that the CO does not bestrew sforzando but it is synclinal does not hold.
sent1: the equine does bestrew sforzando. sent2: the fact that the CO is synclinal and it is a finder is not correct. sent3: that that the CO does not bestrew sforzando but it teaches is not incorrect is false. sent4: that something does bestrew sforzando and it is a kind of a do is not correct if it is not a Lancelot. sent5: that the CO bestrews sforzando and it is synclinal does not hold if the haw is synclinal. sent6: the fact that the haw does not bestrew sforzando but it is synclinal is incorrect. sent7: the haw is a kind of synclinal thing that is a finder. sent8: that the brunet is not harmless but it is synclinal is wrong. sent9: that the CO is non-synclinal but it is a kind of a finder is not right. sent10: the hyaluronidase does bestrew sforzando. sent11: the pangolin is not a finder if that the haw does bestrew sforzando and does do is not right. sent12: the CO encrimsons CO. sent13: if that something is a finder that does not do is wrong it is not a finder. sent14: if something is not a finder then the fact that the fact that it is not synclinal and is a sharpie is true is not correct. sent15: the CO does bestrew brunet. sent16: if the dining-hall is a Lancelot that the haw is a finder and does not do does not hold. sent17: if the purloo is not hornless then the dining-hall is a kind of a Lancelot and does circumscribe eightsome. sent18: that the CO does not bestrew marquee and is a kind of an amplification is not correct.
sent7 -> int1: the haw is synclinal.;
the CO does not bestrew sforzando and is synclinal.
sent13 -> int2: if the fact that the haw is a kind of a finder that is not a do is not correct then it is not a finder.;
$hypothesis$ = that the CO does not bestrew sforzando but it is synclinal does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the equine does bestrew sforzando. sent2: the fact that the CO is synclinal and it is a finder is not correct. sent3: that that the CO does not bestrew sforzando but it teaches is not incorrect is false. sent4: that something does bestrew sforzando and it is a kind of a do is not correct if it is not a Lancelot. sent5: that the CO bestrews sforzando and it is synclinal does not hold if the haw is synclinal. sent6: the fact that the haw does not bestrew sforzando but it is synclinal is incorrect. sent7: the haw is a kind of synclinal thing that is a finder. sent8: that the brunet is not harmless but it is synclinal is wrong. sent9: that the CO is non-synclinal but it is a kind of a finder is not right. sent10: the hyaluronidase does bestrew sforzando. sent11: the pangolin is not a finder if that the haw does bestrew sforzando and does do is not right. sent12: the CO encrimsons CO. sent13: if that something is a finder that does not do is wrong it is not a finder. sent14: if something is not a finder then the fact that the fact that it is not synclinal and is a sharpie is true is not correct. sent15: the CO does bestrew brunet. sent16: if the dining-hall is a Lancelot that the haw is a finder and does not do does not hold. sent17: if the purloo is not hornless then the dining-hall is a kind of a Lancelot and does circumscribe eightsome. sent18: that the CO does not bestrew marquee and is a kind of an amplification is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent7 -> int1: the haw is synclinal.; __UNKNOWN__