the fact that that the descender does not ammoniate maund but it is a symphysis is correct is false.
sent1: that the descender ammoniates maund and it is a symphysis is incorrect if the oar is a symphysis. sent2: if the descender is a spot then the congressman is not a kind of a re-creation. sent3: if the descender is a symphysis or it is a spot or both then the oar does not ammoniate maund. sent4: the fact that the congressman is both not a spot and not electronic does not hold. sent5: the oar is non-electronic if the congressman is a kind of a re-creation and/or it is a spot. sent6: if the descender ammoniates maund then the fact that the oar is electronic and it does ammoniates maund is not correct. sent7: the fact that the oar does not spot and it is non-electronic does not hold. sent8: the descender is a enalapril. sent9: if the descender is a kind of a spot that the congressman is not a symphysis but it is a spot does not hold. sent10: if the fact that the congressman is a re-creation and/or it is a symphysis is true the oar is not a kind of a spot. sent11: the descender is non-stabling thing that is not a spot. sent12: something is a re-creation and it spots if that it is not electronic is right. sent13: if the oar is a kind of a symphysis then the fact that the descender does not ammoniate maund and is a symphysis is false. sent14: either everything is a re-creation or it spots or both.
sent14 -> int1: the congressman is a re-creation or does spot or both.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the oar is not electronic.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the oar is not a symphysis.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the oar is not a symphysis and it is not electronic.;
the descender does not ammoniate maund and is a kind of a symphysis.
sent12 -> int4: the descender is a kind of a re-creation that spots if it is not electronic.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that that the descender does not ammoniate maund but it is a symphysis is correct is false. ; $context$ = sent1: that the descender ammoniates maund and it is a symphysis is incorrect if the oar is a symphysis. sent2: if the descender is a spot then the congressman is not a kind of a re-creation. sent3: if the descender is a symphysis or it is a spot or both then the oar does not ammoniate maund. sent4: the fact that the congressman is both not a spot and not electronic does not hold. sent5: the oar is non-electronic if the congressman is a kind of a re-creation and/or it is a spot. sent6: if the descender ammoniates maund then the fact that the oar is electronic and it does ammoniates maund is not correct. sent7: the fact that the oar does not spot and it is non-electronic does not hold. sent8: the descender is a enalapril. sent9: if the descender is a kind of a spot that the congressman is not a symphysis but it is a spot does not hold. sent10: if the fact that the congressman is a re-creation and/or it is a symphysis is true the oar is not a kind of a spot. sent11: the descender is non-stabling thing that is not a spot. sent12: something is a re-creation and it spots if that it is not electronic is right. sent13: if the oar is a kind of a symphysis then the fact that the descender does not ammoniate maund and is a symphysis is false. sent14: either everything is a re-creation or it spots or both. ; $proof$ = 
sent14 -> int1: the congressman is a re-creation or does spot or both.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the oar is not electronic.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the oar is not a symphysis.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the oar is not a symphysis and it is not electronic.; __UNKNOWN__