the nautilus grasps bishopry and it is ataxic.
sent1: if the provider does not subtilize hatchway it does ogle deoxyribose. sent2: the fact that the provider does subtilize saffron is true. sent3: the fesse does not ogle provider if the fact that it does not grasp wellpoint and ogle provider is not true. sent4: if the provider does subtilize hatchway it does subtilize saffron. sent5: the nautilus does not ogle deoxyribose and it is not a loungewear if the provider is not a kind of a filtration. sent6: if the provider does not subtilize hatchway then it does ogle deoxyribose and is a kind of a loungewear. sent7: the fact that the nautilus does not ogle deoxyribose is wrong. sent8: there exists nothing such that it is a floor and does not grasp ostentation. sent9: there exists something such that that it is a filtration is right. sent10: if something that does not ogle deoxyribose is not a kind of a loungewear then it does not subtilize hatchway. sent11: The bishopry grasps nautilus. sent12: if something is a filtration then the tortoise is not a kind of a loungewear. sent13: the nautilus does subtilize hatchway. sent14: if the tortoise is a cashew the nautilus is ataxic. sent15: if that the fesse is a kind of a floor that does not grasp ostentation is wrong then it does grasp ostentation. sent16: the tortoise is not a loungewear. sent17: that the secretion is aversive is correct. sent18: the provider subtilizes saffron and/or it is a pisiform. sent19: if the tortoise does not ogle provider the fact that it is a cashew and is aversive is not wrong. sent20: if the provider subtilizes hatchway that it does not subtilize saffron and/or is a pisiform does not hold. sent21: if the tortoise is aversive then the nautilus is ataxic. sent22: the tortoise does grasp bishopry if that the nautilus is aversive is true. sent23: the provider does ogle deoxyribose. sent24: that something grasps bishopry and is ataxic does not hold if it does not subtilize hatchway. sent25: the provider does not subtilize saffron and/or is a pisiform. sent26: the nautilus grasps bishopry. sent27: the tortoise does not ogle provider if the fesse does grasp ostentation but it does not ogle provider. sent28: either the tortoise is aversive or it is a cashew or both if it is not a filtration.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the provider does subtilize hatchway.; sent20 & assump1 -> int1: that the provider does not subtilize saffron and/or it is a pisiform is not true.; int1 & sent25 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the provider does not subtilize hatchway.; int3 & sent6 -> int4: that the provider ogles deoxyribose and it is a kind of a loungewear is not incorrect.; int4 -> int5: the provider is a loungewear.;
the fact that the nautilus grasps bishopry and is ataxic is not true.
sent24 -> int6: the fact that the nautilus grasps bishopry and is ataxic does not hold if it does not subtilize hatchway.; sent10 -> int7: the fact that the nautilus does not subtilize hatchway is right if it does not ogle deoxyribose and is not a loungewear.; sent8 -> int8: the fact that the fesse is a floor that does not grasp ostentation is not right.; sent15 & int8 -> int9: the fesse does grasp ostentation.;
$hypothesis$ = the nautilus grasps bishopry and it is ataxic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the provider does not subtilize hatchway it does ogle deoxyribose. sent2: the fact that the provider does subtilize saffron is true. sent3: the fesse does not ogle provider if the fact that it does not grasp wellpoint and ogle provider is not true. sent4: if the provider does subtilize hatchway it does subtilize saffron. sent5: the nautilus does not ogle deoxyribose and it is not a loungewear if the provider is not a kind of a filtration. sent6: if the provider does not subtilize hatchway then it does ogle deoxyribose and is a kind of a loungewear. sent7: the fact that the nautilus does not ogle deoxyribose is wrong. sent8: there exists nothing such that it is a floor and does not grasp ostentation. sent9: there exists something such that that it is a filtration is right. sent10: if something that does not ogle deoxyribose is not a kind of a loungewear then it does not subtilize hatchway. sent11: The bishopry grasps nautilus. sent12: if something is a filtration then the tortoise is not a kind of a loungewear. sent13: the nautilus does subtilize hatchway. sent14: if the tortoise is a cashew the nautilus is ataxic. sent15: if that the fesse is a kind of a floor that does not grasp ostentation is wrong then it does grasp ostentation. sent16: the tortoise is not a loungewear. sent17: that the secretion is aversive is correct. sent18: the provider subtilizes saffron and/or it is a pisiform. sent19: if the tortoise does not ogle provider the fact that it is a cashew and is aversive is not wrong. sent20: if the provider subtilizes hatchway that it does not subtilize saffron and/or is a pisiform does not hold. sent21: if the tortoise is aversive then the nautilus is ataxic. sent22: the tortoise does grasp bishopry if that the nautilus is aversive is true. sent23: the provider does ogle deoxyribose. sent24: that something grasps bishopry and is ataxic does not hold if it does not subtilize hatchway. sent25: the provider does not subtilize saffron and/or is a pisiform. sent26: the nautilus grasps bishopry. sent27: the tortoise does not ogle provider if the fesse does grasp ostentation but it does not ogle provider. sent28: either the tortoise is aversive or it is a cashew or both if it is not a filtration. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the provider does subtilize hatchway.; sent20 & assump1 -> int1: that the provider does not subtilize saffron and/or it is a pisiform is not true.; int1 & sent25 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the provider does not subtilize hatchway.; int3 & sent6 -> int4: that the provider ogles deoxyribose and it is a kind of a loungewear is not incorrect.; int4 -> int5: the provider is a loungewear.; __UNKNOWN__