if the fact that the repair is not penetrable and does geyser sestet is true the upsetter is a kind of a Vedism.
sent1: the repair geysers sestet. sent2: something is a kind of a Vedism if it does bow. sent3: the fact that something is avocational but it does not flicker duodenum is not correct if it is not lacrimatory. sent4: the upsetter does geyser sestet if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of penetrable thing that is not a Vedism is false. sent5: the repair is not a bow and is ungenerous. sent6: that the repair is avocational and it does flicker duodenum does not hold. sent7: if something does not spurt then that it is salvific and it does not knock trochee is false. sent8: the fact that the repair is a kind of a bow that does not geyser sestet does not hold. sent9: the fact that something flickers duodenum and it does confuse is not right if it is not penetrable. sent10: if something is not penetrable and geysers sestet it is not lacrimatory. sent11: the repair is a kind of impenetrable thing that does confuse. sent12: the upsetter is a Vedism if the repair is penetrable and does geyser sestet. sent13: if the cassowary is a bow it does confuse. sent14: if the repair is penetrable and does geyser sestet then it is not lacrimatory. sent15: the duodenum is lacrimatory. sent16: if the cassowary does confuse that the upsetter is a kind of a bow is true. sent17: if that the upsetter is not a B-horizon is correct the fact that it is craniometric and not declarative is not right. sent18: the fact that the repair is not electric is right. sent19: something is Rousseauan if it is a professionalism. sent20: the fact that the repair is not penetrable is not wrong.
sent10 -> int1: that the repair is not lacrimatory hold if it is not penetrable and it does geyser sestet.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the repair is not penetrable but it does geyser sestet.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the repair is not lacrimatory.; sent3 -> int3: the fact that the repair is avocational thing that does not flicker duodenum is wrong if it is not lacrimatory.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the repair is avocational but it does not flicker duodenum is not right.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that the fact that it is avocational and it does not flicker duodenum does not hold.; sent2 -> int6: the upsetter is a Vedism if it is a bow.;
$hypothesis$ = if the fact that the repair is not penetrable and does geyser sestet is true the upsetter is a kind of a Vedism. ; $context$ = sent1: the repair geysers sestet. sent2: something is a kind of a Vedism if it does bow. sent3: the fact that something is avocational but it does not flicker duodenum is not correct if it is not lacrimatory. sent4: the upsetter does geyser sestet if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of penetrable thing that is not a Vedism is false. sent5: the repair is not a bow and is ungenerous. sent6: that the repair is avocational and it does flicker duodenum does not hold. sent7: if something does not spurt then that it is salvific and it does not knock trochee is false. sent8: the fact that the repair is a kind of a bow that does not geyser sestet does not hold. sent9: the fact that something flickers duodenum and it does confuse is not right if it is not penetrable. sent10: if something is not penetrable and geysers sestet it is not lacrimatory. sent11: the repair is a kind of impenetrable thing that does confuse. sent12: the upsetter is a Vedism if the repair is penetrable and does geyser sestet. sent13: if the cassowary is a bow it does confuse. sent14: if the repair is penetrable and does geyser sestet then it is not lacrimatory. sent15: the duodenum is lacrimatory. sent16: if the cassowary does confuse that the upsetter is a kind of a bow is true. sent17: if that the upsetter is not a B-horizon is correct the fact that it is craniometric and not declarative is not right. sent18: the fact that the repair is not electric is right. sent19: something is Rousseauan if it is a professionalism. sent20: the fact that the repair is not penetrable is not wrong. ; $proof$ = 
sent10 -> int1: that the repair is not lacrimatory hold if it is not penetrable and it does geyser sestet.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the repair is not penetrable but it does geyser sestet.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the repair is not lacrimatory.; sent3 -> int3: the fact that the repair is avocational thing that does not flicker duodenum is wrong if it is not lacrimatory.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the repair is avocational but it does not flicker duodenum is not right.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that the fact that it is avocational and it does not flicker duodenum does not hold.; sent2 -> int6: the upsetter is a Vedism if it is a bow.; __UNKNOWN__