the dysprosium does federalize manuscript and does not enfeeble boarder.
sent1: something federalizes manuscript if the fact that it is a duckpins and it is non-eastern is not true. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it is an abomination and it is offshore is not right. sent3: the fact that something does federalize manuscript and does not enfeeble boarder is not right if it is a duckpins. sent4: there is something such that that it is not a kind of an abomination and it is offshore is incorrect. sent5: if that the lotus-eater does federalize manuscript and is not a duckpins does not hold it is a kind of a dongle. sent6: something is not an abomination but it is offshore. sent7: the dysprosium is a kind of a doubler. sent8: something federalizes manuscript if it is eastern. sent9: if the malacologist is a duckpins then that the lotus-eater is a duckpins and it is eastern is not correct. sent10: the dysprosium federalizes manuscript. sent11: if that the malacologist is eastern and is not a duckpins does not hold then that it does federalize manuscript hold. sent12: the fact that the lotus-eater is a duckpins and it is eastern does not hold. sent13: the lotus-eater federalizes manuscript if it is eastern. sent14: if the lotus-eater is not offshore then the fact that the malacologist is a dongle and is eastern is not right. sent15: something does enfeeble boarder if that it federalizes manuscript and it is not a kind of a duckpins is wrong. sent16: if the malacologist is not a duckpins then it is not a dongle. sent17: the malacologist is a dongle if there exists something such that the fact that it is not an abomination and it is offshore is incorrect. sent18: if that the lotus-eater does federalize manuscript is true the dysprosium does federalize manuscript. sent19: the malacologist is a dongle if there exists something such that it is not offshore. sent20: if that something is a dongle but not eastern does not hold it is not a kind of a duckpins. sent21: the fact that the lotus-eater is a kind of a duckpins but it is not eastern is false if the malacologist is a kind of a duckpins.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the malacologist is not a duckpins.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the malacologist is not a kind of a dongle.; sent4 & sent17 -> int2: the malacologist is a dongle.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the malacologist is a duckpins.; int4 & sent21 -> int5: the fact that the lotus-eater is a duckpins but it is not eastern is not right.; sent1 -> int6: if that the lotus-eater is a kind of a duckpins but it is not eastern is incorrect then it federalizes manuscript.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the lotus-eater does federalize manuscript.;
that the dysprosium federalizes manuscript and does not enfeeble boarder does not hold.
sent3 -> int8: the fact that the dysprosium does federalize manuscript and does not enfeeble boarder does not hold if it is a duckpins.;
$hypothesis$ = the dysprosium does federalize manuscript and does not enfeeble boarder. ; $context$ = sent1: something federalizes manuscript if the fact that it is a duckpins and it is non-eastern is not true. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it is an abomination and it is offshore is not right. sent3: the fact that something does federalize manuscript and does not enfeeble boarder is not right if it is a duckpins. sent4: there is something such that that it is not a kind of an abomination and it is offshore is incorrect. sent5: if that the lotus-eater does federalize manuscript and is not a duckpins does not hold it is a kind of a dongle. sent6: something is not an abomination but it is offshore. sent7: the dysprosium is a kind of a doubler. sent8: something federalizes manuscript if it is eastern. sent9: if the malacologist is a duckpins then that the lotus-eater is a duckpins and it is eastern is not correct. sent10: the dysprosium federalizes manuscript. sent11: if that the malacologist is eastern and is not a duckpins does not hold then that it does federalize manuscript hold. sent12: the fact that the lotus-eater is a duckpins and it is eastern does not hold. sent13: the lotus-eater federalizes manuscript if it is eastern. sent14: if the lotus-eater is not offshore then the fact that the malacologist is a dongle and is eastern is not right. sent15: something does enfeeble boarder if that it federalizes manuscript and it is not a kind of a duckpins is wrong. sent16: if the malacologist is not a duckpins then it is not a dongle. sent17: the malacologist is a dongle if there exists something such that the fact that it is not an abomination and it is offshore is incorrect. sent18: if that the lotus-eater does federalize manuscript is true the dysprosium does federalize manuscript. sent19: the malacologist is a dongle if there exists something such that it is not offshore. sent20: if that something is a dongle but not eastern does not hold it is not a kind of a duckpins. sent21: the fact that the lotus-eater is a kind of a duckpins but it is not eastern is false if the malacologist is a kind of a duckpins. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the malacologist is not a duckpins.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the malacologist is not a kind of a dongle.; sent4 & sent17 -> int2: the malacologist is a dongle.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the malacologist is a duckpins.; int4 & sent21 -> int5: the fact that the lotus-eater is a duckpins but it is not eastern is not right.; sent1 -> int6: if that the lotus-eater is a kind of a duckpins but it is not eastern is incorrect then it federalizes manuscript.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the lotus-eater does federalize manuscript.; __UNKNOWN__