something basks dent and it is a slam.
sent1: the idol is a kind of maxillary a slam. sent2: the airline is immaterial. sent3: the flurazepam does not slam. sent4: the highway is not a kind of a slam if that the osprey does not bask increased and it is not immaterial does not hold. sent5: if that the fact that the highway is immaterial thing that does not bask dent is right is not correct then it bask dent. sent6: something deplores receptiveness and does bask dent if it is not a crinoid. sent7: if the osprey is not a kind of a blinks but it does bask increased the highway does slam. sent8: that the osprey is a kind of a blinks that does not bask dent does not hold. sent9: if that something is both non-immaterial and not non-cannibalistic is not correct it is non-immaterial. sent10: that the airline is not immaterial but it is cannibalistic is incorrect. sent11: if something deplores receptiveness it is a baronetage. sent12: something is a deforestation. sent13: there exists something such that it boxes poignance. sent14: the airline does deplore receptiveness. sent15: The receptiveness does deplore airline. sent16: if the airline is a blinks that the osprey is not immaterial hold. sent17: the fact that the highway is immaterial and does not bask dent is false. sent18: there is nothing that does deplore tilling and is a crinoid. sent19: if the airline does bask dent and does not deplore receptiveness then the highway is a blinks. sent20: the highway slams if the osprey is not a blinks and it does not bask increased. sent21: the highway is immaterial if the fact that it does deplore receptiveness and is not immaterial is wrong. sent22: the osprey is a kind of a stocks if the fact that the airline does not stocks but it slams is incorrect. sent23: the fact that the airline deplores receptiveness and does not bask dent is wrong. sent24: if something is immaterial that it is not a kind of a stocks and is a slam is wrong.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the osprey is not a kind of a blinks and it does not bask increased does not hold.; sent5 & sent17 -> int1: the highway basks dent.;
the fact that something is a kind of a baronetage and it is a kind of a stocks is true.
sent11 -> int2: if the osprey does deplore receptiveness it is a baronetage.; sent6 -> int3: if the highway is not a crinoid it does deplore receptiveness and basks dent.; sent18 -> int4: that the obsessive deplores tilling and it is crinoid does not hold.; sent24 -> int5: if the airline is immaterial the fact that it is not a stocks and it is a slam is not right.; sent9 -> int6: if that the airline is not immaterial but it is cannibalistic is false it is immaterial.; sent10 & int6 -> int7: the airline is immaterial.; int5 & int7 -> int8: the fact that the fact that the airline is both not a stocks and a slam is not incorrect is not true.; int8 & sent22 -> int9: the osprey does stock.;
$hypothesis$ = something basks dent and it is a slam. ; $context$ = sent1: the idol is a kind of maxillary a slam. sent2: the airline is immaterial. sent3: the flurazepam does not slam. sent4: the highway is not a kind of a slam if that the osprey does not bask increased and it is not immaterial does not hold. sent5: if that the fact that the highway is immaterial thing that does not bask dent is right is not correct then it bask dent. sent6: something deplores receptiveness and does bask dent if it is not a crinoid. sent7: if the osprey is not a kind of a blinks but it does bask increased the highway does slam. sent8: that the osprey is a kind of a blinks that does not bask dent does not hold. sent9: if that something is both non-immaterial and not non-cannibalistic is not correct it is non-immaterial. sent10: that the airline is not immaterial but it is cannibalistic is incorrect. sent11: if something deplores receptiveness it is a baronetage. sent12: something is a deforestation. sent13: there exists something such that it boxes poignance. sent14: the airline does deplore receptiveness. sent15: The receptiveness does deplore airline. sent16: if the airline is a blinks that the osprey is not immaterial hold. sent17: the fact that the highway is immaterial and does not bask dent is false. sent18: there is nothing that does deplore tilling and is a crinoid. sent19: if the airline does bask dent and does not deplore receptiveness then the highway is a blinks. sent20: the highway slams if the osprey is not a blinks and it does not bask increased. sent21: the highway is immaterial if the fact that it does deplore receptiveness and is not immaterial is wrong. sent22: the osprey is a kind of a stocks if the fact that the airline does not stocks but it slams is incorrect. sent23: the fact that the airline deplores receptiveness and does not bask dent is wrong. sent24: if something is immaterial that it is not a kind of a stocks and is a slam is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the osprey is not a kind of a blinks and it does not bask increased does not hold.; sent5 & sent17 -> int1: the highway basks dent.; __UNKNOWN__