the chopper does trust.
sent1: the conspecific is a kind of a Haitian. sent2: if something does not reflect Gilman then it does wake character and it is preventive. sent3: the contrivance is not a kind of a conceivableness if that the penetration is not semiautobiographical and it does not reflect conditioner is not true. sent4: if the blintz is not priestly the fact that the phone is nonprehensile and does trust is not correct. sent5: if the earthstar is semiautobiographical the chopper is nonprehensile. sent6: the penetration is not nonprehensile. sent7: the fact that the blintz is a kind of a preventive is not false if that the phone does not wake character and it does not reflect conditioner is not right. sent8: if the fact that the contrivance is not a fudge and is a kind of a Haitian does not hold then the penetration does reflect conditioner. sent9: if the contrivance is not semiautobiographical the earthstar does reflect Gilman and/or it is semiautobiographical. sent10: the blintz is not a preventive if something is not priestly. sent11: if something is nonprehensile then it does trust. sent12: the chopper is nonprehensile if the earthstar does reflect Gilman. sent13: if something is not a preventive then either it is not semiautobiographical or it reflects conditioner or both. sent14: the fact that the penetration is not semiautobiographical and does not reflect conditioner is wrong if the fact that the phone is not non-preventive hold. sent15: the fact that the phone does not wake character and does not reflect conditioner does not hold if the penetration does reflect conditioner. sent16: if that something is a kind of nonprehensile a trust is not right it does not reflect Gilman. sent17: if the contrivance is semiautobiographical then that it is not a fudge and is a kind of a Haitian is not correct.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the contrivance is semiautobiographical.; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: that the contrivance does not fudge but it is a Haitian is wrong.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the penetration does reflect conditioner.; int2 & sent15 -> int3: that the phone does not wake character and does not reflect conditioner is not right.; int3 & sent7 -> int4: the blintz is a kind of a preventive.; sent11 -> int5: the chopper is a trust if it is nonprehensile.;
something is not a conceivableness.
sent2 -> int6: the phone does wake character and is a preventive if it does not reflect Gilman.; sent16 -> int7: the phone does not reflect Gilman if that it is nonprehensile and a trust is not right.;
$hypothesis$ = the chopper does trust. ; $context$ = sent1: the conspecific is a kind of a Haitian. sent2: if something does not reflect Gilman then it does wake character and it is preventive. sent3: the contrivance is not a kind of a conceivableness if that the penetration is not semiautobiographical and it does not reflect conditioner is not true. sent4: if the blintz is not priestly the fact that the phone is nonprehensile and does trust is not correct. sent5: if the earthstar is semiautobiographical the chopper is nonprehensile. sent6: the penetration is not nonprehensile. sent7: the fact that the blintz is a kind of a preventive is not false if that the phone does not wake character and it does not reflect conditioner is not right. sent8: if the fact that the contrivance is not a fudge and is a kind of a Haitian does not hold then the penetration does reflect conditioner. sent9: if the contrivance is not semiautobiographical the earthstar does reflect Gilman and/or it is semiautobiographical. sent10: the blintz is not a preventive if something is not priestly. sent11: if something is nonprehensile then it does trust. sent12: the chopper is nonprehensile if the earthstar does reflect Gilman. sent13: if something is not a preventive then either it is not semiautobiographical or it reflects conditioner or both. sent14: the fact that the penetration is not semiautobiographical and does not reflect conditioner is wrong if the fact that the phone is not non-preventive hold. sent15: the fact that the phone does not wake character and does not reflect conditioner does not hold if the penetration does reflect conditioner. sent16: if that something is a kind of nonprehensile a trust is not right it does not reflect Gilman. sent17: if the contrivance is semiautobiographical then that it is not a fudge and is a kind of a Haitian is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the contrivance is semiautobiographical.; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: that the contrivance does not fudge but it is a Haitian is wrong.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the penetration does reflect conditioner.; int2 & sent15 -> int3: that the phone does not wake character and does not reflect conditioner is not right.; int3 & sent7 -> int4: the blintz is a kind of a preventive.; sent11 -> int5: the chopper is a trust if it is nonprehensile.; __UNKNOWN__