the malabsorption does hatch predation and is not a kind of a assegai if the hazelnut is diametral.
sent1: the Tanzanian is a Priapus and it is avifaunal. sent2: the malabsorption hatches predation. sent3: the fact that the malabsorption does hatch predation but it is not a kind of a assegai hold if the stout is not avifaunal. sent4: the malabsorption hatches predation if the hazelnut is diametral. sent5: if the hazelnut does drown and it is diametral then the fact that the stout is not avifaunal hold. sent6: if that the hazelnut is clinical and is not a kind of a assegai does not hold then that the worrier is not a assegai is not correct. sent7: if the stout is not avifaunal the malabsorption does hatch predation. sent8: the pleochroism does weaken and it is avifaunal. sent9: that the hazelnut is clinical but it is not a kind of a assegai is not correct. sent10: if the stout is a assegai the hazelnut is diametral but it is not avifaunal. sent11: if the fact that something is diametral and does drown does not hold then it is not avifaunal. sent12: the malabsorption hatches predation and is a kind of a assegai. sent13: the fact that the malabsorption is synaptic hold. sent14: the malabsorption does account. sent15: that if the hazelnut is diametral the malabsorption does hatch predation and is a kind of a assegai is not false. sent16: if the hazelnut drowns then the malabsorption is a assegai and not diametral. sent17: the blanket drowns. sent18: if the stout is not avifaunal the malabsorption hatches predation and is a assegai.
the worrier is basidiomycetous but it is not avifaunal.
sent6 & sent9 -> int1: the worrier is a assegai.; sent11 -> int2: the worrier is not avifaunal if that it is diametral thing that drowns is not true.;
$hypothesis$ = the malabsorption does hatch predation and is not a kind of a assegai if the hazelnut is diametral. ; $context$ = sent1: the Tanzanian is a Priapus and it is avifaunal. sent2: the malabsorption hatches predation. sent3: the fact that the malabsorption does hatch predation but it is not a kind of a assegai hold if the stout is not avifaunal. sent4: the malabsorption hatches predation if the hazelnut is diametral. sent5: if the hazelnut does drown and it is diametral then the fact that the stout is not avifaunal hold. sent6: if that the hazelnut is clinical and is not a kind of a assegai does not hold then that the worrier is not a assegai is not correct. sent7: if the stout is not avifaunal the malabsorption does hatch predation. sent8: the pleochroism does weaken and it is avifaunal. sent9: that the hazelnut is clinical but it is not a kind of a assegai is not correct. sent10: if the stout is a assegai the hazelnut is diametral but it is not avifaunal. sent11: if the fact that something is diametral and does drown does not hold then it is not avifaunal. sent12: the malabsorption hatches predation and is a kind of a assegai. sent13: the fact that the malabsorption is synaptic hold. sent14: the malabsorption does account. sent15: that if the hazelnut is diametral the malabsorption does hatch predation and is a kind of a assegai is not false. sent16: if the hazelnut drowns then the malabsorption is a assegai and not diametral. sent17: the blanket drowns. sent18: if the stout is not avifaunal the malabsorption hatches predation and is a assegai. ; $proof$ = 
__UNKNOWN__