemium. sent3: the impersonator is a defectiveness if the filet is not a defectiveness and not catechismal. sent4: if the keratinization is a side then the abdicator is both not a sights and not clinker-built. sent5: if something is clinker-built the blaster is not a sights. sent6: the fact that there is nothing such that it is non-side thing that is not a Gelsemium is not wrong. sent7: that the filet sparges sou'-sou'-east and it is a defectiveness is false if that the abdicator is not a kind of a side is right. sent8: if the fact that the keratinization is mutagenic but it is not a dodderer is false then it is catechismal. sent9: the enchanter is clinker-built if there exists something such that it is a defectiveness. sent10: The sou'-sou'-east sparges filet. sent11: the squaw is not a kind of a Gelsemium. sent12: the filet is not a kind of a Argentinian. sent13: the keratinization does side if it is catechismal. sent14: if the filet is not a Gelsemium the fact that the keratinization is mutagenic and is not a kind of a dodderer is false. sent15: the hemisphere is not a kind of a crossbill and is not a kind of a forename if that the dinner does not speak curtailment hold. sent16: that the abdicator is not a forename but it is a crossbill is not right. sent17: the munch is not a kind of a crossbill if the hemisphere is both not a crossbill and not a forename. sent18: if the munch is not a crossbill then it is a defectiveness. sent19: if the fact that the abdicator is not a forename and is a crossbill is not right it is not a kind of a defectiveness. sent20: if the blaster is not a sights then that the abdicator sides and is not catechismal does not hold. sent21: that the keratinization does not sparge sou'-sou'-east is right if that it is not a side and it is a defectiveness does not hold. sent22: if the fact that the filet is not side and it is not a Gelsemium is not correct then it is not a defectiveness. sent23: if the filet sparges sou'-sou'-east then it is not a forename. sent24: the abdicator is a defectiveness if it is not a sights and it is not clinker-built.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the filet is not a Gelsemium.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: that the keratinization is not non-mutagenic but it is not a dodderer does not hold.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the keratinization is catechismal.; int2 & sent13 -> int3: the keratinization is a side.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: the abdicator does not sight and is not clinker-built.; int4 & sent24 -> int5: the abdicator is a defectiveness.; sent19 & sent16 -> int6: the fact that the abdicator is not a defectiveness is not incorrect.; int5 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the filet is a Gelsemium.;
the fact that the filet sparges sou'-sou'-east and it is a kind of a Gelsemium is false.
sent15 & sent1 -> int9: the hemisphere is not a kind of a crossbill and is not a forename.; sent17 & int9 -> int10: the munch is not a kind of a crossbill.; sent18 & int10 -> int11: the munch is a defectiveness.; int11 -> int12: something is a kind of a defectiveness.; int12 & sent9 -> int13: the enchanter is clinker-built.; int13 -> int14: there is something such that it is clinker-built.; int14 & sent5 -> int15: the blaster is not a kind of a sights.; sent20 & int15 -> int16: the fact that that the abdicator is side and not catechismal hold is wrong.; int16 -> int17: there exists something such that that it is a side that is not catechismal is not true.;
$hypothesis$ = the filet does sparge sou'-sou'-east and it is a Gelsemium. ; $context$ = sent1: the dinner does not speak curtailment. sent2: the amphotericin is not a Gelsemium. sent3: the impersonator is a defectiveness if the filet is not a defectiveness and not catechismal. sent4: if the keratinization is a side then the abdicator is both not a sights and not clinker-built. sent5: if something is clinker-built the blaster is not a sights. sent6: the fact that there is nothing such that it is non-side thing that is not a Gelsemium is not wrong. sent7: that the filet sparges sou'-sou'-east and it is a defectiveness is false if that the abdicator is not a kind of a side is right. sent8: if the fact that the keratinization is mutagenic but it is not a dodderer is false then it is catechismal. sent9: the enchanter is clinker-built if there exists something such that it is a defectiveness. sent10: The sou'-sou'-east sparges filet. sent11: the squaw is not a kind of a Gelsemium. sent12: the filet is not a kind of a Argentinian. sent13: the keratinization does side if it is catechismal. sent14: if the filet is not a Gelsemium the fact that the keratinization is mutagenic and is not a kind of a dodderer is false. sent15: the hemisphere is not a kind of a crossbill and is not a kind of a forename if that the dinner does not speak curtailment hold. sent16: that the abdicator is not a forename but it is a crossbill is not right. sent17: the munch is not a kind of a crossbill if the hemisphere is both not a crossbill and not a forename. sent18: if the munch is not a crossbill then it is a defectiveness. sent19: if the fact that the abdicator is not a forename and is a crossbill is not right it is not a kind of a defectiveness. sent20: if the blaster is not a sights then that the abdicator sides and is not catechismal does not hold. sent21: that the keratinization does not sparge sou'-sou'-east is right if that it is not a side and it is a defectiveness does not hold. sent22: if the fact that the filet is not side and it is not a Gelsemium is not correct then it is not a defectiveness. sent23: if the filet sparges sou'-sou'-east then it is not a forename. sent24: the abdicator is a defectiveness if it is not a sights and it is not clinker-built. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the filet is not a Gelsemium.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: that the keratinization is not non-mutagenic but it is not a dodderer does not hold.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the keratinization is catechismal.; int2 & sent13 -> int3: the keratinization is a side.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: the abdicator does not sight and is not clinker-built.; int4 & sent24 -> int5: the abdicator is a defectiveness.; sent19 & sent16 -> int6: the fact that the abdicator is not a defectiveness is not incorrect.; int5 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the filet is a Gelsemium.; __UNKNOWN__