if the fact that the statistician does fathom is correct the sunbonnet is an ostracism.
sent1: the trumpetwood does not chomp. sent2: there exists something such that it is a fathom. sent3: if the sunbonnet is not repeatable the fact that it is not bimillenial is not correct. sent4: something is bimillenial and it is an ostracism if it is not repeatable. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that either it is not aniseikonic or it whelps Riesman or both is not true. sent6: if something does jostle barcarole and it fathoms the sunbonnet is not repeatable. sent7: something does jostle barcarole. sent8: there exists something such that that it is emotional and/or does chomp is not right. sent9: that there is something such that it is emotional is not incorrect. sent10: something is bimillenial if it is not repeatable. sent11: there is something such that either it is not emotional or it chomps or both. sent12: the statistician is a kind of an ostracism if there exists something such that that either it is not a kind of a fathom or it is bimillenial or both is not right. sent13: something that is not estrous is a kind of a ichthyologist that does whelp seek. sent14: something is melodic and it is a kind of a pipet if it is not a scatter. sent15: if something is not a tetrahydrocannabinol then it whelps symbolism and is a listlessness. sent16: the fact that the trumpetwood is not a kind of an ostracism hold. sent17: the statistician chomps. sent18: something is chaotic and does whelp cosmolatry if it is not a Tourette. sent19: the sunbonnet is bimillenial. sent20: the fact that the sunbonnet either is not bimillenial or does jostle barcarole or both does not hold. sent21: there exists something such that it does not chomp. sent22: if the sunbonnet does jostle barcarole then the statistician is bimillenial. sent23: the fact that the trumpetwood is unemotional or chomps or both is not right.
sent23 -> int1: there is something such that that it is not emotional and/or it does chomp is false.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the statistician is a fathom.; sent4 -> int2: the sunbonnet is bimillenial and is an ostracism if it is not repeatable.;
$hypothesis$ = if the fact that the statistician does fathom is correct the sunbonnet is an ostracism. ; $context$ = sent1: the trumpetwood does not chomp. sent2: there exists something such that it is a fathom. sent3: if the sunbonnet is not repeatable the fact that it is not bimillenial is not correct. sent4: something is bimillenial and it is an ostracism if it is not repeatable. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that either it is not aniseikonic or it whelps Riesman or both is not true. sent6: if something does jostle barcarole and it fathoms the sunbonnet is not repeatable. sent7: something does jostle barcarole. sent8: there exists something such that that it is emotional and/or does chomp is not right. sent9: that there is something such that it is emotional is not incorrect. sent10: something is bimillenial if it is not repeatable. sent11: there is something such that either it is not emotional or it chomps or both. sent12: the statistician is a kind of an ostracism if there exists something such that that either it is not a kind of a fathom or it is bimillenial or both is not right. sent13: something that is not estrous is a kind of a ichthyologist that does whelp seek. sent14: something is melodic and it is a kind of a pipet if it is not a scatter. sent15: if something is not a tetrahydrocannabinol then it whelps symbolism and is a listlessness. sent16: the fact that the trumpetwood is not a kind of an ostracism hold. sent17: the statistician chomps. sent18: something is chaotic and does whelp cosmolatry if it is not a Tourette. sent19: the sunbonnet is bimillenial. sent20: the fact that the sunbonnet either is not bimillenial or does jostle barcarole or both does not hold. sent21: there exists something such that it does not chomp. sent22: if the sunbonnet does jostle barcarole then the statistician is bimillenial. sent23: the fact that the trumpetwood is unemotional or chomps or both is not right. ; $proof$ = 
sent23 -> int1: there is something such that that it is not emotional and/or it does chomp is false.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the statistician is a fathom.; sent4 -> int2: the sunbonnet is bimillenial and is an ostracism if it is not repeatable.; __UNKNOWN__