the thermocouple is not descriptive.
sent1: if the burqa is a assessee the corrosive is a clock. sent2: that that the Bakelite does accept and does not decouple does not hold is correct if the sectional does alibi busman. sent3: the corrosive is a kind of an atavism. sent4: if the sectional does decouple then the fact that the thermocouple does not alibi busman or is not a depreciation or both is not right. sent5: if something does not decouple but it alibis busman it is a crotchet. sent6: if the Bakelite is Romance the corrosive is a crotchet. sent7: if the fact that something does not alibi busman and/or is not a depreciation is incorrect it is descriptive. sent8: if the corrosive does not quack then the fact that the Bakelite is not a kind of a subjunctive and does accept is not correct. sent9: that the Bakelite is both not an atavism and a quack is incorrect. sent10: that the rider is a crotchet but it does not clock is false if there exists something such that it is septal. sent11: the fact that the Bakelite is not an atavism and not a quack is not true. sent12: the sectional does alibi busman and it is a kind of a depreciation. sent13: something is Romance if that it is non-subjunctive a quack is not false. sent14: that the Bakelite accepts and does decouple is incorrect. sent15: if the Bakelite is not a quack but a depreciation it is Romance. sent16: the burqa decouples. sent17: if the sectional does alibi busman then the fact that that the Bakelite does accept and it does decouple is false is not incorrect. sent18: the sectional is a depreciation. sent19: if that the Bakelite is both not an atavism and not a quack does not hold then it quack. sent20: if the corrosive is a crotchet then it is septal. sent21: the carnosaur is septal. sent22: the corrosive is a clock if the burqa is unshapely. sent23: the thermocouple is not descriptive if the corrosive is septal and it is a kind of a clock. sent24: the Bakelite is not a kind of a subjunctive if the fact that it does accept and it does not decouple is incorrect. sent25: the rider is not a kind of a crotchet if that it is a kind of a crotchet and it does not clock is not correct. sent26: the thermocouple is not a kind of a subjunctive. sent27: if that the Bakelite is non-subjunctive thing that accepts does not hold the sectional does accepts. sent28: if the Bakelite decouples then the fact that it is not a subjunctive hold. sent29: if the corrosive is not a crotchet but it does decouple then it is a assessee. sent30: the burqa is a Romance if there is something such that it is not a crotchet.
sent12 -> int1: the sectional alibis busman.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the fact that the fact that that the Bakelite accepts but it does not decouple is not incorrect is wrong is not incorrect.; int2 & sent24 -> int3: the Bakelite is not subjunctive.; sent19 & sent11 -> int4: the Bakelite does quack.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the Bakelite is both not subjunctive and a quack.; sent13 -> int6: the Bakelite is a kind of a Romance if it is not subjunctive but a quack.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the Bakelite is a Romance.; int7 & sent6 -> int8: the corrosive is a kind of a crotchet.; int8 & sent20 -> int9: the corrosive is septal.;
the fact that the thermocouple is descriptive is not false.
sent7 -> int10: if that the fact that the thermocouple does not alibi busman and/or it is not a depreciation is not correct is correct then it is descriptive.; sent21 -> int11: there exists something such that it is septal.; int11 & sent10 -> int12: that the rider is a crotchet but it is not a clock does not hold.; sent25 & int12 -> int13: the rider is not a kind of a crotchet.; int13 -> int14: there is something such that it is not a crotchet.; int14 & sent30 -> int15: the burqa is Romance.; int15 -> int16: there exists something such that it is not non-Romance.;
$hypothesis$ = the thermocouple is not descriptive. ; $context$ = sent1: if the burqa is a assessee the corrosive is a clock. sent2: that that the Bakelite does accept and does not decouple does not hold is correct if the sectional does alibi busman. sent3: the corrosive is a kind of an atavism. sent4: if the sectional does decouple then the fact that the thermocouple does not alibi busman or is not a depreciation or both is not right. sent5: if something does not decouple but it alibis busman it is a crotchet. sent6: if the Bakelite is Romance the corrosive is a crotchet. sent7: if the fact that something does not alibi busman and/or is not a depreciation is incorrect it is descriptive. sent8: if the corrosive does not quack then the fact that the Bakelite is not a kind of a subjunctive and does accept is not correct. sent9: that the Bakelite is both not an atavism and a quack is incorrect. sent10: that the rider is a crotchet but it does not clock is false if there exists something such that it is septal. sent11: the fact that the Bakelite is not an atavism and not a quack is not true. sent12: the sectional does alibi busman and it is a kind of a depreciation. sent13: something is Romance if that it is non-subjunctive a quack is not false. sent14: that the Bakelite accepts and does decouple is incorrect. sent15: if the Bakelite is not a quack but a depreciation it is Romance. sent16: the burqa decouples. sent17: if the sectional does alibi busman then the fact that that the Bakelite does accept and it does decouple is false is not incorrect. sent18: the sectional is a depreciation. sent19: if that the Bakelite is both not an atavism and not a quack does not hold then it quack. sent20: if the corrosive is a crotchet then it is septal. sent21: the carnosaur is septal. sent22: the corrosive is a clock if the burqa is unshapely. sent23: the thermocouple is not descriptive if the corrosive is septal and it is a kind of a clock. sent24: the Bakelite is not a kind of a subjunctive if the fact that it does accept and it does not decouple is incorrect. sent25: the rider is not a kind of a crotchet if that it is a kind of a crotchet and it does not clock is not correct. sent26: the thermocouple is not a kind of a subjunctive. sent27: if that the Bakelite is non-subjunctive thing that accepts does not hold the sectional does accepts. sent28: if the Bakelite decouples then the fact that it is not a subjunctive hold. sent29: if the corrosive is not a crotchet but it does decouple then it is a assessee. sent30: the burqa is a Romance if there is something such that it is not a crotchet. ; $proof$ = 
sent12 -> int1: the sectional alibis busman.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the fact that the fact that that the Bakelite accepts but it does not decouple is not incorrect is wrong is not incorrect.; int2 & sent24 -> int3: the Bakelite is not subjunctive.; sent19 & sent11 -> int4: the Bakelite does quack.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the Bakelite is both not subjunctive and a quack.; sent13 -> int6: the Bakelite is a kind of a Romance if it is not subjunctive but a quack.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the Bakelite is a Romance.; int7 & sent6 -> int8: the corrosive is a kind of a crotchet.; int8 & sent20 -> int9: the corrosive is septal.; __UNKNOWN__