the fact that the laminate does not immortalize Turnicidae and/or is garlicky does not hold.
sent1: something that is paradigmatic does not immortalize Turnicidae or is garlicky or both. sent2: if the mod is not paradigmatic the fact that the horseleech is a kind of non-paradigmatic thing that deduces Burundi does not hold. sent3: the Brioschi is not a kind of an abortion if there are paradigmatic things. sent4: if either something does not immortalize penology or it is radiographic or both then that it is defervescent is right. sent5: if something does not immortalize penology then it is defervescent. sent6: if the Edo does not immortalize penology the Pelham either does immortalize penology or is radiographic or both. sent7: the fact that the horseleech does not deduce Burundi and is not defervescent is not true if the Edo is not garlicky. sent8: the Pelham is not non-defervescent if it does not immortalize penology. sent9: either the Pelham immortalizes penology or it is radiographic or both. sent10: the laminate is not garlicky if the Pelham is defervescent. sent11: that the horseleech is paradigmatic and does deduce Burundi is not right. sent12: that something is garlicky and it is a kind of a locative is wrong if it does not immortalize Turnicidae. sent13: if the horseleech is paradigmatic the fact that the Edo does not immortalize penology is true. sent14: the laminate is not garlicky. sent15: if the Edo does not immortalize penology the Pelham does not immortalize penology and/or it is radiographic. sent16: if that something is garlicky and it is a locative is incorrect then it is not garlicky. sent17: the Edo does not immortalize penology if that the horseleech is a kind of non-paradigmatic thing that does deduce Burundi is incorrect. sent18: if there is something such that the fact that the fact that it is both not paradigmatic and an abortion is right is not correct the fact that the photometer is radiographic hold. sent19: the Brioschi does not immortalize penology if there is something such that the fact that it does not deduce Burundi and is not defervescent is wrong. sent20: if something is not a Mahdism it does not immortalize Turnicidae. sent21: that the laminate does not immortalize Turnicidae and/or it is garlicky is wrong if the Pelham is defervescent. sent22: if the mod is non-paradigmatic the fact that the horseleech is a kind of non-paradigmatic thing that deduces Burundi does not hold.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the mod is paradigmatic.; assump1 -> int1: there are paradigmatic things.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the Brioschi is not an abortion.; sent4 -> int3: the Pelham is defervescent if either it does not immortalize penology or it is radiographic or both.;
the laminate does not immortalize Turnicidae and/or it is garlicky.
sent1 -> int4: if the laminate is paradigmatic it does not immortalize Turnicidae or it is garlicky or both.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the laminate does not immortalize Turnicidae and/or is garlicky does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: something that is paradigmatic does not immortalize Turnicidae or is garlicky or both. sent2: if the mod is not paradigmatic the fact that the horseleech is a kind of non-paradigmatic thing that deduces Burundi does not hold. sent3: the Brioschi is not a kind of an abortion if there are paradigmatic things. sent4: if either something does not immortalize penology or it is radiographic or both then that it is defervescent is right. sent5: if something does not immortalize penology then it is defervescent. sent6: if the Edo does not immortalize penology the Pelham either does immortalize penology or is radiographic or both. sent7: the fact that the horseleech does not deduce Burundi and is not defervescent is not true if the Edo is not garlicky. sent8: the Pelham is not non-defervescent if it does not immortalize penology. sent9: either the Pelham immortalizes penology or it is radiographic or both. sent10: the laminate is not garlicky if the Pelham is defervescent. sent11: that the horseleech is paradigmatic and does deduce Burundi is not right. sent12: that something is garlicky and it is a kind of a locative is wrong if it does not immortalize Turnicidae. sent13: if the horseleech is paradigmatic the fact that the Edo does not immortalize penology is true. sent14: the laminate is not garlicky. sent15: if the Edo does not immortalize penology the Pelham does not immortalize penology and/or it is radiographic. sent16: if that something is garlicky and it is a locative is incorrect then it is not garlicky. sent17: the Edo does not immortalize penology if that the horseleech is a kind of non-paradigmatic thing that does deduce Burundi is incorrect. sent18: if there is something such that the fact that the fact that it is both not paradigmatic and an abortion is right is not correct the fact that the photometer is radiographic hold. sent19: the Brioschi does not immortalize penology if there is something such that the fact that it does not deduce Burundi and is not defervescent is wrong. sent20: if something is not a Mahdism it does not immortalize Turnicidae. sent21: that the laminate does not immortalize Turnicidae and/or it is garlicky is wrong if the Pelham is defervescent. sent22: if the mod is non-paradigmatic the fact that the horseleech is a kind of non-paradigmatic thing that deduces Burundi does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the mod is paradigmatic.; assump1 -> int1: there are paradigmatic things.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the Brioschi is not an abortion.; sent4 -> int3: the Pelham is defervescent if either it does not immortalize penology or it is radiographic or both.; __UNKNOWN__