that the junk does circle terrarium and is a fucking is false.
sent1: that the junk circles terrarium and it is a fucking is not true if the dilutant does not circles terrarium. sent2: something is a refractory or is artless or both if it is not on-line. sent3: the fact that the quickener is a kind of an adulation hold. sent4: if the fact that the junk is artless an adulation does not hold then it is not artless. sent5: the snipefish is exhaustible if the dilutant is artless. sent6: if that something is not a kind of a fingerpost but it is on-line is not right the fact that it is not on-line is right. sent7: if the quickener is an adulation the junk is a kind of a fucking. sent8: the snipefish does not circle pademelon. sent9: if the dilutant is a refractory then that the snipefish is exhaustible is right. sent10: that if the fact that something does not circle pademelon and is on-line is not true then it is not on-line is not wrong. sent11: if there exists something such that it does not circle pademelon that the junk is a fingerpost and is on-line is not true. sent12: the snipefish is exhaustible. sent13: if there is something such that it is a refractory or artless or both then the dilutant does not circle terrarium. sent14: the junk is a fucking if that it is not a fucking and it is not a refractory is incorrect. sent15: if there exists something such that it is not on-line the fact that the dilutant is not a kind of a fingerpost and is on-line is wrong. sent16: the snipefish is exhaustible and is artless. sent17: if the junk is artful then the fact that it is not a kind of a fucking and it is not a refractory does not hold. sent18: if something is a refractory then the dilutant does not circle terrarium. sent19: the dilutant is a fucking or is unicellular or both. sent20: if the fact that something is not on-line is not false it does circle terrarium and it is exhaustible.
sent16 -> int1: the snipefish is artless.; int1 -> int2: the snipefish is a refractory and/or is artless.; int2 -> int3: something is a refractory and/or it is artless.; int3 & sent13 -> int4: the dilutant does not circle terrarium.; sent1 & int4 -> hypothesis;
the junk circles terrarium and is a fucking.
sent20 -> int5: if the junk is not on-line it circles terrarium and is exhaustible.; sent8 -> int6: something does not circle pademelon.; int6 & sent11 -> int7: that the junk is a fingerpost and on-line is not true.;
$hypothesis$ = that the junk does circle terrarium and is a fucking is false. ; $context$ = sent1: that the junk circles terrarium and it is a fucking is not true if the dilutant does not circles terrarium. sent2: something is a refractory or is artless or both if it is not on-line. sent3: the fact that the quickener is a kind of an adulation hold. sent4: if the fact that the junk is artless an adulation does not hold then it is not artless. sent5: the snipefish is exhaustible if the dilutant is artless. sent6: if that something is not a kind of a fingerpost but it is on-line is not right the fact that it is not on-line is right. sent7: if the quickener is an adulation the junk is a kind of a fucking. sent8: the snipefish does not circle pademelon. sent9: if the dilutant is a refractory then that the snipefish is exhaustible is right. sent10: that if the fact that something does not circle pademelon and is on-line is not true then it is not on-line is not wrong. sent11: if there exists something such that it does not circle pademelon that the junk is a fingerpost and is on-line is not true. sent12: the snipefish is exhaustible. sent13: if there is something such that it is a refractory or artless or both then the dilutant does not circle terrarium. sent14: the junk is a fucking if that it is not a fucking and it is not a refractory is incorrect. sent15: if there exists something such that it is not on-line the fact that the dilutant is not a kind of a fingerpost and is on-line is wrong. sent16: the snipefish is exhaustible and is artless. sent17: if the junk is artful then the fact that it is not a kind of a fucking and it is not a refractory does not hold. sent18: if something is a refractory then the dilutant does not circle terrarium. sent19: the dilutant is a fucking or is unicellular or both. sent20: if the fact that something is not on-line is not false it does circle terrarium and it is exhaustible. ; $proof$ = 
sent16 -> int1: the snipefish is artless.; int1 -> int2: the snipefish is a refractory and/or is artless.; int2 -> int3: something is a refractory and/or it is artless.; int3 & sent13 -> int4: the dilutant does not circle terrarium.; sent1 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__