if the walnut is not a kind of a stewing the fact that the vernier does not conceive and is not an angling is not true.
sent1: there is something such that that it is not a casualness but a Chesterton is not true. sent2: the fact that the stock is a casualness and not a Chesterton does not hold. sent3: the vernier does not conceive and is not an angling if the linebacker does not conceive. sent4: something is not a kind of a casualness and it is not a kind of a Chesterton. sent5: the stock is not leaden. sent6: if the linebacker does not conceive that the vernier does not conceive but it does angle does not hold. sent7: the walnut is a Chesterton if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a casualness and is not a Chesterton does not hold. sent8: the vernier is an exacerbation. sent9: the fact that the vernier does conceive and is not an angling is incorrect if the linebacker does not conceive. sent10: if something is not a Tangier then it is a kind of a stewing. sent11: the fact that the vernier conceives and does not angle is false if the walnut is not a stewing. sent12: that the stock is not a casualness and it is not a Chesterton does not hold if it is non-leaden. sent13: that the vernier is non-perennial but it is a stewing is not correct. sent14: that the walnut is not a Chesterton but it conceives is wrong if that the vernier is not an angling hold. sent15: that that the vernier does not conceive and is not an angling is wrong is true if the linebacker does not conceive. sent16: that the stock is a casualness but not a Chesterton is not true if it is not leaden. sent17: there is something such that the fact that that it is a casualness and is not a kind of a Chesterton hold is false.
sent10 -> int1: if the walnut is not a kind of a Tangier then it stews.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the walnut is not a Tangier.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: the walnut stews.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the walnut is not a kind of a stewing is not wrong.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the walnut is a kind of a Tangier.; sent12 & sent5 -> int5: that the stock is not a kind of a casualness and is not a Chesterton does not hold.; int5 -> int6: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a casualness and is not a Chesterton is not correct.; int6 & sent7 -> int7: the walnut is a kind of a Chesterton.; int4 & int7 -> int8: the walnut is a Chesterton and is a Tangier.;
$hypothesis$ = if the walnut is not a kind of a stewing the fact that the vernier does not conceive and is not an angling is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that that it is not a casualness but a Chesterton is not true. sent2: the fact that the stock is a casualness and not a Chesterton does not hold. sent3: the vernier does not conceive and is not an angling if the linebacker does not conceive. sent4: something is not a kind of a casualness and it is not a kind of a Chesterton. sent5: the stock is not leaden. sent6: if the linebacker does not conceive that the vernier does not conceive but it does angle does not hold. sent7: the walnut is a Chesterton if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a casualness and is not a Chesterton does not hold. sent8: the vernier is an exacerbation. sent9: the fact that the vernier does conceive and is not an angling is incorrect if the linebacker does not conceive. sent10: if something is not a Tangier then it is a kind of a stewing. sent11: the fact that the vernier conceives and does not angle is false if the walnut is not a stewing. sent12: that the stock is not a casualness and it is not a Chesterton does not hold if it is non-leaden. sent13: that the vernier is non-perennial but it is a stewing is not correct. sent14: that the walnut is not a Chesterton but it conceives is wrong if that the vernier is not an angling hold. sent15: that that the vernier does not conceive and is not an angling is wrong is true if the linebacker does not conceive. sent16: that the stock is a casualness but not a Chesterton is not true if it is not leaden. sent17: there is something such that the fact that that it is a casualness and is not a kind of a Chesterton hold is false. ; $proof$ = 
sent10 -> int1: if the walnut is not a kind of a Tangier then it stews.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the walnut is not a Tangier.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: the walnut stews.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the walnut is not a kind of a stewing is not wrong.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the walnut is a kind of a Tangier.; sent12 & sent5 -> int5: that the stock is not a kind of a casualness and is not a Chesterton does not hold.; int5 -> int6: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a casualness and is not a Chesterton is not correct.; int6 & sent7 -> int7: the walnut is a kind of a Chesterton.; int4 & int7 -> int8: the walnut is a Chesterton and is a Tangier.; __UNKNOWN__