the cross is not sensorineural.
sent1: the tabor is both side-to-side and not argumentative if it is sensorineural. sent2: the fact that the transept is multilingual and it announces pansexual is not true. sent3: the fact that the transept is multilingual but it does not announce pansexual is wrong if there are unpreventable things. sent4: the resorcinol is side-to-side if it does not monopolize Pinter. sent5: the tabor is sensorineural. sent6: if something does not monopolize Pinter then it is side-to-side and is a Ogcocephalidae. sent7: if the transept is a kind of a Ogcocephalidae then it does announce pansexual. sent8: the cross is not sensorineural if the tabor is not a Ogcocephalidae but argumentative. sent9: the transept does not announce pansexual. sent10: the cross is non-sensorineural if the tabor is not a Ogcocephalidae and not argumentative. sent11: if something does not monopolize Pinter it is side-to-side. sent12: if the resorcinol is not argumentative and it is preventable the tabor does not monopolize Pinter. sent13: the cross is unpreventable and it monopolizes Pinter if it does not announce pansexual. sent14: there exists something such that it is an elixir. sent15: if the resorcinol is a Ogcocephalidae then the fact that the tabor is not argumentative is correct. sent16: the transept is multilingual but it does not announce pansexual if it is an elixir. sent17: the resorcinol does not announce pansexual if the fact that the cross is non-sensorineural thing that does not monopolize Pinter hold. sent18: the resorcinol is unpreventable if that it does monopolize Pinter hold. sent19: the tabor is not argumentative. sent20: the transept does not announce pansexual if it is a kind of an elixir. sent21: if something monopolizes Pinter it is not non-sensorineural. sent22: the fact that the transept is a kind of multilingual thing that does announce pansexual is false if there is something such that it is unpreventable. sent23: that the resorcinol is side-to-side is not false. sent24: the cross is a Audubon. sent25: the transept is an elixir.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the resorcinol does not monopolize Pinter is not right.; sent18 & assump1 -> int1: the resorcinol is unpreventable.; int1 -> int2: something is unpreventable.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the fact that the transept is multilingual thing that does not announce pansexual is incorrect.; sent16 & sent25 -> int4: the transept is multilingual thing that does not announce pansexual.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the resorcinol does not monopolize Pinter.; sent6 -> int7: if the resorcinol does not monopolize Pinter then it is side-to-side and a Ogcocephalidae.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the resorcinol is side-to-side and it is a Ogcocephalidae.; int8 -> int9: the fact that the resorcinol is a Ogcocephalidae is right.;
the cross is sensorineural.
sent21 -> int10: if the cross does monopolize Pinter then the fact that it is sensorineural hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the cross is not sensorineural. ; $context$ = sent1: the tabor is both side-to-side and not argumentative if it is sensorineural. sent2: the fact that the transept is multilingual and it announces pansexual is not true. sent3: the fact that the transept is multilingual but it does not announce pansexual is wrong if there are unpreventable things. sent4: the resorcinol is side-to-side if it does not monopolize Pinter. sent5: the tabor is sensorineural. sent6: if something does not monopolize Pinter then it is side-to-side and is a Ogcocephalidae. sent7: if the transept is a kind of a Ogcocephalidae then it does announce pansexual. sent8: the cross is not sensorineural if the tabor is not a Ogcocephalidae but argumentative. sent9: the transept does not announce pansexual. sent10: the cross is non-sensorineural if the tabor is not a Ogcocephalidae and not argumentative. sent11: if something does not monopolize Pinter it is side-to-side. sent12: if the resorcinol is not argumentative and it is preventable the tabor does not monopolize Pinter. sent13: the cross is unpreventable and it monopolizes Pinter if it does not announce pansexual. sent14: there exists something such that it is an elixir. sent15: if the resorcinol is a Ogcocephalidae then the fact that the tabor is not argumentative is correct. sent16: the transept is multilingual but it does not announce pansexual if it is an elixir. sent17: the resorcinol does not announce pansexual if the fact that the cross is non-sensorineural thing that does not monopolize Pinter hold. sent18: the resorcinol is unpreventable if that it does monopolize Pinter hold. sent19: the tabor is not argumentative. sent20: the transept does not announce pansexual if it is a kind of an elixir. sent21: if something monopolizes Pinter it is not non-sensorineural. sent22: the fact that the transept is a kind of multilingual thing that does announce pansexual is false if there is something such that it is unpreventable. sent23: that the resorcinol is side-to-side is not false. sent24: the cross is a Audubon. sent25: the transept is an elixir. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the resorcinol does not monopolize Pinter is not right.; sent18 & assump1 -> int1: the resorcinol is unpreventable.; int1 -> int2: something is unpreventable.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the fact that the transept is multilingual thing that does not announce pansexual is incorrect.; sent16 & sent25 -> int4: the transept is multilingual thing that does not announce pansexual.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the resorcinol does not monopolize Pinter.; sent6 -> int7: if the resorcinol does not monopolize Pinter then it is side-to-side and a Ogcocephalidae.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the resorcinol is side-to-side and it is a Ogcocephalidae.; int8 -> int9: the fact that the resorcinol is a Ogcocephalidae is right.; __UNKNOWN__