the Siamese does ebb Sirach.
sent1: if there exists something such that it does manacle heelbone that the sagittate-leaf manacle heelbone and it invites Brotulidae does not hold. sent2: something does not ebb Sirach if it is not a snowman. sent3: if the fact that something does not manacle wonderland and it does not familiarize is not right then it is not ontogenetic. sent4: if the wonderland is a man-eater then it is a snowman. sent5: either the wonderland does radiate or it is unneurotic or both if something does radiate. sent6: the Siamese does not manacle heelbone and is a kind of a man-eater. sent7: if something is a snowman it does ebb Sirach. sent8: the sagittate-leaf does not manacle heelbone. sent9: if something is a insubstantiality that it does not manacle wonderland and does not familiarize is not right. sent10: if the wonderland radiates the Siamese does radiates. sent11: the Siamese does invite Brotulidae and it is a man-eater if the sagittate-leaf does not invite Brotulidae. sent12: the fact that that everything is a kind of a insubstantiality that steepens chrysoberyl is right hold. sent13: the sagittate-leaf is not a kind of a man-eater but it does ebb Sirach if the Siamese manacles heelbone. sent14: if the tread-softly is not conspiratorial the sagittate-leaf radiates. sent15: that the sagittate-leaf does not manacle heelbone but it does invite Brotulidae is incorrect if there is something such that it does manacle heelbone. sent16: there is something such that it does manacle heelbone. sent17: the fact that something is both a snowman and not a man-eater is not correct if that it radiates is not wrong. sent18: if there is something such that it is not ontogenetic the fact that the prayerbook does not ebb Numenius and is conspiratorial is not correct. sent19: the sagittate-leaf does not manacle heelbone but it invites Brotulidae if the wonderland is a snowman. sent20: the fact that the sagittate-leaf manacles heelbone and invites Brotulidae is not true. sent21: the tread-softly is not conspiratorial if that the prayerbook does not ebb Numenius but it is conspiratorial is not correct. sent22: the Siamese does manacle clingfish and it is a weaver.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the wonderland is a snowman.; sent19 & assump1 -> int1: the sagittate-leaf does not manacle heelbone but it does invite Brotulidae.; sent16 & sent15 -> int2: the fact that the sagittate-leaf does not manacle heelbone but it invites Brotulidae does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the wonderland is not a snowman.; sent7 -> int5: if the Siamese is a kind of a snowman then it ebbs Sirach.;
the Siamese does not ebb Sirach.
sent2 -> int6: if the Siamese is not a snowman then it does not ebb Sirach.; sent17 -> int7: the fact that the Siamese is both a snowman and not a man-eater does not hold if that it radiates is correct.; sent3 -> int8: if the fact that the anisogamy does not manacle wonderland and does not familiarize is wrong it is not ontogenetic.; sent9 -> int9: if the anisogamy is a insubstantiality then the fact that it does not manacle wonderland and does not familiarize does not hold.; sent12 -> int10: the anisogamy is a insubstantiality that steepens chrysoberyl.; int10 -> int11: the anisogamy is a kind of a insubstantiality.; int9 & int11 -> int12: that the anisogamy does not manacle wonderland and it does not familiarize is incorrect.; int8 & int12 -> int13: the anisogamy is not ontogenetic.; int13 -> int14: there exists something such that it is not ontogenetic.; int14 & sent18 -> int15: that the prayerbook does not ebb Numenius but it is conspiratorial is not correct.; sent21 & int15 -> int16: the tread-softly is not conspiratorial.; sent14 & int16 -> int17: the sagittate-leaf radiates.; int17 -> int18: there is something such that it radiates.; int18 & sent5 -> int19: the wonderland radiates or is unneurotic or both.;
$hypothesis$ = the Siamese does ebb Sirach. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it does manacle heelbone that the sagittate-leaf manacle heelbone and it invites Brotulidae does not hold. sent2: something does not ebb Sirach if it is not a snowman. sent3: if the fact that something does not manacle wonderland and it does not familiarize is not right then it is not ontogenetic. sent4: if the wonderland is a man-eater then it is a snowman. sent5: either the wonderland does radiate or it is unneurotic or both if something does radiate. sent6: the Siamese does not manacle heelbone and is a kind of a man-eater. sent7: if something is a snowman it does ebb Sirach. sent8: the sagittate-leaf does not manacle heelbone. sent9: if something is a insubstantiality that it does not manacle wonderland and does not familiarize is not right. sent10: if the wonderland radiates the Siamese does radiates. sent11: the Siamese does invite Brotulidae and it is a man-eater if the sagittate-leaf does not invite Brotulidae. sent12: the fact that that everything is a kind of a insubstantiality that steepens chrysoberyl is right hold. sent13: the sagittate-leaf is not a kind of a man-eater but it does ebb Sirach if the Siamese manacles heelbone. sent14: if the tread-softly is not conspiratorial the sagittate-leaf radiates. sent15: that the sagittate-leaf does not manacle heelbone but it does invite Brotulidae is incorrect if there is something such that it does manacle heelbone. sent16: there is something such that it does manacle heelbone. sent17: the fact that something is both a snowman and not a man-eater is not correct if that it radiates is not wrong. sent18: if there is something such that it is not ontogenetic the fact that the prayerbook does not ebb Numenius and is conspiratorial is not correct. sent19: the sagittate-leaf does not manacle heelbone but it invites Brotulidae if the wonderland is a snowman. sent20: the fact that the sagittate-leaf manacles heelbone and invites Brotulidae is not true. sent21: the tread-softly is not conspiratorial if that the prayerbook does not ebb Numenius but it is conspiratorial is not correct. sent22: the Siamese does manacle clingfish and it is a weaver. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the wonderland is a snowman.; sent19 & assump1 -> int1: the sagittate-leaf does not manacle heelbone but it does invite Brotulidae.; sent16 & sent15 -> int2: the fact that the sagittate-leaf does not manacle heelbone but it invites Brotulidae does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the wonderland is not a snowman.; sent7 -> int5: if the Siamese is a kind of a snowman then it ebbs Sirach.; __UNKNOWN__