the view is not an agitprop.
sent1: if there exists something such that it is a kind of an agitprop then the view is not a kind of a igniter. sent2: something does disunify slicer if it is a arrogator. sent3: the parlormaid is a igniter but it is not a kind of a astrogator if there exists something such that it unties. sent4: the bisque is not narial if there exists something such that it is a arrogator. sent5: the fact that the parlormaid does not untie is correct. sent6: if the fact that something does disunify slicer and is not a cereal is right it is not nonphotosynthetic. sent7: that the isolation is not non-cereal and not a tallyman is correct. sent8: if something is a kind of an agitprop the fact that that it is both medullary and not a Friesland is true is not correct. sent9: that the parlormaid is a igniter but it is not a astrogator does not hold if the isolation is not a igniter. sent10: the isolation is not a astrogator if it is not a igniter and it is not non-cereal. sent11: the isolation is cereal if the fact that it unties and is not yeasty is not correct. sent12: the fact that the bisque is a kind of a igniter and does not untie is not correct. sent13: the fact that the bisque does not configure Fossa is true if there is something such that that it corsets owlet is not incorrect. sent14: the isolation is a astrogator if the parlormaid disunifies slicer. sent15: if the view is an agitprop then that the isolation disunifies slicer is right. sent16: that the view is not a kind of a arrogator is not incorrect if the isolation is not a igniter and it is not nonphotosynthetic. sent17: something is not a kind of a igniter if it disunifies slicer and it is not a kind of a arrogator. sent18: the bisque unties. sent19: if something disunifies slicer it is a kind of an agitprop. sent20: the embezzler is hydraulic and is not a cenobite. sent21: the isolation is not nonphotosynthetic but it is not non-cereal. sent22: if the view is not a kind of a arrogator then the floodgate is an agitprop and it disunifies slicer. sent23: that if something is a kind of a astrogator then it is not a kind of a igniter and it is not nonphotosynthetic is not wrong. sent24: if the isolation is not a igniter that the parlormaid is a kind of a igniter and is not nonphotosynthetic does not hold.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the view is an agitprop.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the isolation does disunify slicer.; sent17 -> int2: the isolation is not a kind of a igniter if it disunifies slicer and is not a arrogator.; sent18 -> int3: there is something such that it unties.; int3 & sent3 -> int4: the parlormaid is a igniter that is not a astrogator.;
the view is an agitprop.
sent19 -> int5: the fact that if the view disunifies slicer then the fact that the view is a kind of an agitprop is not incorrect is correct.; sent2 -> int6: if the view is a arrogator it disunifies slicer.;
$hypothesis$ = the view is not an agitprop. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it is a kind of an agitprop then the view is not a kind of a igniter. sent2: something does disunify slicer if it is a arrogator. sent3: the parlormaid is a igniter but it is not a kind of a astrogator if there exists something such that it unties. sent4: the bisque is not narial if there exists something such that it is a arrogator. sent5: the fact that the parlormaid does not untie is correct. sent6: if the fact that something does disunify slicer and is not a cereal is right it is not nonphotosynthetic. sent7: that the isolation is not non-cereal and not a tallyman is correct. sent8: if something is a kind of an agitprop the fact that that it is both medullary and not a Friesland is true is not correct. sent9: that the parlormaid is a igniter but it is not a astrogator does not hold if the isolation is not a igniter. sent10: the isolation is not a astrogator if it is not a igniter and it is not non-cereal. sent11: the isolation is cereal if the fact that it unties and is not yeasty is not correct. sent12: the fact that the bisque is a kind of a igniter and does not untie is not correct. sent13: the fact that the bisque does not configure Fossa is true if there is something such that that it corsets owlet is not incorrect. sent14: the isolation is a astrogator if the parlormaid disunifies slicer. sent15: if the view is an agitprop then that the isolation disunifies slicer is right. sent16: that the view is not a kind of a arrogator is not incorrect if the isolation is not a igniter and it is not nonphotosynthetic. sent17: something is not a kind of a igniter if it disunifies slicer and it is not a kind of a arrogator. sent18: the bisque unties. sent19: if something disunifies slicer it is a kind of an agitprop. sent20: the embezzler is hydraulic and is not a cenobite. sent21: the isolation is not nonphotosynthetic but it is not non-cereal. sent22: if the view is not a kind of a arrogator then the floodgate is an agitprop and it disunifies slicer. sent23: that if something is a kind of a astrogator then it is not a kind of a igniter and it is not nonphotosynthetic is not wrong. sent24: if the isolation is not a igniter that the parlormaid is a kind of a igniter and is not nonphotosynthetic does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the view is an agitprop.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the isolation does disunify slicer.; sent17 -> int2: the isolation is not a kind of a igniter if it disunifies slicer and is not a arrogator.; sent18 -> int3: there is something such that it unties.; int3 & sent3 -> int4: the parlormaid is a igniter that is not a astrogator.; __UNKNOWN__