the horsewhip is politic.
sent1: the baguet narrates sex and it uncorks broad-mindedness. sent2: the baguet is not nutritional. sent3: if the horsewhip is not hydrolyzable it uncorks broad-mindedness. sent4: if the baguet does narrate sex and uncorks broad-mindedness the horsewhip does not uncorks broad-mindedness. sent5: something binds prurigo if the fact that it does not uncork broad-mindedness and narrates sex is false. sent6: if something is not a milk and is not a batrachomyomachia the morello is Mishnaic. sent7: the horsewhip is not a cayuse. sent8: the baguet is hydrolyzable. sent9: something does not narrate sex and/or does palatalize if it is Mishnaic. sent10: the meteorite does not milk and it is not a batrachomyomachia if it is a Princeton. sent11: if that the meteorite is not objective and is a kind of a plurality is not right then it is a kind of a Princeton. sent12: if something is a encephalography it does bind principled. sent13: something uncorks broad-mindedness if that it does not bind prurigo and it is hydrolyzable is false. sent14: if the horsewhip is not hydrolyzable but it narrates sex it uncorks broad-mindedness. sent15: if the bathrobe does not uncork broad-mindedness then that the baguet is not impolitic and it does strive does not hold. sent16: the baguet does uncork broad-mindedness if it does not narrate sex and binds prurigo. sent17: the fact that if the fact that the baguet does not uncork broad-mindedness and is hydrolyzable is false the baguet does narrate sex is not false. sent18: if the baguet does narrate sex and it is hydrolyzable that it is politic is right. sent19: the fact that the horsewhip does not narrate art and uncorks broad-mindedness is incorrect. sent20: that the meteorite is a kind of non-objective a plurality is wrong. sent21: the baguet does not narrate horsewhip. sent22: the steamfitter does not bind prurigo. sent23: if the fact that something does not uncork broad-mindedness but it is politic does not hold it is not non-hydrolyzable.
sent13 -> int1: if that the horsewhip does not bind prurigo but it is hydrolyzable is incorrect then it uncorks broad-mindedness.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the horsewhip does not bind prurigo but it is hydrolyzable is not right.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the horsewhip uncorks broad-mindedness.; sent4 & sent1 -> int3: the horsewhip does not uncork broad-mindedness.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the horsewhip does not bind prurigo but it is hydrolyzable.;
the horsewhip is not politic.
sent9 -> int6: if the morello is Mishnaic either it does not narrate sex or it palatalizes or both.; sent11 & sent20 -> int7: the meteorite is a Princeton.; sent10 & int7 -> int8: the meteorite is not a milk and it is not a batrachomyomachia.; int8 -> int9: there exists something such that it is not a milk and is not a kind of a batrachomyomachia.; int9 & sent6 -> int10: the morello is Mishnaic.; int6 & int10 -> int11: the morello does not narrate sex and/or it palatalizes.; int11 -> int12: there is something such that either it does not narrate sex or it does palatalize or both.;
$hypothesis$ = the horsewhip is politic. ; $context$ = sent1: the baguet narrates sex and it uncorks broad-mindedness. sent2: the baguet is not nutritional. sent3: if the horsewhip is not hydrolyzable it uncorks broad-mindedness. sent4: if the baguet does narrate sex and uncorks broad-mindedness the horsewhip does not uncorks broad-mindedness. sent5: something binds prurigo if the fact that it does not uncork broad-mindedness and narrates sex is false. sent6: if something is not a milk and is not a batrachomyomachia the morello is Mishnaic. sent7: the horsewhip is not a cayuse. sent8: the baguet is hydrolyzable. sent9: something does not narrate sex and/or does palatalize if it is Mishnaic. sent10: the meteorite does not milk and it is not a batrachomyomachia if it is a Princeton. sent11: if that the meteorite is not objective and is a kind of a plurality is not right then it is a kind of a Princeton. sent12: if something is a encephalography it does bind principled. sent13: something uncorks broad-mindedness if that it does not bind prurigo and it is hydrolyzable is false. sent14: if the horsewhip is not hydrolyzable but it narrates sex it uncorks broad-mindedness. sent15: if the bathrobe does not uncork broad-mindedness then that the baguet is not impolitic and it does strive does not hold. sent16: the baguet does uncork broad-mindedness if it does not narrate sex and binds prurigo. sent17: the fact that if the fact that the baguet does not uncork broad-mindedness and is hydrolyzable is false the baguet does narrate sex is not false. sent18: if the baguet does narrate sex and it is hydrolyzable that it is politic is right. sent19: the fact that the horsewhip does not narrate art and uncorks broad-mindedness is incorrect. sent20: that the meteorite is a kind of non-objective a plurality is wrong. sent21: the baguet does not narrate horsewhip. sent22: the steamfitter does not bind prurigo. sent23: if the fact that something does not uncork broad-mindedness but it is politic does not hold it is not non-hydrolyzable. ; $proof$ = 
sent13 -> int1: if that the horsewhip does not bind prurigo but it is hydrolyzable is incorrect then it uncorks broad-mindedness.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the horsewhip does not bind prurigo but it is hydrolyzable is not right.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the horsewhip uncorks broad-mindedness.; sent4 & sent1 -> int3: the horsewhip does not uncork broad-mindedness.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the horsewhip does not bind prurigo but it is hydrolyzable.; __UNKNOWN__