the fact that the damper is incautious and it is provocative does not hold.
sent1: that the fact that something is not a bravo but procedural is not false is not true if it is a kind of a father-figure. sent2: the damper is not cautious and it complects promiser if there exists something such that it is not procedural. sent3: the decline is a father-figure. sent4: the fact that the asterion does glom decline and it is procedural is not right if the yogi does not glom decline. sent5: if something that is a father-figure does glom decline the promiser is not incautious. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is procedural hold. sent7: The decline does glom asterion. sent8: if the fact that the decline is both not a bravo and procedural is wrong it is not procedural. sent9: the chou is provocative. sent10: if the chou is procedural the asterion is a father-figure. sent11: the yogi is procedural if the decline does complect insightfulness. sent12: if the promiser is not incautious then the fact that the damper is incautious thing that is provocative does not hold. sent13: if the yogi is procedural then the fact that the chou does not bravo and is not procedural does not hold. sent14: the asterion does glom decline. sent15: the decline complects insightfulness and does not complect promiser. sent16: that the decline does not complect promiser is correct.
sent15 -> int1: the decline does complect insightfulness.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the yogi is procedural.; int2 & sent13 -> int3: the fact that the chou is not a bravo and not procedural is not true.;
the damper is both not cautious and provocative.
sent1 -> int4: that the decline is not a kind of a bravo and is procedural is not true if it is a father-figure.; int4 & sent3 -> int5: that the decline is not a bravo but procedural is not correct.; sent8 & int5 -> int6: the decline is not procedural.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that it is not procedural.; int7 & sent2 -> int8: the damper is incautious thing that complects promiser.; int8 -> int9: the damper is incautious.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the damper is incautious and it is provocative does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the fact that something is not a bravo but procedural is not false is not true if it is a kind of a father-figure. sent2: the damper is not cautious and it complects promiser if there exists something such that it is not procedural. sent3: the decline is a father-figure. sent4: the fact that the asterion does glom decline and it is procedural is not right if the yogi does not glom decline. sent5: if something that is a father-figure does glom decline the promiser is not incautious. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is procedural hold. sent7: The decline does glom asterion. sent8: if the fact that the decline is both not a bravo and procedural is wrong it is not procedural. sent9: the chou is provocative. sent10: if the chou is procedural the asterion is a father-figure. sent11: the yogi is procedural if the decline does complect insightfulness. sent12: if the promiser is not incautious then the fact that the damper is incautious thing that is provocative does not hold. sent13: if the yogi is procedural then the fact that the chou does not bravo and is not procedural does not hold. sent14: the asterion does glom decline. sent15: the decline complects insightfulness and does not complect promiser. sent16: that the decline does not complect promiser is correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent15 -> int1: the decline does complect insightfulness.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the yogi is procedural.; int2 & sent13 -> int3: the fact that the chou is not a bravo and not procedural is not true.; __UNKNOWN__