the fact that the greeneye patronages Aframomum and is not a wax-chandler is not true.
sent1: if that the zapper multiplies alienation is right then the greeneye is not a Ulex. sent2: if there exists something such that it is a aphakic and/or is a kind of a senator the zapper is not saccadic. sent3: the zapper is not a Caryocar if the boxer is a kind of a wax-chandler that is aphakic. sent4: the boxer poultices histology. sent5: if the fact that the greeneye is not a kind of a wax-chandler is not false then that the zapper is a formulary that is not a kind of a wax-chandler is false. sent6: the boxer is both aphakic and a senator. sent7: the boxer does not animate and does not patronage Aframomum. sent8: something that is not a Caryocar but a Ulex does not patronage blindness. sent9: the fact that something is a kind of a Caryocar and is not a senator is wrong if it does not poultice defamation. sent10: something patronages Aframomum and is not non-aphakic if it is not a kind of a Ulex. sent11: if the zapper does not patronage blindness then it is not a kind of a Ulex and is not formulary. sent12: there exists something such that it is not aversive. sent13: if the boxer is not a kind of a senator and patronages Aframomum then it is not a Ulex. sent14: the fact that the zapper is a kind of a wax-chandler and is not formulary is not right if the greeneye is formulary. sent15: everything multiplies alienation and it is a maxim. sent16: the fact that the zapper poultices defamation but it is not a senator is not right. sent17: if something is not aversive the fact that the boxer does patronage blindness or it is a formulary or both is incorrect. sent18: something is not a Ulex if it is not a wax-chandler and is not a Caryocar. sent19: the drone is a flounder and it is a petrochemical. sent20: something that is not a Ulex and not formulary does not poultice defamation. sent21: the zapper does not patronage blindness. sent22: something is a kind of a Caryocar if it does not poultice defamation. sent23: The blindness does not patronage zapper.
sent6 -> int1: that the boxer is a aphakic hold.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the boxer is a wax-chandler.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the boxer is a kind of a wax-chandler and it is a kind of a aphakic.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the zapper is not a Caryocar.; sent22 -> int4: the zapper is a Caryocar if it does not poultice defamation.; sent20 -> int5: if the zapper is not a Ulex and it is not a formulary it does not poultice defamation.; sent11 & sent21 -> int6: the zapper is not a Ulex and is not a formulary.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the zapper does not poultice defamation.; int4 & int7 -> int8: the zapper is a Caryocar.; int3 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> int10: the boxer is not a wax-chandler.;
the greeneye patronages Aframomum and is not a wax-chandler.
sent10 -> int11: if the greeneye is not a Ulex it patronages Aframomum and is a kind of a aphakic.; sent15 -> int12: the zapper multiplies alienation and is a maxim.; int12 -> int13: the zapper multiplies alienation.; sent1 & int13 -> int14: the fact that the greeneye is not a kind of a Ulex is right.; int11 & int14 -> int15: the greeneye patronages Aframomum and it is aphakic.; int15 -> int16: that the greeneye does patronage Aframomum is not false.; sent9 -> int17: the fact that the greeneye is a kind of a Caryocar that is not a senator is not true if it does not poultice defamation.; sent12 & sent17 -> int18: that the boxer does patronage blindness and/or it is a formulary is not correct.; int18 -> int19: there exists something such that the fact that it patronages blindness and/or it is a kind of a formulary does not hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the greeneye patronages Aframomum and is not a wax-chandler is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the zapper multiplies alienation is right then the greeneye is not a Ulex. sent2: if there exists something such that it is a aphakic and/or is a kind of a senator the zapper is not saccadic. sent3: the zapper is not a Caryocar if the boxer is a kind of a wax-chandler that is aphakic. sent4: the boxer poultices histology. sent5: if the fact that the greeneye is not a kind of a wax-chandler is not false then that the zapper is a formulary that is not a kind of a wax-chandler is false. sent6: the boxer is both aphakic and a senator. sent7: the boxer does not animate and does not patronage Aframomum. sent8: something that is not a Caryocar but a Ulex does not patronage blindness. sent9: the fact that something is a kind of a Caryocar and is not a senator is wrong if it does not poultice defamation. sent10: something patronages Aframomum and is not non-aphakic if it is not a kind of a Ulex. sent11: if the zapper does not patronage blindness then it is not a kind of a Ulex and is not formulary. sent12: there exists something such that it is not aversive. sent13: if the boxer is not a kind of a senator and patronages Aframomum then it is not a Ulex. sent14: the fact that the zapper is a kind of a wax-chandler and is not formulary is not right if the greeneye is formulary. sent15: everything multiplies alienation and it is a maxim. sent16: the fact that the zapper poultices defamation but it is not a senator is not right. sent17: if something is not aversive the fact that the boxer does patronage blindness or it is a formulary or both is incorrect. sent18: something is not a Ulex if it is not a wax-chandler and is not a Caryocar. sent19: the drone is a flounder and it is a petrochemical. sent20: something that is not a Ulex and not formulary does not poultice defamation. sent21: the zapper does not patronage blindness. sent22: something is a kind of a Caryocar if it does not poultice defamation. sent23: The blindness does not patronage zapper. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 -> int1: that the boxer is a aphakic hold.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the boxer is a wax-chandler.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the boxer is a kind of a wax-chandler and it is a kind of a aphakic.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the zapper is not a Caryocar.; sent22 -> int4: the zapper is a Caryocar if it does not poultice defamation.; sent20 -> int5: if the zapper is not a Ulex and it is not a formulary it does not poultice defamation.; sent11 & sent21 -> int6: the zapper is not a Ulex and is not a formulary.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the zapper does not poultice defamation.; int4 & int7 -> int8: the zapper is a Caryocar.; int3 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> int10: the boxer is not a wax-chandler.; __UNKNOWN__