the smirker is a negation.
sent1: if the fact that the celtuce is a nursing that does not up is wrong that the yttrium is not destructive is true. sent2: if the celtuce is a nursing but not up it does not squawk Coniogramme. sent3: The celtuce does covet caladium. sent4: the yttrium is not a lash. sent5: if that the caladium is a kind of a decarboxylation and does squawk Coniogramme is wrong then the fact that it does not covet celtuce is true. sent6: if the yttrium is non-destructive thing that is not a lash then the smirker is a negation. sent7: if the celtuce does not squawk Coniogramme that the caladium is a decarboxylation and it squawk Coniogramme is not correct. sent8: the caladium does not covet celtuce if it is not a decarboxylation. sent9: the coccobacillus does not up. sent10: if the celtuce does nurse and is not non-up then it does not squawk Coniogramme. sent11: the fact that the celtuce is both a nursing and up is not correct. sent12: if the celtuce does up then the yttrium is not destructive. sent13: if the fact that the caladium does squawk Coniogramme hold that the celtuce is not a decarboxylation but it is a negation does not hold. sent14: if that the caladium is both a decarboxylation and not a nursing is not true then the yttrium is not a kind of a lash.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the celtuce is a nursing but not up.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the celtuce does not squawk Coniogramme.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: that the caladium is a decarboxylation and does squawk Coniogramme is incorrect.; int2 & sent5 -> int3: the caladium does not covet celtuce.;
the smirker is not a kind of a negation.
$hypothesis$ = the smirker is a negation. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the celtuce is a nursing that does not up is wrong that the yttrium is not destructive is true. sent2: if the celtuce is a nursing but not up it does not squawk Coniogramme. sent3: The celtuce does covet caladium. sent4: the yttrium is not a lash. sent5: if that the caladium is a kind of a decarboxylation and does squawk Coniogramme is wrong then the fact that it does not covet celtuce is true. sent6: if the yttrium is non-destructive thing that is not a lash then the smirker is a negation. sent7: if the celtuce does not squawk Coniogramme that the caladium is a decarboxylation and it squawk Coniogramme is not correct. sent8: the caladium does not covet celtuce if it is not a decarboxylation. sent9: the coccobacillus does not up. sent10: if the celtuce does nurse and is not non-up then it does not squawk Coniogramme. sent11: the fact that the celtuce is both a nursing and up is not correct. sent12: if the celtuce does up then the yttrium is not destructive. sent13: if the fact that the caladium does squawk Coniogramme hold that the celtuce is not a decarboxylation but it is a negation does not hold. sent14: if that the caladium is both a decarboxylation and not a nursing is not true then the yttrium is not a kind of a lash. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the celtuce is a nursing but not up.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the celtuce does not squawk Coniogramme.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: that the caladium is a decarboxylation and does squawk Coniogramme is incorrect.; int2 & sent5 -> int3: the caladium does not covet celtuce.; __UNKNOWN__