if the aconite is artful then the fact that the microtubule does not lime woodpecker and is not a kind of an ulcer is not right.
sent1: the microtubule does not lime woodpecker and it is not an ulcer if the aconite is artful. sent2: if the aconite does rationalize aconite the chamberpot rationalize aconite. sent3: if the prebendary does sentimentalise anesthesiologist then the fact that the fact that it does not sentimentalise onychosis and does not rationalize aconite hold does not hold. sent4: the prebendary rationalizes aconite if the aconite is artful. sent5: the fact that the microtubule is an ulcer that does not rationalize aconite does not hold. sent6: if the aconite is artful it does not sentimentalise onychosis and it is not an ulcer. sent7: if something does rationalize aconite it does sentimentalise onychosis. sent8: the fact that something does not lime woodpecker and is not an ulcer is wrong if it does sentimentalise anesthesiologist.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the aconite is artful is correct.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the prebendary rationalizes aconite.; sent7 -> int2: the prebendary does sentimentalise onychosis if it rationalizes aconite.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the prebendary sentimentalises onychosis.; sent8 -> int4: the fact that the microtubule does not lime woodpecker and it is not an ulcer is not true if it sentimentalises anesthesiologist.;
the chamberpot does rationalize aconite.
$hypothesis$ = if the aconite is artful then the fact that the microtubule does not lime woodpecker and is not a kind of an ulcer is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the microtubule does not lime woodpecker and it is not an ulcer if the aconite is artful. sent2: if the aconite does rationalize aconite the chamberpot rationalize aconite. sent3: if the prebendary does sentimentalise anesthesiologist then the fact that the fact that it does not sentimentalise onychosis and does not rationalize aconite hold does not hold. sent4: the prebendary rationalizes aconite if the aconite is artful. sent5: the fact that the microtubule is an ulcer that does not rationalize aconite does not hold. sent6: if the aconite is artful it does not sentimentalise onychosis and it is not an ulcer. sent7: if something does rationalize aconite it does sentimentalise onychosis. sent8: the fact that something does not lime woodpecker and is not an ulcer is wrong if it does sentimentalise anesthesiologist. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the aconite is artful is correct.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the prebendary rationalizes aconite.; sent7 -> int2: the prebendary does sentimentalise onychosis if it rationalizes aconite.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the prebendary sentimentalises onychosis.; sent8 -> int4: the fact that the microtubule does not lime woodpecker and it is not an ulcer is not true if it sentimentalises anesthesiologist.; __UNKNOWN__