the bullpen does impinge neutrality if the fact that the nevirapine is a kind of a Ecballium is correct.
sent1: the weeds is euphemistic but it is not a Hutton if the bullpen is not a Ecballium. sent2: if the nevirapine is a Hutton and/or it is a Ecballium then it is not euphemistic. sent3: the nevirapine is not a kind of a Hutton if the weeds is euphemistic and is not a Hutton. sent4: the bullpen impinges neutrality if there exists something such that that it impinges astronomer and it is a Lancashire does not hold. sent5: if the nevirapine is not a Hutton then that it is inconclusive and it is a streptococcus is not true.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the nevirapine is a Ecballium is correct.; assump1 -> int1: the nevirapine is a Hutton and/or it is a Ecballium.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: the nevirapine is not euphemistic.;
there is something such that the fact that it is inconclusive and it is a kind of a streptococcus is not correct.
$hypothesis$ = the bullpen does impinge neutrality if the fact that the nevirapine is a kind of a Ecballium is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the weeds is euphemistic but it is not a Hutton if the bullpen is not a Ecballium. sent2: if the nevirapine is a Hutton and/or it is a Ecballium then it is not euphemistic. sent3: the nevirapine is not a kind of a Hutton if the weeds is euphemistic and is not a Hutton. sent4: the bullpen impinges neutrality if there exists something such that that it impinges astronomer and it is a Lancashire does not hold. sent5: if the nevirapine is not a Hutton then that it is inconclusive and it is a streptococcus is not true. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the nevirapine is a Ecballium is correct.; assump1 -> int1: the nevirapine is a Hutton and/or it is a Ecballium.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: the nevirapine is not euphemistic.; __UNKNOWN__