the fact that the medfly is a kind of non-identifiable thing that does parch ailanthus is not correct.
sent1: that the medfly is not identifiable and is a meed does not hold. sent2: the cuckoo does parch ailanthus. sent3: the ballplayer nettles solitaire. sent4: if the lockstitch does nettle faultlessness it is not a kind of a Ilmen. sent5: the lockstitch is not shallow. sent6: if the pectoral is not non-analogue then the slice is a non-analogue. sent7: something is nutritional if it is hypothalamic. sent8: the lockstitch does nettle faultlessness if something does nettle faultlessness or is identifiable or both. sent9: the fact that the medfly is a kind of identifiable thing that parches ailanthus is not correct. sent10: if that the lockstitch does not nettle faultlessness is right then that the medfly is not identifiable but it parches ailanthus is not true. sent11: the hydrophyte is a landfall if the crossopterygian is nutritional. sent12: the lockstitch is a Ilmen if there exists something such that it is a kind of a Ilmen. sent13: if that something does nettle faultlessness hold then it is not identifiable and it parches ailanthus. sent14: if the hydrophyte is a landfall then the lockstitch does nettle monkfish. sent15: the fact that the medfly is identifiable thing that parches ailanthus is false if the lockstitch does not nettle faultlessness. sent16: the crossopterygian is hypothalamic if the slice is a kind of an analogue. sent17: if the odds-maker is either not a Solent or analogue or both then that the pectoral is a kind of an analogue hold. sent18: there is something such that it is a Ilmen or a landfall or both. sent19: something is a Ilmen and/or it is identifiable.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the lockstitch nettles faultlessness.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the lockstitch is not a Ilmen.;
that the medfly is not identifiable and parches ailanthus is not wrong.
sent13 -> int2: the medfly is unidentifiable thing that does parch ailanthus if it nettles faultlessness.; sent7 -> int3: the crossopterygian is nutritional if it is hypothalamic.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the medfly is a kind of non-identifiable thing that does parch ailanthus is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: that the medfly is not identifiable and is a meed does not hold. sent2: the cuckoo does parch ailanthus. sent3: the ballplayer nettles solitaire. sent4: if the lockstitch does nettle faultlessness it is not a kind of a Ilmen. sent5: the lockstitch is not shallow. sent6: if the pectoral is not non-analogue then the slice is a non-analogue. sent7: something is nutritional if it is hypothalamic. sent8: the lockstitch does nettle faultlessness if something does nettle faultlessness or is identifiable or both. sent9: the fact that the medfly is a kind of identifiable thing that parches ailanthus is not correct. sent10: if that the lockstitch does not nettle faultlessness is right then that the medfly is not identifiable but it parches ailanthus is not true. sent11: the hydrophyte is a landfall if the crossopterygian is nutritional. sent12: the lockstitch is a Ilmen if there exists something such that it is a kind of a Ilmen. sent13: if that something does nettle faultlessness hold then it is not identifiable and it parches ailanthus. sent14: if the hydrophyte is a landfall then the lockstitch does nettle monkfish. sent15: the fact that the medfly is identifiable thing that parches ailanthus is false if the lockstitch does not nettle faultlessness. sent16: the crossopterygian is hypothalamic if the slice is a kind of an analogue. sent17: if the odds-maker is either not a Solent or analogue or both then that the pectoral is a kind of an analogue hold. sent18: there is something such that it is a Ilmen or a landfall or both. sent19: something is a Ilmen and/or it is identifiable. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the lockstitch nettles faultlessness.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the lockstitch is not a Ilmen.; __UNKNOWN__