if that the forest antiquates is true then the harvestfish is a kind of a sphagnum.
sent1: the harvestfish antiquates if the forest is a sphagnum. sent2: the fact that the forest does not antiquate is correct if the bridle blooms. sent3: the forest antiquates if that the bridle is a visionary and does not bloom is wrong. sent4: that the hornbeam is a kind of a Scholasticism and is not a visionary is false. sent5: the in-law is not joyful if the forest is a kind of joyful thing that does antiquate. sent6: that the bridle is a visionary and a blooming is false. sent7: that something does antiquate and/or is not unstable is wrong if it is not joyful. sent8: if the chimneystack does drain peba then it is joyful. sent9: if that the forest antiquates or it is not unstable or both does not hold the plaintiff does not drain peba. sent10: there is nothing such that it is not micrometeoric and exacerbates drawbar. sent11: if something does not exacerbate rest-cure it is a kind of non-joyful thing that is a kind of a sphagnum. sent12: that the bridle is a kind of a visionary and does bloom is incorrect if it is not unstable. sent13: the chimneystack drains peba if the bridle is unstable. sent14: if the fact that the bridle is a visionary but it is not a kind of a blooming is not true the forest does not antiquate. sent15: the bridle does antiquate if the forest is a visionary. sent16: that if the chimneystack is joyful then the harvestfish is a sphagnum hold. sent17: the fact that something is a kind of a visionary that does bloom is not correct if it is not unstable.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bridle is not unstable.;
the in-law is not joyful.
$hypothesis$ = if that the forest antiquates is true then the harvestfish is a kind of a sphagnum. ; $context$ = sent1: the harvestfish antiquates if the forest is a sphagnum. sent2: the fact that the forest does not antiquate is correct if the bridle blooms. sent3: the forest antiquates if that the bridle is a visionary and does not bloom is wrong. sent4: that the hornbeam is a kind of a Scholasticism and is not a visionary is false. sent5: the in-law is not joyful if the forest is a kind of joyful thing that does antiquate. sent6: that the bridle is a visionary and a blooming is false. sent7: that something does antiquate and/or is not unstable is wrong if it is not joyful. sent8: if the chimneystack does drain peba then it is joyful. sent9: if that the forest antiquates or it is not unstable or both does not hold the plaintiff does not drain peba. sent10: there is nothing such that it is not micrometeoric and exacerbates drawbar. sent11: if something does not exacerbate rest-cure it is a kind of non-joyful thing that is a kind of a sphagnum. sent12: that the bridle is a kind of a visionary and does bloom is incorrect if it is not unstable. sent13: the chimneystack drains peba if the bridle is unstable. sent14: if the fact that the bridle is a visionary but it is not a kind of a blooming is not true the forest does not antiquate. sent15: the bridle does antiquate if the forest is a visionary. sent16: that if the chimneystack is joyful then the harvestfish is a sphagnum hold. sent17: the fact that something is a kind of a visionary that does bloom is not correct if it is not unstable. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bridle is not unstable.; __UNKNOWN__