the semitrailer spends verso.
sent1: the fact that the angioscope is a heroics and does not abound is false. sent2: the tanner is a Archosargus if the fact that the honeycreeper is not a kind of a Archosargus and it does not rehabilitate Very-light is not right. sent3: the honeycreeper abounds. sent4: that the tanner does not spend decrescendo is right if there is something such that that it is a kind of a heroics that spend decrescendo is false. sent5: the semitrailer is a heroics. sent6: that something is not a Archosargus and not naive is incorrect if it does not upheave. sent7: that there is something such that it is not salient is correct. sent8: that the honeycreeper is not a Archosargus and it does not rehabilitate Very-light is not correct. sent9: if that something is not a Archosargus and it is not naive does not hold then it is a kind of a Labrouste. sent10: the semitrailer is a kind of heroics thing that is not a Labrouste. sent11: the fact that if something is a Labrouste it is a heroics hold. sent12: if something that rehabilitates Very-light does not abound that it does not upheave is not incorrect. sent13: if there exists something such that that it spends verso is true the fact that the semitrailer is heroics and does spend decrescendo does not hold. sent14: if the honeycreeper is a salient the robber rehabilitates Very-light but it does not abound. sent15: the angioscope does abound if the fact that the honeycreeper is a kind of naive thing that does not upheave does not hold. sent16: if there exists something such that that it is not salient but a loot is not right the honeycreeper is not salient. sent17: the robber does not abound if the fact that something is not a kind of a salient is true. sent18: the angioscope does abound if the honeycreeper is not naive. sent19: if something is a kind of a Archosargus then the fact that it is not a kind of a Labrouste and it does not upheave does not hold. sent20: the angioscope does not abound. sent21: there is nothing such that it is not a salient and it is a loot. sent22: if the semitrailer does not spend verso and is not a Labrouste the robber is a kind of a Archosargus.
sent10 -> int1: the semitrailer is not a Labrouste.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the semitrailer does not spend verso.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the semitrailer does not spend verso and it is not a Labrouste.; int2 & sent22 -> int3: the robber is a Archosargus.;
the tanner upheaves and does not spend decrescendo.
sent19 -> int4: that the tanner is not a kind of a Labrouste and does not upheave is not correct if it is a kind of a Archosargus.; sent2 & sent8 -> int5: the tanner is a Archosargus.; int4 & int5 -> int6: that the tanner is not a kind of a Labrouste and it does not upheave is incorrect.; sent7 & sent17 -> int7: the robber does not abound.;
$hypothesis$ = the semitrailer spends verso. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the angioscope is a heroics and does not abound is false. sent2: the tanner is a Archosargus if the fact that the honeycreeper is not a kind of a Archosargus and it does not rehabilitate Very-light is not right. sent3: the honeycreeper abounds. sent4: that the tanner does not spend decrescendo is right if there is something such that that it is a kind of a heroics that spend decrescendo is false. sent5: the semitrailer is a heroics. sent6: that something is not a Archosargus and not naive is incorrect if it does not upheave. sent7: that there is something such that it is not salient is correct. sent8: that the honeycreeper is not a Archosargus and it does not rehabilitate Very-light is not correct. sent9: if that something is not a Archosargus and it is not naive does not hold then it is a kind of a Labrouste. sent10: the semitrailer is a kind of heroics thing that is not a Labrouste. sent11: the fact that if something is a Labrouste it is a heroics hold. sent12: if something that rehabilitates Very-light does not abound that it does not upheave is not incorrect. sent13: if there exists something such that that it spends verso is true the fact that the semitrailer is heroics and does spend decrescendo does not hold. sent14: if the honeycreeper is a salient the robber rehabilitates Very-light but it does not abound. sent15: the angioscope does abound if the fact that the honeycreeper is a kind of naive thing that does not upheave does not hold. sent16: if there exists something such that that it is not salient but a loot is not right the honeycreeper is not salient. sent17: the robber does not abound if the fact that something is not a kind of a salient is true. sent18: the angioscope does abound if the honeycreeper is not naive. sent19: if something is a kind of a Archosargus then the fact that it is not a kind of a Labrouste and it does not upheave does not hold. sent20: the angioscope does not abound. sent21: there is nothing such that it is not a salient and it is a loot. sent22: if the semitrailer does not spend verso and is not a Labrouste the robber is a kind of a Archosargus. ; $proof$ = 
sent10 -> int1: the semitrailer is not a Labrouste.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the semitrailer does not spend verso.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the semitrailer does not spend verso and it is not a Labrouste.; int2 & sent22 -> int3: the robber is a Archosargus.; __UNKNOWN__