the flounder is not a kind of a devourer.
sent1: the flounder does not combine. sent2: the manufacturer is anasarcous or is longing or both. sent3: the mangabey is a devourer and invites coil if it is not Eucharistic. sent4: if the manufacturer is apologetic thing that does steepen chrome the fact that the salesperson is not apologetic is true. sent5: if something is not stative then that it invites coil and is not divisional is not wrong. sent6: the flounder is not a kind of a devourer if it is not divisional and it is a scofflaw. sent7: the flounder ebbs lycanthropy if it does not manacle erethism. sent8: the flounder is a preserve but it is not an outfield. sent9: if the fact that the foreplay ebbs lycanthropy is right that the flounder is not non-stative but it is not a dribble is incorrect. sent10: the foreplay is unangry thing that manacles erethism if the Arabist is not a kind of a combine. sent11: something is not a patronymic if it is not apologetic. sent12: the fact that the mangabey is Eucharistic and/or it manacles dideoxycytosine is wrong if the salesperson is not a kind of a patronymic. sent13: there exists something such that it is not stative. sent14: the foreplay is a kind of a combine that is unangry if it is not divisional. sent15: the manufacturer does steepen chrome if it is anasarcous. sent16: the flounder is not divisional. sent17: the Arabist is not stative if that the mangabey is Eucharistic and/or manacles dideoxycytosine is not right. sent18: if the Arabist invites coil and is not divisional the foreplay is not divisional. sent19: if the flounder ebbs lycanthropy then it is unangry. sent20: the manufacturer is not a manageress and is non-Franciscan. sent21: if the mangabey is a devourer the Arabist is a devourer. sent22: if the Arabist is a devourer it is divisional but not a combine. sent23: the whey is a kind of a quoit. sent24: the manufacturer is apologetic if it is not a kind of a manageress and it is not a Franciscan. sent25: the fact that the flounder does not manacle erethism is right if the fact that the fact that it is a kind of a scofflaw that is not a quoit is not incorrect is not correct.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the flounder is a scofflaw but it is not a quoit does not hold.; sent25 & assump1 -> int1: the flounder does not manacle erethism.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the flounder does ebb lycanthropy.; int2 & sent19 -> int3: the fact that the flounder is unangry hold.; int3 & sent1 -> int4: the flounder is both not a combine and unangry.;
the flounder is a devourer.
sent5 -> int5: the Arabist does invite coil but it is non-divisional if the fact that it is not stative is true.; sent11 -> int6: the salesperson is not patronymic if it is not apologetic.; sent24 & sent20 -> int7: the manufacturer is apologetic.;
$hypothesis$ = the flounder is not a kind of a devourer. ; $context$ = sent1: the flounder does not combine. sent2: the manufacturer is anasarcous or is longing or both. sent3: the mangabey is a devourer and invites coil if it is not Eucharistic. sent4: if the manufacturer is apologetic thing that does steepen chrome the fact that the salesperson is not apologetic is true. sent5: if something is not stative then that it invites coil and is not divisional is not wrong. sent6: the flounder is not a kind of a devourer if it is not divisional and it is a scofflaw. sent7: the flounder ebbs lycanthropy if it does not manacle erethism. sent8: the flounder is a preserve but it is not an outfield. sent9: if the fact that the foreplay ebbs lycanthropy is right that the flounder is not non-stative but it is not a dribble is incorrect. sent10: the foreplay is unangry thing that manacles erethism if the Arabist is not a kind of a combine. sent11: something is not a patronymic if it is not apologetic. sent12: the fact that the mangabey is Eucharistic and/or it manacles dideoxycytosine is wrong if the salesperson is not a kind of a patronymic. sent13: there exists something such that it is not stative. sent14: the foreplay is a kind of a combine that is unangry if it is not divisional. sent15: the manufacturer does steepen chrome if it is anasarcous. sent16: the flounder is not divisional. sent17: the Arabist is not stative if that the mangabey is Eucharistic and/or manacles dideoxycytosine is not right. sent18: if the Arabist invites coil and is not divisional the foreplay is not divisional. sent19: if the flounder ebbs lycanthropy then it is unangry. sent20: the manufacturer is not a manageress and is non-Franciscan. sent21: if the mangabey is a devourer the Arabist is a devourer. sent22: if the Arabist is a devourer it is divisional but not a combine. sent23: the whey is a kind of a quoit. sent24: the manufacturer is apologetic if it is not a kind of a manageress and it is not a Franciscan. sent25: the fact that the flounder does not manacle erethism is right if the fact that the fact that it is a kind of a scofflaw that is not a quoit is not incorrect is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the flounder is a scofflaw but it is not a quoit does not hold.; sent25 & assump1 -> int1: the flounder does not manacle erethism.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the flounder does ebb lycanthropy.; int2 & sent19 -> int3: the fact that the flounder is unangry hold.; int3 & sent1 -> int4: the flounder is both not a combine and unangry.; __UNKNOWN__