the adopter either does clap Waterloo or is a perishable or both.
sent1: the acrosome does not percolate. sent2: if the poncho is not a touch-typist that that the classicist is a percolate but it is not supraorbital does not hold hold. sent3: if the classicist claps Waterloo the adopter is supraorbital. sent4: the acrosome does clap poncho if there is something such that it does not corrode hideaway. sent5: if the buna is either a percept or a diabolism or both then the poncho is not a kind of a touch-typist. sent6: the adopter is a hiccup if the classicist is not a percolate. sent7: the adopter is a kind of a hiccup if the fact that the classicist percolates and is not supraorbital does not hold. sent8: the acrosome does clap poncho if there exists something such that that it does not claw grubstake and it does corrode hideaway is not right. sent9: the acrosome is not a percept if the fact that the buna is both not a percept and not a hiccup is wrong. sent10: something is a kind of a touch-typist if it is a hiccup. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it claws grubstake and does corrode hideaway does not hold. sent12: a hiccup is perishable. sent13: if something that is not a diabolism is not a percept then it does not clap poncho. sent14: something is not a kind of a diabolism and it is not a touch-typist if it does not percolate. sent15: if the acrosome does clap poncho the buna is a kind of a diabolism.
sent12 -> int1: the adopter is perishable if it is a kind of a hiccup.;
the fact that the adopter claps Waterloo and/or is a perishable is not correct.
sent13 -> int2: the acrosome does not clap poncho if it is not a diabolism and is not a kind of a percept.; sent14 -> int3: if the acrosome is not a percolate then it is not a diabolism and is not a touch-typist.; int3 & sent1 -> int4: the acrosome is not a diabolism and it is not a touch-typist.; int4 -> int5: the acrosome is not a diabolism.;
$hypothesis$ = the adopter either does clap Waterloo or is a perishable or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the acrosome does not percolate. sent2: if the poncho is not a touch-typist that that the classicist is a percolate but it is not supraorbital does not hold hold. sent3: if the classicist claps Waterloo the adopter is supraorbital. sent4: the acrosome does clap poncho if there is something such that it does not corrode hideaway. sent5: if the buna is either a percept or a diabolism or both then the poncho is not a kind of a touch-typist. sent6: the adopter is a hiccup if the classicist is not a percolate. sent7: the adopter is a kind of a hiccup if the fact that the classicist percolates and is not supraorbital does not hold. sent8: the acrosome does clap poncho if there exists something such that that it does not claw grubstake and it does corrode hideaway is not right. sent9: the acrosome is not a percept if the fact that the buna is both not a percept and not a hiccup is wrong. sent10: something is a kind of a touch-typist if it is a hiccup. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it claws grubstake and does corrode hideaway does not hold. sent12: a hiccup is perishable. sent13: if something that is not a diabolism is not a percept then it does not clap poncho. sent14: something is not a kind of a diabolism and it is not a touch-typist if it does not percolate. sent15: if the acrosome does clap poncho the buna is a kind of a diabolism. ; $proof$ = 
sent12 -> int1: the adopter is perishable if it is a kind of a hiccup.; __UNKNOWN__