if the buttermilk is a Ling-pao the fact that the imperialist is not a nanotechnology but it is a obscurantism is false.
sent1: the imperialist is not a Bacon. sent2: if the buttermilk is a Ling-pao then the fact that the imperialist is both a nanotechnology and a obscurantism is wrong. sent3: the fact that the buttermilk is a kind of a Ling-pao and it is a obscurantism does not hold. sent4: the fact that the imperialist is not a junket and it is not bottomless is correct. sent5: if the general is a hemiacetal and/or it is not a Ling-pao then it is not a kind of a Ling-pao. sent6: the buttermilk is not a kind of a obscurantism. sent7: the meanie is not a Bacon. sent8: the imperialist is not a nanotechnology but it is a obscurantism. sent9: the imperialist is not a kind of a Ling-pao if the fact that the general is not a nanotechnology and it is not a obscurantism is not correct. sent10: if the fact that the imperialist is a Bacon is not incorrect then that the general is not a nanotechnology but it is a Ling-pao is incorrect. sent11: something is not a kind of a dishabille if that the fact that it is both a dishabille and a nanotechnology is true is wrong. sent12: the imperialist is not a kind of a nanotechnology but it is a obscurantism if the general is not a obscurantism. sent13: if something is not a Ling-pao the fact that it is a dishabille that is a nanotechnology is not right. sent14: the buttermilk is not a Bacon. sent15: if that the general is not a Bacon and not a obscurantism is not correct then the buttermilk is not a kind of a Ling-pao. sent16: if the general is not a obscurantism then the fact that the imperialist is a nanotechnology and it is a obscurantism is not right. sent17: the fact that the imperialist is a nanotechnology that is a obscurantism is not true. sent18: the general is not a Bacon and is a nanotechnology. sent19: the general is not a kind of a Bacon and it is not a kind of a Ling-pao.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the buttermilk is a kind of a Ling-pao.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that that the general is not a Bacon and is not a obscurantism is false.; sent15 & assump2 -> int1: the buttermilk is not a kind of a Ling-pao.; assump1 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the general is not a Bacon and it is not a obscurantism.; int3 -> int4: the fact that the general is not a obscurantism is right.;
the buttermilk does not impinge Molotov and is not a obscurantism.
sent11 -> int5: the general is not a dishabille if that it is a dishabille and is a nanotechnology does not hold.; sent13 -> int6: if the general is not a Ling-pao then the fact that it is both a dishabille and a nanotechnology does not hold.;
$hypothesis$ = if the buttermilk is a Ling-pao the fact that the imperialist is not a nanotechnology but it is a obscurantism is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the imperialist is not a Bacon. sent2: if the buttermilk is a Ling-pao then the fact that the imperialist is both a nanotechnology and a obscurantism is wrong. sent3: the fact that the buttermilk is a kind of a Ling-pao and it is a obscurantism does not hold. sent4: the fact that the imperialist is not a junket and it is not bottomless is correct. sent5: if the general is a hemiacetal and/or it is not a Ling-pao then it is not a kind of a Ling-pao. sent6: the buttermilk is not a kind of a obscurantism. sent7: the meanie is not a Bacon. sent8: the imperialist is not a nanotechnology but it is a obscurantism. sent9: the imperialist is not a kind of a Ling-pao if the fact that the general is not a nanotechnology and it is not a obscurantism is not correct. sent10: if the fact that the imperialist is a Bacon is not incorrect then that the general is not a nanotechnology but it is a Ling-pao is incorrect. sent11: something is not a kind of a dishabille if that the fact that it is both a dishabille and a nanotechnology is true is wrong. sent12: the imperialist is not a kind of a nanotechnology but it is a obscurantism if the general is not a obscurantism. sent13: if something is not a Ling-pao the fact that it is a dishabille that is a nanotechnology is not right. sent14: the buttermilk is not a Bacon. sent15: if that the general is not a Bacon and not a obscurantism is not correct then the buttermilk is not a kind of a Ling-pao. sent16: if the general is not a obscurantism then the fact that the imperialist is a nanotechnology and it is a obscurantism is not right. sent17: the fact that the imperialist is a nanotechnology that is a obscurantism is not true. sent18: the general is not a Bacon and is a nanotechnology. sent19: the general is not a kind of a Bacon and it is not a kind of a Ling-pao. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the buttermilk is a kind of a Ling-pao.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that that the general is not a Bacon and is not a obscurantism is false.; sent15 & assump2 -> int1: the buttermilk is not a kind of a Ling-pao.; assump1 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the general is not a Bacon and it is not a obscurantism.; int3 -> int4: the fact that the general is not a obscurantism is right.; __UNKNOWN__