the hematologist does not baffle and sobers if the bookworm is not non-macerative.
sent1: the hematologist is not a baffle. sent2: The isoagglutinogen does commercialize bookworm. sent3: the bookworm is a content. sent4: the hematologist is not macerative. sent5: the hematologist is not a baffle but it does commercialize isoagglutinogen if the bookworm is not non-macerative. sent6: if the bookworm is macerative then the hematologist does not baffle. sent7: the hematologist is not a kind of a baffle and does commercialize isoagglutinogen. sent8: if the bookworm is not sobering the hematologist is a kind of sobering thing that does commercialize isoagglutinogen. sent9: the bookworm is not a kind of a scandalmonger. sent10: the hematologist does commercialize isoagglutinogen. sent11: if the bookworm does not baffle then the hematologist is not a baffle. sent12: the dithering is macerative if the fact that the bookworm is not macerative and it is not a baffle does not hold. sent13: the bookworm does not commercialize isoagglutinogen and is macerative if the fact that the hematologist does not commercialize isoagglutinogen is correct. sent14: the hematologist is non-ritual. sent15: the bookworm is non-sobering. sent16: the bookworm does commercialize isoagglutinogen. sent17: if the bookworm is not a baffle then that the hematologist is not a baffle but it does sober is not false. sent18: the angel does not commercialize bookworm but it is a kind of a pteridophyte.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bookworm baffles.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the bookworm is macerative.; assump1 & assump2 -> int1: the bookworm is a baffle and macerative.;
the dithering is macerative.
$hypothesis$ = the hematologist does not baffle and sobers if the bookworm is not non-macerative. ; $context$ = sent1: the hematologist is not a baffle. sent2: The isoagglutinogen does commercialize bookworm. sent3: the bookworm is a content. sent4: the hematologist is not macerative. sent5: the hematologist is not a baffle but it does commercialize isoagglutinogen if the bookworm is not non-macerative. sent6: if the bookworm is macerative then the hematologist does not baffle. sent7: the hematologist is not a kind of a baffle and does commercialize isoagglutinogen. sent8: if the bookworm is not sobering the hematologist is a kind of sobering thing that does commercialize isoagglutinogen. sent9: the bookworm is not a kind of a scandalmonger. sent10: the hematologist does commercialize isoagglutinogen. sent11: if the bookworm does not baffle then the hematologist is not a baffle. sent12: the dithering is macerative if the fact that the bookworm is not macerative and it is not a baffle does not hold. sent13: the bookworm does not commercialize isoagglutinogen and is macerative if the fact that the hematologist does not commercialize isoagglutinogen is correct. sent14: the hematologist is non-ritual. sent15: the bookworm is non-sobering. sent16: the bookworm does commercialize isoagglutinogen. sent17: if the bookworm is not a baffle then that the hematologist is not a baffle but it does sober is not false. sent18: the angel does not commercialize bookworm but it is a kind of a pteridophyte. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bookworm baffles.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the bookworm is macerative.; assump1 & assump2 -> int1: the bookworm is a baffle and macerative.; __UNKNOWN__