the knuckle does not home.
sent1: the loom is not a homing. sent2: the fact that something is not a groundlessness and it is not a mauler is not right if it is a kind of a bad. sent3: the spadefoot is isomorphous. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is Jesuitical is not wrong the diplomate is a buff but it is not limbic. sent5: if something is not effortful the fact that that it is a kind of isomorphous thing that does verbify appareled is correct is false. sent6: that the promenade is not a kind of a zamia and it is not a brush does not hold. sent7: the fact that the knuckle is both a Louisville and permissive is false. sent8: the loom does not bar tenpence. sent9: the fact that the rioter is aesthetics and it verbifies Hohhot is incorrect. sent10: if the knuckle is not a kind of a fine then it is not a kind of a buff. sent11: the loom is a kind of a buff. sent12: the loom is not emulous. sent13: if that the hypotensive is not a groundlessness and it is not a mauler is not correct the rheum is not a vantage. sent14: the fact that something does buff and it is a kind of a Luther is not right if the fact that it does not verbify Assyrian is correct. sent15: the hypotensive deglazes Luther and is a bad if the ibex is not a denticle. sent16: the knuckle does home if the loom is a kind of a fine. sent17: the loom is a kind of a fine that is permissive if the acromion is not effortful. sent18: if the fact that something is a buff but it is not limbic hold it does not verbify appareled. sent19: the knuckle is a kind of a fine. sent20: if that the loom is isomorphous and it verbifies appareled is not right then that it does not buff is not wrong. sent21: the ibex is not a denticle if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a zamia and is not a brush is not correct. sent22: if something is not isomorphous or is not effortful or both it is not effortful. sent23: the fact that something is both effortful and permissive is incorrect if it is not a kind of a buff. sent24: if something is not a kind of a vantage then it is Jesuitical. sent25: the knuckle is permissive if it is a fine.
sent25 & sent19 -> int1: the fact that the knuckle is permissive is right.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the knuckle is homing.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the knuckle is permissive and it does home.; int2 -> int3: there are permissive and homing things.; sent5 -> int4: that if the loom is not effortful that the loom is isomorphous and it verbifies appareled does not hold is right.;
if that the abjurer does not verbify Assyrian hold that it is a buff that is a Luther does not hold.
sent14 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the knuckle does not home. ; $context$ = sent1: the loom is not a homing. sent2: the fact that something is not a groundlessness and it is not a mauler is not right if it is a kind of a bad. sent3: the spadefoot is isomorphous. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is Jesuitical is not wrong the diplomate is a buff but it is not limbic. sent5: if something is not effortful the fact that that it is a kind of isomorphous thing that does verbify appareled is correct is false. sent6: that the promenade is not a kind of a zamia and it is not a brush does not hold. sent7: the fact that the knuckle is both a Louisville and permissive is false. sent8: the loom does not bar tenpence. sent9: the fact that the rioter is aesthetics and it verbifies Hohhot is incorrect. sent10: if the knuckle is not a kind of a fine then it is not a kind of a buff. sent11: the loom is a kind of a buff. sent12: the loom is not emulous. sent13: if that the hypotensive is not a groundlessness and it is not a mauler is not correct the rheum is not a vantage. sent14: the fact that something does buff and it is a kind of a Luther is not right if the fact that it does not verbify Assyrian is correct. sent15: the hypotensive deglazes Luther and is a bad if the ibex is not a denticle. sent16: the knuckle does home if the loom is a kind of a fine. sent17: the loom is a kind of a fine that is permissive if the acromion is not effortful. sent18: if the fact that something is a buff but it is not limbic hold it does not verbify appareled. sent19: the knuckle is a kind of a fine. sent20: if that the loom is isomorphous and it verbifies appareled is not right then that it does not buff is not wrong. sent21: the ibex is not a denticle if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a zamia and is not a brush is not correct. sent22: if something is not isomorphous or is not effortful or both it is not effortful. sent23: the fact that something is both effortful and permissive is incorrect if it is not a kind of a buff. sent24: if something is not a kind of a vantage then it is Jesuitical. sent25: the knuckle is permissive if it is a fine. ; $proof$ = 
sent25 & sent19 -> int1: the fact that the knuckle is permissive is right.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the knuckle is homing.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the knuckle is permissive and it does home.; int2 -> int3: there are permissive and homing things.; sent5 -> int4: that if the loom is not effortful that the loom is isomorphous and it verbifies appareled does not hold is right.; __UNKNOWN__