the dumbwaiter is not a spoon.
sent1: if something is basaltic it traffics gown. sent2: if the fish-fly is a kind of a sink then the ethicist is not a sink. sent3: if the high traffics continence it is not oracular. sent4: if the high is not oracular the dumbwaiter does traffic continence. sent5: if the gown does not traffic continence then the high is a Megalosauridae and basaltic. sent6: that the high does not traffic continence and it is not a Vistula does not hold if it is not a kind of a Megalosauridae. sent7: the dumbwaiter is not liberal. sent8: that something is not basaltic or does traffic continence or both hold if it is not a Megalosauridae. sent9: if the high is not a Megalosauridae that it does traffic continence and it is not a Vistula is incorrect. sent10: something is a kind of a Megalosauridae if that it traffics continence is not wrong. sent11: if the dumbwaiter is non-liberal it does laicize. sent12: the cheek does not traffic gown if there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is nonadsorbent and/or does laicize is true is not correct. sent13: if the high is basaltic then the dumbwaiter does spoon. sent14: if the dumbwaiter is not basaltic then the high is not a Megalosauridae. sent15: if the fact that something does not traffic continence and it is not a Vistula is incorrect it is not oracular. sent16: that the fact that the gaffsail is nonadsorbent and/or it laicizes is false is right if the ethicist is not a liberal. sent17: the fish-fly is a kind of a sink. sent18: the dumbwaiter laicizes. sent19: the dumbwaiter is a kind of nonadsorbent thing that laicizes if it is not a liberal. sent20: that something is a Vistula that is oracular does not hold if it does not traffic gown. sent21: something is educational but not a liberal if the fact that it is not a sink is right. sent22: the fact that the high traffics continence but it is not a kind of a Vistula is false. sent23: something is not oracular if it does traffic continence. sent24: the mantle does not laicize. sent25: the dumbwaiter does traffic continence if the high is not a Vistula. sent26: the high is oracular.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the dumbwaiter is not basaltic.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: the high is not a Megalosauridae.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: that the high does not traffic continence and is not a Vistula is false.; sent15 -> int3: the high is not oracular if that it does not traffic continence and is not a Vistula is false.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the high is not oracular.; int4 & sent26 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the dumbwaiter is not non-basaltic.; sent1 -> int7: if the dumbwaiter is basaltic it does traffic gown.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the dumbwaiter traffics gown.; sent19 & sent7 -> int9: the dumbwaiter is nonadsorbent and it laicizes.; int9 -> int10: the dumbwaiter is nonadsorbent.; int8 & int10 -> int11: the dumbwaiter does traffic gown and it is nonadsorbent.;
the bladderwort is not basaltic.
sent8 -> int12: if the bladderwort is not a kind of a Megalosauridae then it is not basaltic and/or traffics continence.;
$hypothesis$ = the dumbwaiter is not a spoon. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is basaltic it traffics gown. sent2: if the fish-fly is a kind of a sink then the ethicist is not a sink. sent3: if the high traffics continence it is not oracular. sent4: if the high is not oracular the dumbwaiter does traffic continence. sent5: if the gown does not traffic continence then the high is a Megalosauridae and basaltic. sent6: that the high does not traffic continence and it is not a Vistula does not hold if it is not a kind of a Megalosauridae. sent7: the dumbwaiter is not liberal. sent8: that something is not basaltic or does traffic continence or both hold if it is not a Megalosauridae. sent9: if the high is not a Megalosauridae that it does traffic continence and it is not a Vistula is incorrect. sent10: something is a kind of a Megalosauridae if that it traffics continence is not wrong. sent11: if the dumbwaiter is non-liberal it does laicize. sent12: the cheek does not traffic gown if there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is nonadsorbent and/or does laicize is true is not correct. sent13: if the high is basaltic then the dumbwaiter does spoon. sent14: if the dumbwaiter is not basaltic then the high is not a Megalosauridae. sent15: if the fact that something does not traffic continence and it is not a Vistula is incorrect it is not oracular. sent16: that the fact that the gaffsail is nonadsorbent and/or it laicizes is false is right if the ethicist is not a liberal. sent17: the fish-fly is a kind of a sink. sent18: the dumbwaiter laicizes. sent19: the dumbwaiter is a kind of nonadsorbent thing that laicizes if it is not a liberal. sent20: that something is a Vistula that is oracular does not hold if it does not traffic gown. sent21: something is educational but not a liberal if the fact that it is not a sink is right. sent22: the fact that the high traffics continence but it is not a kind of a Vistula is false. sent23: something is not oracular if it does traffic continence. sent24: the mantle does not laicize. sent25: the dumbwaiter does traffic continence if the high is not a Vistula. sent26: the high is oracular. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the dumbwaiter is not basaltic.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: the high is not a Megalosauridae.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: that the high does not traffic continence and is not a Vistula is false.; sent15 -> int3: the high is not oracular if that it does not traffic continence and is not a Vistula is false.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the high is not oracular.; int4 & sent26 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the dumbwaiter is not non-basaltic.; sent1 -> int7: if the dumbwaiter is basaltic it does traffic gown.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the dumbwaiter traffics gown.; sent19 & sent7 -> int9: the dumbwaiter is nonadsorbent and it laicizes.; int9 -> int10: the dumbwaiter is nonadsorbent.; int8 & int10 -> int11: the dumbwaiter does traffic gown and it is nonadsorbent.; __UNKNOWN__