the canape is joyless and is not a hypotonia.
sent1: something window-shops if it window-shops or it is not a kind of a hypotonia or both. sent2: something is intimal but it does not patinate holotype if it does window-shop. sent3: if the witloof is not acetylic the lascar is not acetylic. sent4: there exists something such that it is both not joyless and a ECM. sent5: the calorimeter is not binocular if that the canape is not macromolecular and it is not a lap is incorrect. sent6: either something window-shops or it is not a hypotonia or both if it is joyless. sent7: there exists something such that it capsules Pharaoh and is a sodomy. sent8: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not joyless and it is a ECM is incorrect then the canape is joyless. sent9: if the lascar is not acetylic then it is not a Laffer and it is not a kind of a linage. sent10: there exists something such that that it is joyous thing that is a ECM is wrong. sent11: if the lascar is not a Laffer and not a linage then the canape is a zebu. sent12: if the calorimeter window-shops the canape is not implausible but non-paleontological. sent13: the Brie is joyless if the calorimeter is both not a ECM and joyless. sent14: if the canape is not implausible but it is paleontological it is not a kind of a hypotonia. sent15: if something is not binocular then it is not a ECM and is joyless. sent16: the calorimeter does window-shop. sent17: if something is a zebu then the fact that it is not macromolecular and it is not a lap is false. sent18: the peanut is a kind of non-cosmologic thing that does not pigeonhole. sent19: if the canape is implausible thing that is not paleontological then the fact that it is not a hypotonia is correct.
sent12 & sent16 -> int1: the canape is not implausible and is not paleontological.; sent10 & sent8 -> int2: the canape is joyless.;
the Brie is intimal and does not patinate holotype.
sent2 -> int3: if the Brie does window-shop it is intimal and it does not patinate holotype.; sent1 -> int4: if the Brie does window-shop and/or it is not a hypotonia then it does window-shop.; sent6 -> int5: if the Brie is joyless then it window-shops and/or it is not a kind of a hypotonia.; sent15 -> int6: if the calorimeter is not binocular then it is not a ECM and it is joyless.; sent17 -> int7: the fact that the canape is a kind of non-macromolecular thing that is not a lap is false if it is a zebu.;
$hypothesis$ = the canape is joyless and is not a hypotonia. ; $context$ = sent1: something window-shops if it window-shops or it is not a kind of a hypotonia or both. sent2: something is intimal but it does not patinate holotype if it does window-shop. sent3: if the witloof is not acetylic the lascar is not acetylic. sent4: there exists something such that it is both not joyless and a ECM. sent5: the calorimeter is not binocular if that the canape is not macromolecular and it is not a lap is incorrect. sent6: either something window-shops or it is not a hypotonia or both if it is joyless. sent7: there exists something such that it capsules Pharaoh and is a sodomy. sent8: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not joyless and it is a ECM is incorrect then the canape is joyless. sent9: if the lascar is not acetylic then it is not a Laffer and it is not a kind of a linage. sent10: there exists something such that that it is joyous thing that is a ECM is wrong. sent11: if the lascar is not a Laffer and not a linage then the canape is a zebu. sent12: if the calorimeter window-shops the canape is not implausible but non-paleontological. sent13: the Brie is joyless if the calorimeter is both not a ECM and joyless. sent14: if the canape is not implausible but it is paleontological it is not a kind of a hypotonia. sent15: if something is not binocular then it is not a ECM and is joyless. sent16: the calorimeter does window-shop. sent17: if something is a zebu then the fact that it is not macromolecular and it is not a lap is false. sent18: the peanut is a kind of non-cosmologic thing that does not pigeonhole. sent19: if the canape is implausible thing that is not paleontological then the fact that it is not a hypotonia is correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent12 & sent16 -> int1: the canape is not implausible and is not paleontological.; sent10 & sent8 -> int2: the canape is joyless.; __UNKNOWN__