the cistern is a kind of a self-expression and is a Palaic.
sent1: if the oilstove is not an expressionist the fact that the methionine is not a kind of a Sardinian but it is biotic is not correct. sent2: something is not imperceptible if the fact that it is a kind of imperceptible thing that effects septuagenarian is not right. sent3: if the fact that the cistern is not a kind of a exudation and is not a kind of a self-expression does not hold the oblate is a self-expression. sent4: if that the oblate is not a exudation and is not a kind of a self-expression is incorrect then the cistern is a self-expression. sent5: if the backscratcher dissembles Amsterdam then the cistern is a Palaic. sent6: if that something is imperceptible and is irremediable does not hold then it is not imperceptible. sent7: the fact that the oilstove is not a exudation is not incorrect if there exists something such that the fact that it is a exudation that is not perceptible is not true. sent8: the fact that the oblate is imperceptible and it does effect septuagenarian is incorrect. sent9: the methionine is ammonitic if the oblate is ammonitic. sent10: the fact that something is not imperceptible but it is a Palaic is not right if the fact that it does not dissemble Amsterdam hold. sent11: there is nothing such that it is a kind of a mudslide and does not effect calceus. sent12: the methionine does effect septuagenarian if it is ammonitic. sent13: if there is something such that it does effect septuagenarian the oilstove is a kind of a Denver and dissembles Amsterdam. sent14: the oilstove is not an expressionist. sent15: that if the cistern is a self-expression then the oblate is a Palaic is not incorrect. sent16: if the backscratcher is not a potentiation that it is a kind of a exudation that is imperceptible does not hold. sent17: that something is both not a exudation and not a self-expression does not hold if it is not imperceptible. sent18: there is something such that the fact that it does organize Tennyson and it is a cheesecake is not correct. sent19: the fact that something is a self-expression and it is a Palaic is not correct if it is not expressionist. sent20: if the methionine is not imperceptible the oilstove is a kind of a exudation that dissembles Amsterdam. sent21: the backscratcher is not a potentiation but it is onomatopoeic. sent22: the cistern is a exudation if the oblate is a Palaic. sent23: the oblate is ammonitic if the fact that it is a mudslide and it does not effect calceus is not true. sent24: the fact that the oblate is biotic and it is not perceptible is incorrect. sent25: if there exists something such that that it is not a Sardinian and it is biotic is wrong the backscratcher does dissemble Amsterdam.
sent1 & sent14 -> int1: the fact that the fact that the methionine is non-Sardinian thing that is biotic is true does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a Sardinian and it is biotic is not true.; int2 & sent25 -> int3: the backscratcher does dissemble Amsterdam.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: the cistern is a Palaic.; sent17 -> int5: if the oblate is not imperceptible then that it is not a exudation and it is not a self-expression is incorrect.; sent2 -> int6: if the fact that the oblate is imperceptible and effects septuagenarian does not hold it is not imperceptible.; int6 & sent8 -> int7: the oblate is not imperceptible.; int5 & int7 -> int8: the fact that the fact that the oblate is not a kind of a exudation and it is not a self-expression is right does not hold.; sent4 & int8 -> int9: the fact that the cistern is a kind of a self-expression hold.; int4 & int9 -> hypothesis;
that the cistern is both a self-expression and a Palaic does not hold.
sent19 -> int10: the fact that the cistern is both a self-expression and a Palaic does not hold if it is not a kind of an expressionist.; sent11 -> int11: that the oblate is a mudslide and does not effect calceus is not true.; sent23 & int11 -> int12: the oblate is ammonitic.; sent9 & int12 -> int13: the methionine is ammonitic.; sent12 & int13 -> int14: that the methionine effects septuagenarian is true.; int14 -> int15: there exists something such that it effects septuagenarian.; int15 & sent13 -> int16: the oilstove is a kind of a Denver and it does dissemble Amsterdam.; int16 -> int17: the oilstove does dissemble Amsterdam.; sent21 -> int18: the backscratcher is not a potentiation.; sent16 & int18 -> int19: that the backscratcher is a exudation that is imperceptible is not right.; int19 -> int20: there is something such that the fact that it is a exudation and it is not perceptible is wrong.; int20 & sent7 -> int21: the oilstove is not a exudation.; int17 & int21 -> int22: the oilstove does dissemble Amsterdam and is not a exudation.; int22 -> int23: there is something such that it dissembles Amsterdam and it is not a kind of a exudation.;
$hypothesis$ = the cistern is a kind of a self-expression and is a Palaic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the oilstove is not an expressionist the fact that the methionine is not a kind of a Sardinian but it is biotic is not correct. sent2: something is not imperceptible if the fact that it is a kind of imperceptible thing that effects septuagenarian is not right. sent3: if the fact that the cistern is not a kind of a exudation and is not a kind of a self-expression does not hold the oblate is a self-expression. sent4: if that the oblate is not a exudation and is not a kind of a self-expression is incorrect then the cistern is a self-expression. sent5: if the backscratcher dissembles Amsterdam then the cistern is a Palaic. sent6: if that something is imperceptible and is irremediable does not hold then it is not imperceptible. sent7: the fact that the oilstove is not a exudation is not incorrect if there exists something such that the fact that it is a exudation that is not perceptible is not true. sent8: the fact that the oblate is imperceptible and it does effect septuagenarian is incorrect. sent9: the methionine is ammonitic if the oblate is ammonitic. sent10: the fact that something is not imperceptible but it is a Palaic is not right if the fact that it does not dissemble Amsterdam hold. sent11: there is nothing such that it is a kind of a mudslide and does not effect calceus. sent12: the methionine does effect septuagenarian if it is ammonitic. sent13: if there is something such that it does effect septuagenarian the oilstove is a kind of a Denver and dissembles Amsterdam. sent14: the oilstove is not an expressionist. sent15: that if the cistern is a self-expression then the oblate is a Palaic is not incorrect. sent16: if the backscratcher is not a potentiation that it is a kind of a exudation that is imperceptible does not hold. sent17: that something is both not a exudation and not a self-expression does not hold if it is not imperceptible. sent18: there is something such that the fact that it does organize Tennyson and it is a cheesecake is not correct. sent19: the fact that something is a self-expression and it is a Palaic is not correct if it is not expressionist. sent20: if the methionine is not imperceptible the oilstove is a kind of a exudation that dissembles Amsterdam. sent21: the backscratcher is not a potentiation but it is onomatopoeic. sent22: the cistern is a exudation if the oblate is a Palaic. sent23: the oblate is ammonitic if the fact that it is a mudslide and it does not effect calceus is not true. sent24: the fact that the oblate is biotic and it is not perceptible is incorrect. sent25: if there exists something such that that it is not a Sardinian and it is biotic is wrong the backscratcher does dissemble Amsterdam. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 & sent14 -> int1: the fact that the fact that the methionine is non-Sardinian thing that is biotic is true does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a Sardinian and it is biotic is not true.; int2 & sent25 -> int3: the backscratcher does dissemble Amsterdam.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: the cistern is a Palaic.; sent17 -> int5: if the oblate is not imperceptible then that it is not a exudation and it is not a self-expression is incorrect.; sent2 -> int6: if the fact that the oblate is imperceptible and effects septuagenarian does not hold it is not imperceptible.; int6 & sent8 -> int7: the oblate is not imperceptible.; int5 & int7 -> int8: the fact that the fact that the oblate is not a kind of a exudation and it is not a self-expression is right does not hold.; sent4 & int8 -> int9: the fact that the cistern is a kind of a self-expression hold.; int4 & int9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__