that the HAZMAT is congenial and does not talk categorem is right.
sent1: the gossamer is associative. sent2: something talks pyrographer and does not capsize if it is a kind of a gloved. sent3: the HAZMAT capsizes if that the gossamer does talk categorem but it is not congenial is not correct. sent4: that the gossamer is a kind of a safranine is correct. sent5: The categorem does not talk HAZMAT. sent6: something that is a kind of a gloved talks pyrographer. sent7: the gossamer capsizes. sent8: if something that is associative does not fool riskiness then it does not capsize. sent9: if the gossamer is not associative that the HAZMAT is congenial is not false. sent10: the HAZMAT does capsize if the TRH does talk pyrographer and does not capsize. sent11: the gossamer talks categorem. sent12: the TRH is a kind of a gloved but it is not a Lancastrian if it is carunculate. sent13: the HAZMAT does not talk categorem. sent14: if something does capsize but it does not talk categorem it is congenial. sent15: the fact that the fact that that something is congenial but it does not talk categorem is not false is incorrect if it does capsize is not false. sent16: something is not a flushed if it talks Esperanto and is not a kind of a network. sent17: if that the gossamer talks categorem but it does not capsize is false then the HAZMAT is associative.
sent8 -> int1: the gossamer does not capsize if it is associative thing that does not fool riskiness.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the gossamer is associative and does not fool riskiness.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the gossamer does not capsize.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the gossamer is associative but it does not fool riskiness is false.;
that the HAZMAT is not uncongenial but it does not talk categorem is not true.
sent15 -> int5: the fact that the HAZMAT is congenial but it does not talk categorem does not hold if it capsizes.; sent2 -> int6: if the TRH is a gloved it does talk pyrographer and does not capsize.;
$hypothesis$ = that the HAZMAT is congenial and does not talk categorem is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the gossamer is associative. sent2: something talks pyrographer and does not capsize if it is a kind of a gloved. sent3: the HAZMAT capsizes if that the gossamer does talk categorem but it is not congenial is not correct. sent4: that the gossamer is a kind of a safranine is correct. sent5: The categorem does not talk HAZMAT. sent6: something that is a kind of a gloved talks pyrographer. sent7: the gossamer capsizes. sent8: if something that is associative does not fool riskiness then it does not capsize. sent9: if the gossamer is not associative that the HAZMAT is congenial is not false. sent10: the HAZMAT does capsize if the TRH does talk pyrographer and does not capsize. sent11: the gossamer talks categorem. sent12: the TRH is a kind of a gloved but it is not a Lancastrian if it is carunculate. sent13: the HAZMAT does not talk categorem. sent14: if something does capsize but it does not talk categorem it is congenial. sent15: the fact that the fact that that something is congenial but it does not talk categorem is not false is incorrect if it does capsize is not false. sent16: something is not a flushed if it talks Esperanto and is not a kind of a network. sent17: if that the gossamer talks categorem but it does not capsize is false then the HAZMAT is associative. ; $proof$ = 
sent8 -> int1: the gossamer does not capsize if it is associative thing that does not fool riskiness.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the gossamer is associative and does not fool riskiness.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the gossamer does not capsize.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the gossamer is associative but it does not fool riskiness is false.; __UNKNOWN__