the fact that the amide does not cope corker and it is not nominative does not hold if the perisperm is a WTV.
sent1: the perisperm does cope corker. sent2: if the animalization is a nominative then the fact that that the amide does not cope corker and is not a kind of a nominative does not hold is not wrong. sent3: the fact that the perisperm does cope corker and is not a WTV does not hold. sent4: the animalization is a kind of a WTV if the fact that the perisperm is not a nominative hold. sent5: the bolt does cope corker. sent6: that the perisperm is not a locus and does not lurch perisperm does not hold. sent7: that the animalization is a kind of a WTV that is not uncivil is not true. sent8: if the perisperm is supersonic or does not lurch perisperm or both the animalization is a kind of a nominative.
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the amide does not cope corker and it is not nominative does not hold if the perisperm is a WTV. ; $context$ = sent1: the perisperm does cope corker. sent2: if the animalization is a nominative then the fact that that the amide does not cope corker and is not a kind of a nominative does not hold is not wrong. sent3: the fact that the perisperm does cope corker and is not a WTV does not hold. sent4: the animalization is a kind of a WTV if the fact that the perisperm is not a nominative hold. sent5: the bolt does cope corker. sent6: that the perisperm is not a locus and does not lurch perisperm does not hold. sent7: that the animalization is a kind of a WTV that is not uncivil is not true. sent8: if the perisperm is supersonic or does not lurch perisperm or both the animalization is a kind of a nominative. ; $proof$ = 
__UNKNOWN__