the fact that the rockers is a kind of non-antipyretic thing that flumps does not hold.
sent1: there exists something such that it grates prostitution. sent2: there is something such that it is a litigation. sent3: if that the Hampshire disapproves spongioblast but it is not a essentiality is wrong then the fact that it is a kind of a thoughtfulness hold. sent4: if the expanse does not grate prostitution but it is obligate then the precipitation does flump. sent5: that the Hampshire is a tom is true. sent6: if the biweekly is a thoughtfulness the transferer is not non-hydraulics. sent7: the transferer obligates if the expanse does not freshen but it is algorithmic. sent8: the biweekly is residual. sent9: the expanse does not freshen. sent10: the fact that something does disapprove spongioblast but it is not a essentiality is not true if it is a tom. sent11: the biweekly does flump. sent12: the expanse grates prostitution if something freshens and it obligates. sent13: that there are abranchiate things hold. sent14: if the Hampshire is a kind of a thoughtfulness the biweekly is a thoughtfulness. sent15: if the fact that the Hampshire is a residual is correct then that the rockers is not a antipyretic but it does flump is not true. sent16: the expanse does not freshen and is algorithmic. sent17: that the rockers is a antipyretic and it flumps is incorrect. sent18: if the transferer obligates then the biweekly grates prostitution. sent19: the fact that the transferer is not peaty is not false. sent20: the Hampshire does flump and it grates prostitution if the expanse does not obligate. sent21: if something that is abranchiate grates prostitution then the Hampshire is a kind of a residual. sent22: the transferer is not non-algorithmic. sent23: the rockers is antipyretic if the biweekly grates prostitution and obligates. sent24: something is not a antipyretic and does flump if the fact that it does grate prostitution is right. sent25: that the fact that the expanse is not a kind of a residual but it is abranchiate is not correct if the transferer is hydraulics hold.
sent7 & sent16 -> int1: the transferer obligates.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the biweekly does grate prostitution.;
the rockers is non-antipyretic and flumps.
sent24 -> int3: the rockers is not a kind of a antipyretic but it flumps if it does grate prostitution.; sent10 -> int4: if the Hampshire is a tom that it does disapprove spongioblast and is not a essentiality does not hold.; int4 & sent5 -> int5: the fact that the Hampshire disapproves spongioblast but it is not a kind of a essentiality is not true.; sent3 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the Hampshire is a thoughtfulness is right.; sent14 & int6 -> int7: the biweekly is a thoughtfulness.; sent6 & int7 -> int8: the transferer is hydraulics.; sent25 & int8 -> int9: the fact that the expanse is both non-residual and not non-abranchiate is wrong.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the rockers is a kind of non-antipyretic thing that flumps does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it grates prostitution. sent2: there is something such that it is a litigation. sent3: if that the Hampshire disapproves spongioblast but it is not a essentiality is wrong then the fact that it is a kind of a thoughtfulness hold. sent4: if the expanse does not grate prostitution but it is obligate then the precipitation does flump. sent5: that the Hampshire is a tom is true. sent6: if the biweekly is a thoughtfulness the transferer is not non-hydraulics. sent7: the transferer obligates if the expanse does not freshen but it is algorithmic. sent8: the biweekly is residual. sent9: the expanse does not freshen. sent10: the fact that something does disapprove spongioblast but it is not a essentiality is not true if it is a tom. sent11: the biweekly does flump. sent12: the expanse grates prostitution if something freshens and it obligates. sent13: that there are abranchiate things hold. sent14: if the Hampshire is a kind of a thoughtfulness the biweekly is a thoughtfulness. sent15: if the fact that the Hampshire is a residual is correct then that the rockers is not a antipyretic but it does flump is not true. sent16: the expanse does not freshen and is algorithmic. sent17: that the rockers is a antipyretic and it flumps is incorrect. sent18: if the transferer obligates then the biweekly grates prostitution. sent19: the fact that the transferer is not peaty is not false. sent20: the Hampshire does flump and it grates prostitution if the expanse does not obligate. sent21: if something that is abranchiate grates prostitution then the Hampshire is a kind of a residual. sent22: the transferer is not non-algorithmic. sent23: the rockers is antipyretic if the biweekly grates prostitution and obligates. sent24: something is not a antipyretic and does flump if the fact that it does grate prostitution is right. sent25: that the fact that the expanse is not a kind of a residual but it is abranchiate is not correct if the transferer is hydraulics hold. ; $proof$ = 
sent7 & sent16 -> int1: the transferer obligates.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the biweekly does grate prostitution.; __UNKNOWN__