that the fact that the primordium does not navigate but it diminishes Telosporidia hold does not hold.
sent1: the fact that the potato is not Riemannian is true. sent2: if the oilrig is non-Riemannian thing that does not direct Mimir then it is not contemptible. sent3: if the oilrig is not a trestle but it is Riemannian then the peptization does not direct Mimir. sent4: if the primordium is not contemptible then the microgliacyte is contemptible. sent5: if the microgliacyte is contemptible it is a radiochlorine. sent6: the primordium does not navigate if that the oilrig does navigate and it is a radiochlorine is correct. sent7: if the oilrig does not navigate then that the microgliacyte is Riemannian and it is a stemma is not right. sent8: the peptization is not heterologous if the potato is angelic and it does diminish nonequivalence. sent9: the fact that the primordium does not navigate but it does diminish Telosporidia is wrong if the peptization does not direct Mimir. sent10: if the peptization is not heterologous then the primordium is not a trestle but it diminishes Telosporidia. sent11: the oilrig is not a trestle if the microgliacyte is a kind of a stemma that does not retrograde. sent12: if the potato is not Riemannian then the oilrig is Riemannian. sent13: the microgliacyte is not a radiochlorine.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the microgliacyte is a kind of a stemma and does not retrograde is wrong.; sent12 & sent1 -> int1: the oilrig is Riemannian.;
the primordium does not navigate but it diminishes Telosporidia.
$hypothesis$ = that the fact that the primordium does not navigate but it diminishes Telosporidia hold does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the potato is not Riemannian is true. sent2: if the oilrig is non-Riemannian thing that does not direct Mimir then it is not contemptible. sent3: if the oilrig is not a trestle but it is Riemannian then the peptization does not direct Mimir. sent4: if the primordium is not contemptible then the microgliacyte is contemptible. sent5: if the microgliacyte is contemptible it is a radiochlorine. sent6: the primordium does not navigate if that the oilrig does navigate and it is a radiochlorine is correct. sent7: if the oilrig does not navigate then that the microgliacyte is Riemannian and it is a stemma is not right. sent8: the peptization is not heterologous if the potato is angelic and it does diminish nonequivalence. sent9: the fact that the primordium does not navigate but it does diminish Telosporidia is wrong if the peptization does not direct Mimir. sent10: if the peptization is not heterologous then the primordium is not a trestle but it diminishes Telosporidia. sent11: the oilrig is not a trestle if the microgliacyte is a kind of a stemma that does not retrograde. sent12: if the potato is not Riemannian then the oilrig is Riemannian. sent13: the microgliacyte is not a radiochlorine. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the microgliacyte is a kind of a stemma and does not retrograde is wrong.; sent12 & sent1 -> int1: the oilrig is Riemannian.; __UNKNOWN__