the animalization is ununderstood.
sent1: the fact that the metabolism does pink focalization if the animalization is not ununderstood but it does debouch is not incorrect. sent2: if the metabolism is not ununderstood then it is a hymeneal and it does quench. sent3: if something is not a hymeneal that it does pink focalization and is not creaseproof is incorrect. sent4: if something that does not pink focalization is a hymeneal the orifice is not creaseproof. sent5: something is ununderstood if it quenches. sent6: the imp is a hymeneal. sent7: the orifice is manageable and is creaseproof. sent8: the imp quenches. sent9: something does not quench and does name acupressure. sent10: that the metabolism does not pink focalization and is not a kind of a hydrology does not hold if it is hymeneal. sent11: the orifice does not debouch if the fact that the metabolism is not manageable and it does not name acupressure is not correct. sent12: if the imp is creaseproof and does not pink focalization then the animalization is ununderstood. sent13: that the Tamale does not pink focalization and it does not quench does not hold. sent14: if the metabolism does not debouch and does not name acupressure that the animalization does quench is not incorrect. sent15: if that the metabolism does not debouch and it does not name acupressure is not correct the Tamale does not pink focalization. sent16: if the Tamale does not pink focalization that the imp is a hymeneal is right.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that that the metabolism does not debouch and does not name acupressure is correct is wrong.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the Tamale does not pink focalization.; sent7 -> int2: the orifice is creaseproof.; sent5 -> int3: the animalization is ununderstood if it quenches.;
the Tamale is a hydrology and is leaden.
$hypothesis$ = the animalization is ununderstood. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the metabolism does pink focalization if the animalization is not ununderstood but it does debouch is not incorrect. sent2: if the metabolism is not ununderstood then it is a hymeneal and it does quench. sent3: if something is not a hymeneal that it does pink focalization and is not creaseproof is incorrect. sent4: if something that does not pink focalization is a hymeneal the orifice is not creaseproof. sent5: something is ununderstood if it quenches. sent6: the imp is a hymeneal. sent7: the orifice is manageable and is creaseproof. sent8: the imp quenches. sent9: something does not quench and does name acupressure. sent10: that the metabolism does not pink focalization and is not a kind of a hydrology does not hold if it is hymeneal. sent11: the orifice does not debouch if the fact that the metabolism is not manageable and it does not name acupressure is not correct. sent12: if the imp is creaseproof and does not pink focalization then the animalization is ununderstood. sent13: that the Tamale does not pink focalization and it does not quench does not hold. sent14: if the metabolism does not debouch and does not name acupressure that the animalization does quench is not incorrect. sent15: if that the metabolism does not debouch and it does not name acupressure is not correct the Tamale does not pink focalization. sent16: if the Tamale does not pink focalization that the imp is a hymeneal is right. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that that the metabolism does not debouch and does not name acupressure is correct is wrong.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the Tamale does not pink focalization.; sent7 -> int2: the orifice is creaseproof.; sent5 -> int3: the animalization is ununderstood if it quenches.; __UNKNOWN__