there exists something such that it does blame charcuterie and is unforgettable.
sent1: the rue is not accommodational and/or it does not glug. sent2: that that the levee is not accommodational and does fool tragedy is not wrong is not correct. sent3: the rue is not side-to-side. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not accommodational and/or it is not pyrogenic is not correct then the decongestant is impotent. sent5: the charcuterie is a squawk and a singles. sent6: if the decongestant is impotent the rue does glug. sent7: that the cordon either is not side-to-side or does not fool wakeboard or both is not correct. sent8: the fact that the levee does not blame charcuterie but it is not non-pyrogenic is not right. sent9: the cordon is pyrogenic. sent10: the decongestant is unforgettable or is not impotent or both. sent11: the fact that the levee is not pyrogenic and not impotent does not hold. sent12: the cordon is not side-to-side and/or it does not talk moneyed. sent13: if the levee is non-accommodational and/or non-pyrogenic the cordon does fool tragedy. sent14: the fact that the cordon is not a kind of a squawk but it does talk levee is not true. sent15: the levee glugs. sent16: the cordon talks rue. sent17: something does not fool tragedy and/or it is not accommodational. sent18: the fact that that the cordon does not squawk and it does not talk levee is right is false. sent19: the cordon blames charcuterie if it fools tragedy. sent20: if the cordon does glug then it squawks. sent21: if the rue glugs then it is side-to-side.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the levee is not accommodational or it is not pyrogenic or both does not hold.; assump1 -> int1: there is something such that the fact that it is not accommodational or is not pyrogenic or both is wrong.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: that the decongestant is impotent is not incorrect.; int2 & sent6 -> int3: the rue glugs.; int3 & sent21 -> int4: the rue is side-to-side.; int4 & sent3 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the levee is non-accommodational or non-pyrogenic or both.; int6 & sent13 -> int7: the cordon does fool tragedy.; int7 & sent19 -> int8: the cordon blames charcuterie.;
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it does blame charcuterie and is unforgettable. ; $context$ = sent1: the rue is not accommodational and/or it does not glug. sent2: that that the levee is not accommodational and does fool tragedy is not wrong is not correct. sent3: the rue is not side-to-side. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not accommodational and/or it is not pyrogenic is not correct then the decongestant is impotent. sent5: the charcuterie is a squawk and a singles. sent6: if the decongestant is impotent the rue does glug. sent7: that the cordon either is not side-to-side or does not fool wakeboard or both is not correct. sent8: the fact that the levee does not blame charcuterie but it is not non-pyrogenic is not right. sent9: the cordon is pyrogenic. sent10: the decongestant is unforgettable or is not impotent or both. sent11: the fact that the levee is not pyrogenic and not impotent does not hold. sent12: the cordon is not side-to-side and/or it does not talk moneyed. sent13: if the levee is non-accommodational and/or non-pyrogenic the cordon does fool tragedy. sent14: the fact that the cordon is not a kind of a squawk but it does talk levee is not true. sent15: the levee glugs. sent16: the cordon talks rue. sent17: something does not fool tragedy and/or it is not accommodational. sent18: the fact that that the cordon does not squawk and it does not talk levee is right is false. sent19: the cordon blames charcuterie if it fools tragedy. sent20: if the cordon does glug then it squawks. sent21: if the rue glugs then it is side-to-side. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the levee is not accommodational or it is not pyrogenic or both does not hold.; assump1 -> int1: there is something such that the fact that it is not accommodational or is not pyrogenic or both is wrong.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: that the decongestant is impotent is not incorrect.; int2 & sent6 -> int3: the rue glugs.; int3 & sent21 -> int4: the rue is side-to-side.; int4 & sent3 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the levee is non-accommodational or non-pyrogenic or both.; int6 & sent13 -> int7: the cordon does fool tragedy.; int7 & sent19 -> int8: the cordon blames charcuterie.; __UNKNOWN__