the stepbrother is not a ban and is cataclinal.
sent1: if something does thunder and/or it is a machicolation then it is not a kind of a ban. sent2: something is not indulgent if it does organize approximation. sent3: there is nothing such that it organizes ophthalmectomy and it is actinic. sent4: the train does thunder if the poppy is a kind of a moderationist. sent5: if that something is gemmiferous thing that does not organize approximation does not hold then that it is nonindulgent is true. sent6: the poppy is a moderationist if that the denazification is not a kind of a pulse and does ail does not hold. sent7: if the train is not a ban the stepbrother is not a ban but it is cataclinal. sent8: the stepbrother does ban if the fact that the denazification does not organize approximation but it is cataclinal is not true. sent9: there exists nothing that is a kind of gemmiferous thing that does not organize approximation. sent10: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a moderationist and it ails is not true. sent11: if that something is not a pulse and organizes approximation is false it does not organizes approximation. sent12: if the train is a machicolation then the fact that it is not a ban is not false. sent13: the fact that the pakchoi is not a pulse and organizes approximation does not hold if it is not indulgent.
sent5 -> int1: the denazification is not indulgent if that it is gemmiferous and does not organize approximation is incorrect.; sent9 -> int2: the fact that the denazification is gemmiferous thing that does not organize approximation is not right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the denazification is not indulgent.; sent1 -> int4: the train is not a ban if it is a thunderbird or is a kind of a machicolation or both.;
the fact that the pakchoi does not organize approximation is true.
sent11 -> int5: if that the pakchoi does not pulse and does organize approximation is wrong it does not organize approximation.;
$hypothesis$ = the stepbrother is not a ban and is cataclinal. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does thunder and/or it is a machicolation then it is not a kind of a ban. sent2: something is not indulgent if it does organize approximation. sent3: there is nothing such that it organizes ophthalmectomy and it is actinic. sent4: the train does thunder if the poppy is a kind of a moderationist. sent5: if that something is gemmiferous thing that does not organize approximation does not hold then that it is nonindulgent is true. sent6: the poppy is a moderationist if that the denazification is not a kind of a pulse and does ail does not hold. sent7: if the train is not a ban the stepbrother is not a ban but it is cataclinal. sent8: the stepbrother does ban if the fact that the denazification does not organize approximation but it is cataclinal is not true. sent9: there exists nothing that is a kind of gemmiferous thing that does not organize approximation. sent10: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a moderationist and it ails is not true. sent11: if that something is not a pulse and organizes approximation is false it does not organizes approximation. sent12: if the train is a machicolation then the fact that it is not a ban is not false. sent13: the fact that the pakchoi is not a pulse and organizes approximation does not hold if it is not indulgent. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 -> int1: the denazification is not indulgent if that it is gemmiferous and does not organize approximation is incorrect.; sent9 -> int2: the fact that the denazification is gemmiferous thing that does not organize approximation is not right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the denazification is not indulgent.; sent1 -> int4: the train is not a ban if it is a thunderbird or is a kind of a machicolation or both.; __UNKNOWN__