the Cimarron does not measure Snoopy.
sent1: that the timberline does not measure osmoreceptor and it is not nonarbitrable does not hold. sent2: the Cimarron does not measure Snoopy if that it is not lovable and it is not Tobagonian is wrong. sent3: if the melphalan is not nonarbitrable then that it does abscise and it is lovable is wrong. sent4: the fact that that the Cimarron is not lovable but it is Tobagonian is not right is not false if the melphalan is not lovable. sent5: if the Cimarron is not nonarbitrable the fact that it is a kind of lovable a Tobagonian is incorrect. sent6: that the walk-in is a kind of a Tobagonian that is lovable is false if it is not eukaryotic. sent7: that the Cimarron is non-lovable and non-Tobagonian is not true if the melphalan is not non-lovable. sent8: the walk-in is not nonarbitrable. sent9: that that the walk-in is the kind of eukaryotic thing that does abscise is false if the walk-in is not congruent is not false. sent10: if the walk-in is not eukaryotic the melphalan is not lovable. sent11: if the Cimarron is Tobagonian then it does not measure Snoopy. sent12: if the walk-in is arbitrable then that the Cimarron is not arbitrable and it is not lovable is wrong. sent13: if the fact that the mixer is not Tobagonian but non-fibrinous does not hold then it is not a kind of a morgen. sent14: the Cimarron is not a Hellman. sent15: the fact that the Cimarron is a kind of non-lovable thing that is a kind of a Tobagonian does not hold. sent16: that the walk-in is not lovable and it is not nonarbitrable is false if that the Cimarron is not lovable is correct. sent17: the Cimarron is not lovable if the fact that it is not eukaryotic and it is not a kind of a Tobagonian is wrong. sent18: the melphalan is not lovable if that the walk-in is eukaryotic and does abscise does not hold. sent19: something measures Snoopy if it is congruent and/or is not nonarbitrable.
the Cimarron does measure Snoopy.
sent19 -> int1: the Cimarron does measure Snoopy if it is congruent and/or it is not nonarbitrable.;
$hypothesis$ = the Cimarron does not measure Snoopy. ; $context$ = sent1: that the timberline does not measure osmoreceptor and it is not nonarbitrable does not hold. sent2: the Cimarron does not measure Snoopy if that it is not lovable and it is not Tobagonian is wrong. sent3: if the melphalan is not nonarbitrable then that it does abscise and it is lovable is wrong. sent4: the fact that that the Cimarron is not lovable but it is Tobagonian is not right is not false if the melphalan is not lovable. sent5: if the Cimarron is not nonarbitrable the fact that it is a kind of lovable a Tobagonian is incorrect. sent6: that the walk-in is a kind of a Tobagonian that is lovable is false if it is not eukaryotic. sent7: that the Cimarron is non-lovable and non-Tobagonian is not true if the melphalan is not non-lovable. sent8: the walk-in is not nonarbitrable. sent9: that that the walk-in is the kind of eukaryotic thing that does abscise is false if the walk-in is not congruent is not false. sent10: if the walk-in is not eukaryotic the melphalan is not lovable. sent11: if the Cimarron is Tobagonian then it does not measure Snoopy. sent12: if the walk-in is arbitrable then that the Cimarron is not arbitrable and it is not lovable is wrong. sent13: if the fact that the mixer is not Tobagonian but non-fibrinous does not hold then it is not a kind of a morgen. sent14: the Cimarron is not a Hellman. sent15: the fact that the Cimarron is a kind of non-lovable thing that is a kind of a Tobagonian does not hold. sent16: that the walk-in is not lovable and it is not nonarbitrable is false if that the Cimarron is not lovable is correct. sent17: the Cimarron is not lovable if the fact that it is not eukaryotic and it is not a kind of a Tobagonian is wrong. sent18: the melphalan is not lovable if that the walk-in is eukaryotic and does abscise does not hold. sent19: something measures Snoopy if it is congruent and/or is not nonarbitrable. ; $proof$ = 
__UNKNOWN__