the ideologist exempts part-owner.
sent1: if the ideologist exempts part-owner the cocaine is aptitudinal. sent2: that the cocaine does not exempt part-owner and is not aptitudinal is incorrect. sent3: the fact that the coreid is not a Goldwyn and not aptitudinal is not true if there is something such that it is aptitudinal. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not aptitudinal and it is not a kind of a Baldwin is false then the ideologist exempts part-owner. sent5: the cocaine is a limnology. sent6: there exists something such that that that it is not aptitudinal and it is a Baldwin is not wrong is not true. sent7: the ideologist is not capable if there is something such that that it is capable and it is not medieval does not hold. sent8: that either the gasification is a kind of a Lasso or it is not a angelology or both is incorrect. sent9: something either does exempt part-owner or is a limnology or both if it is not capable. sent10: the fact that something is capable but it is non-medieval is false if it is chronological. sent11: if there exists something such that that it either is a kind of a Lasso or is not a angelology or both does not hold then the epicure is not Prakritic. sent12: if there is something such that it is not non-aptitudinal then the fact that the ideologist exempts part-owner is true. sent13: there is something such that that it is aptitudinal thing that is not a Baldwin is not right. sent14: that the epicure is not serous but it is operculate does not hold if it is not Prakritic. sent15: the cocaine is a benzene. sent16: the glycerol is chronological if there is something such that that it is not serous and it is operculate is not correct.
the fact that the coreid is not a Goldwyn and it is not aptitudinal is false.
sent9 -> int1: the ideologist either does exempt part-owner or is a limnology or both if it is not capable.; sent10 -> int2: if the glycerol is not non-chronological then the fact that it is capable and it is not medieval is false.; sent8 -> int3: there is something such that the fact that that it is a kind of a Lasso or it is not a angelology or both is not incorrect is not true.; int3 & sent11 -> int4: the epicure is not Prakritic.; sent14 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the epicure is not serous and is operculate is wrong.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that the fact that it is both not serous and operculate is not correct.; int6 & sent16 -> int7: the glycerol is chronological.; int2 & int7 -> int8: the fact that the glycerol is capable but it is not medieval is not right.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that that it is capable but not medieval does not hold.; int9 & sent7 -> int10: the ideologist is not capable.; int1 & int10 -> int11: either the ideologist exempts part-owner or it is a kind of a limnology or both.;
$hypothesis$ = the ideologist exempts part-owner. ; $context$ = sent1: if the ideologist exempts part-owner the cocaine is aptitudinal. sent2: that the cocaine does not exempt part-owner and is not aptitudinal is incorrect. sent3: the fact that the coreid is not a Goldwyn and not aptitudinal is not true if there is something such that it is aptitudinal. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not aptitudinal and it is not a kind of a Baldwin is false then the ideologist exempts part-owner. sent5: the cocaine is a limnology. sent6: there exists something such that that that it is not aptitudinal and it is a Baldwin is not wrong is not true. sent7: the ideologist is not capable if there is something such that that it is capable and it is not medieval does not hold. sent8: that either the gasification is a kind of a Lasso or it is not a angelology or both is incorrect. sent9: something either does exempt part-owner or is a limnology or both if it is not capable. sent10: the fact that something is capable but it is non-medieval is false if it is chronological. sent11: if there exists something such that that it either is a kind of a Lasso or is not a angelology or both does not hold then the epicure is not Prakritic. sent12: if there is something such that it is not non-aptitudinal then the fact that the ideologist exempts part-owner is true. sent13: there is something such that that it is aptitudinal thing that is not a Baldwin is not right. sent14: that the epicure is not serous but it is operculate does not hold if it is not Prakritic. sent15: the cocaine is a benzene. sent16: the glycerol is chronological if there is something such that that it is not serous and it is operculate is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
__UNKNOWN__