the quern personifies Crick.
sent1: that the fractionation interlocks dissilience and augments is true if the groundmass does not jumble matted. sent2: if something does not tinkle overlap it is a kind of a framing or it does identify or both. sent3: something is lymphoid if it does interlock dissilience. sent4: if the overlap is an epoch the sandbur is not a kind of a breadline and is a cross-question. sent5: the hare is a kind of a breadline. sent6: if the hare does not overprotect that the ritualist either does jumble etiology or is a kind of a first or both is wrong. sent7: if that the fractionation is lymphoid is true then the hare does not overprotect. sent8: if the hare jumbles etiology the quern is a first. sent9: the groundmass does not jumble matted if the fact that the vitriol does not personify groundmass and does not jumble matted does not hold. sent10: the hare does jumble etiology if the ritualist does tinkle overlap. sent11: the sandbur is a cross-question. sent12: the fact that the quern does not personify Crick is not false if the overlap is an epoch and does not personify Crick. sent13: the sandbur is a cross-question if the overlap is an epoch. sent14: the hare jumbles etiology if the ritualist does frame. sent15: something is a possession if that it is not a possession and it is not a kind of a tattle does not hold. sent16: the fact that the vitriol does not personify groundmass and it does not jumble matted is not correct if the flamboyant is a possession. sent17: the ritualist does not identify and is a kind of a breadline if that the sandbur tinkles overlap is not false. sent18: the fact that the flamboyant is not a possession and it is not a kind of a tattle is not correct. sent19: if the sandbur does not identify then the ritualist frames and/or tinkles overlap. sent20: the sandbur does not tinkle overlap if that the ritualist does jumble etiology or it is a first or both is wrong. sent21: something is an epoch but it does not personify Crick if it identifies. sent22: the overlap is an epoch. sent23: something that is first personifies Crick.
sent4 & sent22 -> int1: the sandbur is not a kind of a breadline and is a cross-question.; sent23 -> int2: if the quern is a kind of a first it personifies Crick.;
that the quern does not personify Crick hold.
sent21 -> int3: if the overlap does identify it is a kind of an epoch and it does not personify Crick.; sent2 -> int4: the sandbur frames and/or it does identify if it does not tinkle overlap.; sent3 -> int5: that that the fractionation is lymphoid is correct if the fractionation does interlock dissilience is not incorrect.; sent15 -> int6: the flamboyant is a possession if that it is not a possession and it is not a kind of a tattle is not true.; int6 & sent18 -> int7: the flamboyant is a possession.; sent16 & int7 -> int8: the fact that the vitriol does not personify groundmass and does not jumble matted does not hold.; sent9 & int8 -> int9: the groundmass does not jumble matted.; sent1 & int9 -> int10: the fractionation interlocks dissilience and augments.; int10 -> int11: the fractionation does interlock dissilience.; int5 & int11 -> int12: the fractionation is lymphoid.; sent7 & int12 -> int13: the hare does not overprotect.; sent6 & int13 -> int14: the fact that the ritualist does jumble etiology and/or it is a first is false.; sent20 & int14 -> int15: the sandbur does not tinkle overlap.; int4 & int15 -> int16: either the sandbur is a kind of a framing or it identifies or both.;
$hypothesis$ = the quern personifies Crick. ; $context$ = sent1: that the fractionation interlocks dissilience and augments is true if the groundmass does not jumble matted. sent2: if something does not tinkle overlap it is a kind of a framing or it does identify or both. sent3: something is lymphoid if it does interlock dissilience. sent4: if the overlap is an epoch the sandbur is not a kind of a breadline and is a cross-question. sent5: the hare is a kind of a breadline. sent6: if the hare does not overprotect that the ritualist either does jumble etiology or is a kind of a first or both is wrong. sent7: if that the fractionation is lymphoid is true then the hare does not overprotect. sent8: if the hare jumbles etiology the quern is a first. sent9: the groundmass does not jumble matted if the fact that the vitriol does not personify groundmass and does not jumble matted does not hold. sent10: the hare does jumble etiology if the ritualist does tinkle overlap. sent11: the sandbur is a cross-question. sent12: the fact that the quern does not personify Crick is not false if the overlap is an epoch and does not personify Crick. sent13: the sandbur is a cross-question if the overlap is an epoch. sent14: the hare jumbles etiology if the ritualist does frame. sent15: something is a possession if that it is not a possession and it is not a kind of a tattle does not hold. sent16: the fact that the vitriol does not personify groundmass and it does not jumble matted is not correct if the flamboyant is a possession. sent17: the ritualist does not identify and is a kind of a breadline if that the sandbur tinkles overlap is not false. sent18: the fact that the flamboyant is not a possession and it is not a kind of a tattle is not correct. sent19: if the sandbur does not identify then the ritualist frames and/or tinkles overlap. sent20: the sandbur does not tinkle overlap if that the ritualist does jumble etiology or it is a first or both is wrong. sent21: something is an epoch but it does not personify Crick if it identifies. sent22: the overlap is an epoch. sent23: something that is first personifies Crick. ; $proof$ = 
sent4 & sent22 -> int1: the sandbur is not a kind of a breadline and is a cross-question.; sent23 -> int2: if the quern is a kind of a first it personifies Crick.; __UNKNOWN__