if the bankrupt is pyrogenic then the fact that the Luxemburger is leafless is right.
sent1: if the sertraline is congenial then it is pyrogenic. sent2: that the sertraline is congenial but not leafless is not correct. sent3: if that the beauty does not achromatize hornist and it is not congenial is not right then the kangaroo's-foot is leafless. sent4: the bankrupt is pyrogenic if it does raffle. sent5: if the fact that the kangaroo's-foot is not pyrogenic and it is not a pop-fly is not right the bankrupt is congenial. sent6: if the beauty is congenial it does achromatize hornist. sent7: the fact that the sertraline is congenial thing that does not raffle is wrong if the kangaroo's-foot is congenial. sent8: if the kangaroo's-foot is congenial then it is a Fulbright. sent9: the kangaroo's-foot is congenial if the fact that the beauty achromatizes hornist is true. sent10: the fact that the Luxemburger is a kind of leafy thing that does not achromatize disinclination does not hold. sent11: something is a kind of a pop-fly if it achromatizes disinclination. sent12: if the kangaroo's-foot is congenial then the fact that the sertraline is not congenial and it does not raffle is not true. sent13: the fact that the bankrupt is a kind of uncongenial thing that is not a Charleroi does not hold. sent14: if the bankrupt is pyrogenic it is a Charleroi. sent15: the Luxemburger is pyrogenic. sent16: the Luxemburger does raffle. sent17: if the beauty does achromatize hornist that the sertraline does not achromatize hornist and is uncongenial is not right. sent18: that that the sertraline is congenial but it is not a raffle is incorrect is right. sent19: something is congenial if the fact that it is not non-pyrogenic is not false. sent20: the fact that the bankrupt is a kind of a raffle and is not pyrogenic is wrong if the sertraline is a kind of a raffle. sent21: the Luxemburger is a pop-fly if the fact that the bankrupt is a kind of non-pyrogenic thing that is not leafless is not true. sent22: that the Luxemburger is not leafy but it is not a Charleroi is not right. sent23: if the beauty is pyrogenic the fact that the bankrupt achromatizes hornist hold. sent24: if the bankrupt is a pop-fly that the beauty achromatizes hornist is right. sent25: if that the fact that the sertraline is a kind of non-congenial thing that is not a raffle is not right is correct the Luxemburger is leafless. sent26: if the sertraline is congenial then the kangaroo's-foot is a raffle.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bankrupt is pyrogenic.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: the bankrupt is a Charleroi.; sent11 -> int2: if the bankrupt achromatizes disinclination then it is a pop-fly.;
$hypothesis$ = if the bankrupt is pyrogenic then the fact that the Luxemburger is leafless is right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sertraline is congenial then it is pyrogenic. sent2: that the sertraline is congenial but not leafless is not correct. sent3: if that the beauty does not achromatize hornist and it is not congenial is not right then the kangaroo's-foot is leafless. sent4: the bankrupt is pyrogenic if it does raffle. sent5: if the fact that the kangaroo's-foot is not pyrogenic and it is not a pop-fly is not right the bankrupt is congenial. sent6: if the beauty is congenial it does achromatize hornist. sent7: the fact that the sertraline is congenial thing that does not raffle is wrong if the kangaroo's-foot is congenial. sent8: if the kangaroo's-foot is congenial then it is a Fulbright. sent9: the kangaroo's-foot is congenial if the fact that the beauty achromatizes hornist is true. sent10: the fact that the Luxemburger is a kind of leafy thing that does not achromatize disinclination does not hold. sent11: something is a kind of a pop-fly if it achromatizes disinclination. sent12: if the kangaroo's-foot is congenial then the fact that the sertraline is not congenial and it does not raffle is not true. sent13: the fact that the bankrupt is a kind of uncongenial thing that is not a Charleroi does not hold. sent14: if the bankrupt is pyrogenic it is a Charleroi. sent15: the Luxemburger is pyrogenic. sent16: the Luxemburger does raffle. sent17: if the beauty does achromatize hornist that the sertraline does not achromatize hornist and is uncongenial is not right. sent18: that that the sertraline is congenial but it is not a raffle is incorrect is right. sent19: something is congenial if the fact that it is not non-pyrogenic is not false. sent20: the fact that the bankrupt is a kind of a raffle and is not pyrogenic is wrong if the sertraline is a kind of a raffle. sent21: the Luxemburger is a pop-fly if the fact that the bankrupt is a kind of non-pyrogenic thing that is not leafless is not true. sent22: that the Luxemburger is not leafy but it is not a Charleroi is not right. sent23: if the beauty is pyrogenic the fact that the bankrupt achromatizes hornist hold. sent24: if the bankrupt is a pop-fly that the beauty achromatizes hornist is right. sent25: if that the fact that the sertraline is a kind of non-congenial thing that is not a raffle is not right is correct the Luxemburger is leafless. sent26: if the sertraline is congenial then the kangaroo's-foot is a raffle. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bankrupt is pyrogenic.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: the bankrupt is a Charleroi.; sent11 -> int2: if the bankrupt achromatizes disinclination then it is a pop-fly.; __UNKNOWN__