the fore-and-after is benignant.
sent1: the angrecum is antipollution. sent2: if that the brotula does not rope abrocome and does rope piquancy is incorrect then the bunghole is a kind of a Symplocarpus. sent3: the bunghole is not a Symplocarpus. sent4: the dachshund is a Herschel if it does concoct Nalchik. sent5: the angrecum is algal if it ropes quietness. sent6: the bunghole ropes fore-and-after but it is not thinkable. sent7: the dachshund concocts Nalchik if the angrecum is a Herschel. sent8: that the angrecum is not algal but it is not non-antipollution is false if the fore-and-after does rope piquancy. sent9: something is not benignant if the fact that it is benignant and it is a kind of a Herschel is wrong. sent10: the fact that the fore-and-after is benignant is not false if it is algal. sent11: if the brotula does not rope piquancy the bunghole is a Symplocarpus. sent12: the angrecum ropes abrocome if it ropes quietness. sent13: the angrecum is a Herschel if the fact that it is antipollution and it does not rope quietness does not hold. sent14: the brotula ropes quietness if the angrecum is a Herschel and it ropes abrocome. sent15: if the angrecum is not antipollution it is a Herschel. sent16: something concocts Nalchik and it is a Herschel if the fact that it does not rope piquancy is true. sent17: if the fact that the brotula ropes abrocome but it is not antipollution is incorrect then that it does rope piquancy is not wrong. sent18: that the brotula does not rope abrocome but it does rope piquancy does not hold if the dachshund does concoct Nalchik.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the angrecum is antipollution and does not rope quietness is wrong.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the angrecum is a Herschel.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the fact that the dachshund does concoct Nalchik hold.; int2 & sent18 -> int3: that the brotula does not rope abrocome and ropes piquancy is not correct.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: the bunghole is a kind of a Symplocarpus.; int4 & sent3 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the angrecum is a kind of antipollution thing that does not rope quietness.;
the danger is a Herschel.
sent16 -> int7: if the danger does not rope piquancy then the fact that it does concoct Nalchik and it is a Herschel is not wrong.;
$hypothesis$ = the fore-and-after is benignant. ; $context$ = sent1: the angrecum is antipollution. sent2: if that the brotula does not rope abrocome and does rope piquancy is incorrect then the bunghole is a kind of a Symplocarpus. sent3: the bunghole is not a Symplocarpus. sent4: the dachshund is a Herschel if it does concoct Nalchik. sent5: the angrecum is algal if it ropes quietness. sent6: the bunghole ropes fore-and-after but it is not thinkable. sent7: the dachshund concocts Nalchik if the angrecum is a Herschel. sent8: that the angrecum is not algal but it is not non-antipollution is false if the fore-and-after does rope piquancy. sent9: something is not benignant if the fact that it is benignant and it is a kind of a Herschel is wrong. sent10: the fact that the fore-and-after is benignant is not false if it is algal. sent11: if the brotula does not rope piquancy the bunghole is a Symplocarpus. sent12: the angrecum ropes abrocome if it ropes quietness. sent13: the angrecum is a Herschel if the fact that it is antipollution and it does not rope quietness does not hold. sent14: the brotula ropes quietness if the angrecum is a Herschel and it ropes abrocome. sent15: if the angrecum is not antipollution it is a Herschel. sent16: something concocts Nalchik and it is a Herschel if the fact that it does not rope piquancy is true. sent17: if the fact that the brotula ropes abrocome but it is not antipollution is incorrect then that it does rope piquancy is not wrong. sent18: that the brotula does not rope abrocome but it does rope piquancy does not hold if the dachshund does concoct Nalchik. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the angrecum is antipollution and does not rope quietness is wrong.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the angrecum is a Herschel.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the fact that the dachshund does concoct Nalchik hold.; int2 & sent18 -> int3: that the brotula does not rope abrocome and ropes piquancy is not correct.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: the bunghole is a kind of a Symplocarpus.; int4 & sent3 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the angrecum is a kind of antipollution thing that does not rope quietness.; __UNKNOWN__