the juniper is nonfinancial if that the weeder is lithophytic hold.
sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it is not non-androgenetic or not pyrolytic or both is false the weeder is not lithophytic. sent2: if something is not nonfinancial then the fact that it is not effervescent and it is sure does not hold. sent3: the fact that that the rust is lithophytic and/or is not pyrolytic is incorrect is true if the knacker is pyrolytic. sent4: there is something such that it is not a automat. sent5: there exists something such that that it is nonfinancial thing that is pyrolytic is not right. sent6: there is something such that it either is a trave or does not shrink Kandy or both. sent7: that the juniper is not unresponsive is not false. sent8: if the rust is pyrolytic the fact that either the knacker is androgenetic or it is not pyrolytic or both is not correct. sent9: that the rust is non-nonfinancial thing that is androgenetic is wrong if the knacker is non-pyrolytic. sent10: something is not nonfinancial if that it is not lithophytic and is pyrolytic hold. sent11: the blockade-runner is pyrolytic. sent12: if the juniper is not nonfinancial that the blockade-runner is both not chemical and mecopterous is wrong. sent13: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of androgenetic thing that is not a kind of a seniti is correct the Alsatian is pyrolytic. sent14: the juniper is androgenetic. sent15: if there is something such that that it is not a batholith but a seniti is wrong then the juniper is not a kind of a seniti. sent16: the juniper is not chemical. sent17: there is something such that that it is not a batholith and it is a seniti is incorrect. sent18: that that either the blockade-runner is a chemical or it is not pyrolytic or both is not right hold. sent19: something does not shrink confidant but it is a leptodactylid.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the weeder is lithophytic.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the juniper is not nonfinancial.; sent12 & assump2 -> int1: the fact that the blockade-runner is both not a chemical and mecopterous does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it is not chemical and it is mecopterous does not hold.;
that the Alsatian is a kind of noneffervescent thing that is sure is not right.
sent2 -> int3: if the Alsatian is not nonfinancial then that it is both not effervescent and sure is not true.; sent10 -> int4: the Alsatian is not nonfinancial if it is non-lithophytic and it is pyrolytic.; sent17 & sent15 -> int5: the juniper is not a seniti.; sent14 & int5 -> int6: the juniper is androgenetic but it is not a kind of a seniti.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that it is a kind of androgenetic thing that is not a seniti.; int7 & sent13 -> int8: the Alsatian is pyrolytic.;
$hypothesis$ = the juniper is nonfinancial if that the weeder is lithophytic hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it is not non-androgenetic or not pyrolytic or both is false the weeder is not lithophytic. sent2: if something is not nonfinancial then the fact that it is not effervescent and it is sure does not hold. sent3: the fact that that the rust is lithophytic and/or is not pyrolytic is incorrect is true if the knacker is pyrolytic. sent4: there is something such that it is not a automat. sent5: there exists something such that that it is nonfinancial thing that is pyrolytic is not right. sent6: there is something such that it either is a trave or does not shrink Kandy or both. sent7: that the juniper is not unresponsive is not false. sent8: if the rust is pyrolytic the fact that either the knacker is androgenetic or it is not pyrolytic or both is not correct. sent9: that the rust is non-nonfinancial thing that is androgenetic is wrong if the knacker is non-pyrolytic. sent10: something is not nonfinancial if that it is not lithophytic and is pyrolytic hold. sent11: the blockade-runner is pyrolytic. sent12: if the juniper is not nonfinancial that the blockade-runner is both not chemical and mecopterous is wrong. sent13: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of androgenetic thing that is not a kind of a seniti is correct the Alsatian is pyrolytic. sent14: the juniper is androgenetic. sent15: if there is something such that that it is not a batholith but a seniti is wrong then the juniper is not a kind of a seniti. sent16: the juniper is not chemical. sent17: there is something such that that it is not a batholith and it is a seniti is incorrect. sent18: that that either the blockade-runner is a chemical or it is not pyrolytic or both is not right hold. sent19: something does not shrink confidant but it is a leptodactylid. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the weeder is lithophytic.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the juniper is not nonfinancial.; sent12 & assump2 -> int1: the fact that the blockade-runner is both not a chemical and mecopterous does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it is not chemical and it is mecopterous does not hold.; __UNKNOWN__