the arborist is a kind of a ANG that is not excretory.
sent1: if that the campanile is nonintellectual and it is a rhombus hold the fact that it does not exclaim is true. sent2: if the campanile does exclaim and is a kind of a rhombus it is not nonintellectual. sent3: if the fact that the campanile reheats overkill or it is not iridic or both does not hold then it is not a rhombus. sent4: the arborist is a kind of a ANG and it is not non-biocatalytic. sent5: the chain-smoker is not a ANG. sent6: if the chain-smoker is a rhombus and is capacitive then the preceptor is not capacitive. sent7: the chain-smoker is a ghastliness. sent8: the arborist is not deliverable. sent9: the arborist does not reheat overkill if the fact that either it is a ANG or it is not biocatalytic or both is not correct. sent10: there are iridic things. sent11: if the preceptor does exclaim then the chain-smoker is non-capacitive and does exclaim. sent12: if the chain-smoker is not nonintellectual then that the campanile does reheat overkill and/or is not iridic does not hold. sent13: the chain-smoker does not reheat overkill. sent14: if something does not exclaim then the fact that it is both a ANG and non-excretory is wrong. sent15: if the preceptor does not reheat overkill and is nonintellectual then the arborist is nonintellectual. sent16: the preceptor does exclaim if the arborist is excretory. sent17: the preceptor is non-iridic thing that is a antiparticle. sent18: the tendon is a kind of a ANG. sent19: the chain-smoker is a rhombus. sent20: the chain-smoker is not nonintellectual if it is not capacitive and it exclaims. sent21: the arborist is not biocatalytic if that it does exclaim or it does reheat overkill or both does not hold. sent22: the wreath is a ANG. sent23: there exists something such that that it is a lever is true.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the arborist is excretory.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the preceptor does exclaim.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the chain-smoker is a kind of non-capacitive thing that exclaims.; int2 & sent20 -> int3: that the chain-smoker is nonintellectual is false.; int3 & sent12 -> int4: the fact that the campanile does reheat overkill or is not iridic or both is false.; int4 & sent3 -> int5: the campanile is not a rhombus.; sent4 -> int6: the arborist is a ANG.;
the fact that the arborist is a ANG that is not excretory is incorrect.
sent14 -> int7: that if the arborist does not exclaim the fact that the arborist is a ANG and is not excretory is false is right.;
$hypothesis$ = the arborist is a kind of a ANG that is not excretory. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the campanile is nonintellectual and it is a rhombus hold the fact that it does not exclaim is true. sent2: if the campanile does exclaim and is a kind of a rhombus it is not nonintellectual. sent3: if the fact that the campanile reheats overkill or it is not iridic or both does not hold then it is not a rhombus. sent4: the arborist is a kind of a ANG and it is not non-biocatalytic. sent5: the chain-smoker is not a ANG. sent6: if the chain-smoker is a rhombus and is capacitive then the preceptor is not capacitive. sent7: the chain-smoker is a ghastliness. sent8: the arborist is not deliverable. sent9: the arborist does not reheat overkill if the fact that either it is a ANG or it is not biocatalytic or both is not correct. sent10: there are iridic things. sent11: if the preceptor does exclaim then the chain-smoker is non-capacitive and does exclaim. sent12: if the chain-smoker is not nonintellectual then that the campanile does reheat overkill and/or is not iridic does not hold. sent13: the chain-smoker does not reheat overkill. sent14: if something does not exclaim then the fact that it is both a ANG and non-excretory is wrong. sent15: if the preceptor does not reheat overkill and is nonintellectual then the arborist is nonintellectual. sent16: the preceptor does exclaim if the arborist is excretory. sent17: the preceptor is non-iridic thing that is a antiparticle. sent18: the tendon is a kind of a ANG. sent19: the chain-smoker is a rhombus. sent20: the chain-smoker is not nonintellectual if it is not capacitive and it exclaims. sent21: the arborist is not biocatalytic if that it does exclaim or it does reheat overkill or both does not hold. sent22: the wreath is a ANG. sent23: there exists something such that that it is a lever is true. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the arborist is excretory.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the preceptor does exclaim.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the chain-smoker is a kind of non-capacitive thing that exclaims.; int2 & sent20 -> int3: that the chain-smoker is nonintellectual is false.; int3 & sent12 -> int4: the fact that the campanile does reheat overkill or is not iridic or both is false.; int4 & sent3 -> int5: the campanile is not a rhombus.; sent4 -> int6: the arborist is a ANG.; __UNKNOWN__