the retrovirus is not a boil.
sent1: if a hiccup is not unemotional the ETD does not tip Phoenicopteridae. sent2: the mycophagist is not a kind of a peduncle if the fact that the ETD is unemotional and it flakes airport is right. sent3: if the retrovirus is a boil that hiccups the ETD is not unemotional. sent4: the ETD does flake airport. sent5: the ETD does not criticize. sent6: the ghat boils and flakes angiocardiogram. sent7: that the snow-on-the-mountain tips Phoenicopteridae and it does flake photomontage is wrong. sent8: something flakes airport and it repents if it does not criticize. sent9: the retrovirus criticizes and it does tip Phoenicopteridae if it is not a peduncle. sent10: something is fugal. sent11: something is a kind of a hiccup but it is not unemotional if it is a kind of a peduncle. sent12: the retrovirus is restrictive and does harvest distressed. sent13: the fact that the ETD does not repent hold if it does not hiccup. sent14: if the urobilinogen is thermodynamic but it does not criticize it does not repent. sent15: the fact that the urobilinogen is thermodynamic is right. sent16: the fact that the mycophagist is synoptic and it boils does not hold. sent17: that the ETD does hiccup and is a kind of a peduncle does not hold if the mycophagist is not unemotional. sent18: the ETD is not a kind of a Solomon's-seal. sent19: the xenotime is a peduncle if there is something such that that it does flake airport and is not a kind of a peduncle is not true. sent20: something is a peduncle. sent21: something does flake airport if it does not criticize. sent22: if there is something such that it does not tip Phoenicopteridae then the mycophagist is not a boil and/or it is not fugal. sent23: if that the ETD does not criticize hold the fact that it does flake airport is correct. sent24: the retrovirus does tip Phoenicopteridae if there is something such that it is fugal. sent25: if the mycophagist is not a boil the retrovirus does boil. sent26: if the fact that the ETD does hiccup and is a peduncle does not hold it does not repent.
sent10 & sent24 -> int1: the fact that the retrovirus does not tip Phoenicopteridae does not hold.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the retrovirus is a kind of a boil.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the retrovirus does tip Phoenicopteridae and it does boil.; sent8 -> int3: if the ETD does not criticize it flakes airport and does repent.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: the ETD flakes airport and it repents.; int4 -> int5: the ETD repents.;
the retrovirus is a boil.
sent11 -> int6: if the xenotime is a kind of a peduncle it is a hiccup and it is not unemotional.;
$hypothesis$ = the retrovirus is not a boil. ; $context$ = sent1: if a hiccup is not unemotional the ETD does not tip Phoenicopteridae. sent2: the mycophagist is not a kind of a peduncle if the fact that the ETD is unemotional and it flakes airport is right. sent3: if the retrovirus is a boil that hiccups the ETD is not unemotional. sent4: the ETD does flake airport. sent5: the ETD does not criticize. sent6: the ghat boils and flakes angiocardiogram. sent7: that the snow-on-the-mountain tips Phoenicopteridae and it does flake photomontage is wrong. sent8: something flakes airport and it repents if it does not criticize. sent9: the retrovirus criticizes and it does tip Phoenicopteridae if it is not a peduncle. sent10: something is fugal. sent11: something is a kind of a hiccup but it is not unemotional if it is a kind of a peduncle. sent12: the retrovirus is restrictive and does harvest distressed. sent13: the fact that the ETD does not repent hold if it does not hiccup. sent14: if the urobilinogen is thermodynamic but it does not criticize it does not repent. sent15: the fact that the urobilinogen is thermodynamic is right. sent16: the fact that the mycophagist is synoptic and it boils does not hold. sent17: that the ETD does hiccup and is a kind of a peduncle does not hold if the mycophagist is not unemotional. sent18: the ETD is not a kind of a Solomon's-seal. sent19: the xenotime is a peduncle if there is something such that that it does flake airport and is not a kind of a peduncle is not true. sent20: something is a peduncle. sent21: something does flake airport if it does not criticize. sent22: if there is something such that it does not tip Phoenicopteridae then the mycophagist is not a boil and/or it is not fugal. sent23: if that the ETD does not criticize hold the fact that it does flake airport is correct. sent24: the retrovirus does tip Phoenicopteridae if there is something such that it is fugal. sent25: if the mycophagist is not a boil the retrovirus does boil. sent26: if the fact that the ETD does hiccup and is a peduncle does not hold it does not repent. ; $proof$ = 
sent10 & sent24 -> int1: the fact that the retrovirus does not tip Phoenicopteridae does not hold.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the retrovirus is a kind of a boil.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the retrovirus does tip Phoenicopteridae and it does boil.; sent8 -> int3: if the ETD does not criticize it flakes airport and does repent.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: the ETD flakes airport and it repents.; int4 -> int5: the ETD repents.; __UNKNOWN__