the mortgagee is expressionist.
sent1: if that the mortgagee does untune ham is correct then the fact that it is not a kind of an expressionist and it is ripe does not hold. sent2: the canyon does not debar bandicoot if that the mortgagee is not ripe and it is not a kind of a Erythrocebus is incorrect. sent3: something desecrates Yucatan if it is ripe. sent4: that the canyon does not untune ham and it is not nonradioactive is false if it desecrates Yucatan. sent5: there is something such that that it does not debar bandicoot and it does not untune ham is wrong. sent6: if something is a Erythrocebus it is ripe. sent7: that something is not ripe and it is not a Erythrocebus is incorrect if it is nonradioactive. sent8: the mortgagee is not radioactive if it desecrates Yucatan. sent9: the fact that the picot is not a Erythrocebus but it is nonradioactive is incorrect if it does debar bandicoot. sent10: the picot is a Erythrocebus if there exists something such that that it does not debar bandicoot and does not untune ham does not hold. sent11: the canyon does debar bandicoot and does untune ham.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the mortgagee desecrates Yucatan.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the mortgagee is nonradioactive.; sent7 -> int2: if the mortgagee is nonradioactive that it is not ripe and it is not a Erythrocebus is not correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the mortgagee is a kind of non-ripe thing that is not a Erythrocebus is false.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: the canyon does not debar bandicoot.; sent11 -> int5: the canyon debars bandicoot.; int4 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the mortgagee does not desecrate Yucatan.;
that the mortgagee is non-expressionist is not wrong.
sent3 -> int8: the picot does desecrate Yucatan if it is ripe.; sent6 -> int9: the picot is ripe if it is a Erythrocebus.; sent5 & sent10 -> int10: the picot is a Erythrocebus.; int9 & int10 -> int11: that the picot is ripe is correct.; int8 & int11 -> int12: the picot does desecrate Yucatan.; int12 -> int13: something desecrates Yucatan.;
$hypothesis$ = the mortgagee is expressionist. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the mortgagee does untune ham is correct then the fact that it is not a kind of an expressionist and it is ripe does not hold. sent2: the canyon does not debar bandicoot if that the mortgagee is not ripe and it is not a kind of a Erythrocebus is incorrect. sent3: something desecrates Yucatan if it is ripe. sent4: that the canyon does not untune ham and it is not nonradioactive is false if it desecrates Yucatan. sent5: there is something such that that it does not debar bandicoot and it does not untune ham is wrong. sent6: if something is a Erythrocebus it is ripe. sent7: that something is not ripe and it is not a Erythrocebus is incorrect if it is nonradioactive. sent8: the mortgagee is not radioactive if it desecrates Yucatan. sent9: the fact that the picot is not a Erythrocebus but it is nonradioactive is incorrect if it does debar bandicoot. sent10: the picot is a Erythrocebus if there exists something such that that it does not debar bandicoot and does not untune ham does not hold. sent11: the canyon does debar bandicoot and does untune ham. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the mortgagee desecrates Yucatan.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the mortgagee is nonradioactive.; sent7 -> int2: if the mortgagee is nonradioactive that it is not ripe and it is not a Erythrocebus is not correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the mortgagee is a kind of non-ripe thing that is not a Erythrocebus is false.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: the canyon does not debar bandicoot.; sent11 -> int5: the canyon debars bandicoot.; int4 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the mortgagee does not desecrate Yucatan.; __UNKNOWN__