the killer is a hide-and-seek.
sent1: if something is not commodious then the fact that it is a stent and it is not a hide-and-seek is not right. sent2: that something is not capable is not wrong if the fact that it is a stent and not a hide-and-seek does not hold. sent3: the daphne is not a kind of a hide-and-seek. sent4: the fact that the fact that the daphne does not dwarf diet or it is capable or both hold is false if it is commodious. sent5: if the carotenoid is not a Plato the Congo is lenten and/or it is not nutritional. sent6: something is a hide-and-seek if it is noncombustible. sent7: the kitul is a kind of a fetishism if it is a kind of a pindolol. sent8: the fact that if the kitul is a kind of the fetishism either the kitul is not a bay or it does uplift doubt or both is right. sent9: that something does not uplift visored is not false if it is lenten and/or is not nutritional. sent10: that something is both not a Raphael and noncombustible is not right if it does not uplift visored. sent11: the wreckfish is capable. sent12: the butty is nutritional and it is lenten. sent13: if the fact that the Congo is both not a Raphael and noncombustible does not hold then the butty is not noncombustible. sent14: if the daphne is a stent the killer is noncombustible. sent15: the pitchfork is not capable if that the daphne is noncombustible and capable is incorrect. sent16: the fact that the daphne is not a stent and it is not commodious is not right if the butty is not noncombustible. sent17: the killer is nutritional if that the butty is nutritional is not incorrect. sent18: the carotenoid is not a Plato if the antihypertensive does cogitate and/or it is a Plato. sent19: that that the killer is the Raphael but it does not uplift visored is not correct if the killer is nutritional is not wrong. sent20: something is not commodious if that it is a Raphael that does not uplift visored is not right. sent21: the daphne is commodious. sent22: if the kitul is inextricable then the antihypertensive cogitates. sent23: something is not a hide-and-seek if the fact that it is a stent is right. sent24: something is inextricable if it is not a bay and/or it does uplift doubt.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the daphne is not a stent.; sent4 & sent21 -> int1: that either the daphne does not dwarf diet or it is capable or both is not right.; sent6 -> int2: the killer is a hide-and-seek if it is noncombustible.;
the pitchfork is not capable.
sent2 -> int3: if the fact that the killer is a stent but it is not a hide-and-seek is not right it is not capable.; sent1 -> int4: if the killer is not commodious then the fact that it is a stent and it is not a hide-and-seek is wrong.; sent20 -> int5: if that the killer is a Raphael but it does not uplift visored is not correct it is not commodious.; sent12 -> int6: the butty is nutritional.; sent17 & int6 -> int7: the killer is nutritional.; sent19 & int7 -> int8: the fact that the killer is a Raphael but it does not uplift visored does not hold.; int5 & int8 -> int9: the killer is not commodious.; int4 & int9 -> int10: the fact that the killer is a stent but not a hide-and-seek is not correct.; int3 & int10 -> int11: that the killer is not capable is true.; int11 -> int12: there exists something such that it is not capable.;
$hypothesis$ = the killer is a hide-and-seek. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not commodious then the fact that it is a stent and it is not a hide-and-seek is not right. sent2: that something is not capable is not wrong if the fact that it is a stent and not a hide-and-seek does not hold. sent3: the daphne is not a kind of a hide-and-seek. sent4: the fact that the fact that the daphne does not dwarf diet or it is capable or both hold is false if it is commodious. sent5: if the carotenoid is not a Plato the Congo is lenten and/or it is not nutritional. sent6: something is a hide-and-seek if it is noncombustible. sent7: the kitul is a kind of a fetishism if it is a kind of a pindolol. sent8: the fact that if the kitul is a kind of the fetishism either the kitul is not a bay or it does uplift doubt or both is right. sent9: that something does not uplift visored is not false if it is lenten and/or is not nutritional. sent10: that something is both not a Raphael and noncombustible is not right if it does not uplift visored. sent11: the wreckfish is capable. sent12: the butty is nutritional and it is lenten. sent13: if the fact that the Congo is both not a Raphael and noncombustible does not hold then the butty is not noncombustible. sent14: if the daphne is a stent the killer is noncombustible. sent15: the pitchfork is not capable if that the daphne is noncombustible and capable is incorrect. sent16: the fact that the daphne is not a stent and it is not commodious is not right if the butty is not noncombustible. sent17: the killer is nutritional if that the butty is nutritional is not incorrect. sent18: the carotenoid is not a Plato if the antihypertensive does cogitate and/or it is a Plato. sent19: that that the killer is the Raphael but it does not uplift visored is not correct if the killer is nutritional is not wrong. sent20: something is not commodious if that it is a Raphael that does not uplift visored is not right. sent21: the daphne is commodious. sent22: if the kitul is inextricable then the antihypertensive cogitates. sent23: something is not a hide-and-seek if the fact that it is a stent is right. sent24: something is inextricable if it is not a bay and/or it does uplift doubt. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the daphne is not a stent.; sent4 & sent21 -> int1: that either the daphne does not dwarf diet or it is capable or both is not right.; sent6 -> int2: the killer is a hide-and-seek if it is noncombustible.; __UNKNOWN__