the grapeshot is rhetorical.
sent1: if the fact that the signora is not a southeast but it is impetiginous is false then it is inconsiderable. sent2: if something is impetiginous an enema then the fact that it is not rhetorical is not wrong. sent3: the potboy is not asteroidal and is impetiginous. sent4: the signora axes demur. sent5: the boardwalk is rhetorical if that it is not an enema or it does axe demur or both is not true. sent6: that the signora is a kind of an enema but it is not considerable is true if that the boardwalk is not considerable hold. sent7: if the potboy is a southeast then it does not elaborate headpiece. sent8: if the signora is not impetiginous the fact that that the boardwalk is not a kind of an enema or it is not impetiginous or both is not right is not wrong. sent9: if the boardwalk is a southeast then that the potboy is not a southeast and it is not asteroidal is not right. sent10: if something elaborates headpiece and is not considerable it is not impetiginous. sent11: if there is something such that it is not a smallness then the Luxemburger is not impetiginous. sent12: if the boardwalk is a kind of an enema and is not impetiginous it does not elaborate headpiece. sent13: the Luxemburger is a kind of non-aerological thing that does axe demur. sent14: the fact that the boardwalk is not considerable and is a southeast does not hold. sent15: the fact that the boardwalk is asteroidal is true. sent16: something is a cutworm if the fact that it is either not a buddleia or not non-Skinnerian or both is false. sent17: if there exists something such that it is not aerological then the potboy is not a southeast and it is not asteroidal. sent18: if that the grapeshot is not a caravanning but rhetorical is not true it is not considerable. sent19: there exists something such that it does caravan. sent20: that the potboy is not impetiginous or it is not a kind of a southeast or both is wrong if the signora is not a southeast. sent21: the fact that if the grapeshot is not considerable the signora elaborates headpiece and is not considerable is true. sent22: the potboy is not asteroidal but rhetorical.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the grapeshot is not a kind of a caravanning but it is rhetorical is not right.; sent18 & assump1 -> int1: the grapeshot is not considerable.; int1 & sent21 -> int2: the signora does elaborate headpiece and is not considerable.; sent10 -> int3: the signora is not impetiginous if it elaborates headpiece and it is not considerable.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the signora is not impetiginous.; int4 & sent8 -> int5: that the boardwalk is not a kind of an enema or it is not impetiginous or both is not right.; sent13 -> int6: the Luxemburger is not aerological.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that it is not aerological.; int7 & sent17 -> int8: the potboy is not a kind of a southeast and it is not asteroidal.;
$hypothesis$ = the grapeshot is rhetorical. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the signora is not a southeast but it is impetiginous is false then it is inconsiderable. sent2: if something is impetiginous an enema then the fact that it is not rhetorical is not wrong. sent3: the potboy is not asteroidal and is impetiginous. sent4: the signora axes demur. sent5: the boardwalk is rhetorical if that it is not an enema or it does axe demur or both is not true. sent6: that the signora is a kind of an enema but it is not considerable is true if that the boardwalk is not considerable hold. sent7: if the potboy is a southeast then it does not elaborate headpiece. sent8: if the signora is not impetiginous the fact that that the boardwalk is not a kind of an enema or it is not impetiginous or both is not right is not wrong. sent9: if the boardwalk is a southeast then that the potboy is not a southeast and it is not asteroidal is not right. sent10: if something elaborates headpiece and is not considerable it is not impetiginous. sent11: if there is something such that it is not a smallness then the Luxemburger is not impetiginous. sent12: if the boardwalk is a kind of an enema and is not impetiginous it does not elaborate headpiece. sent13: the Luxemburger is a kind of non-aerological thing that does axe demur. sent14: the fact that the boardwalk is not considerable and is a southeast does not hold. sent15: the fact that the boardwalk is asteroidal is true. sent16: something is a cutworm if the fact that it is either not a buddleia or not non-Skinnerian or both is false. sent17: if there exists something such that it is not aerological then the potboy is not a southeast and it is not asteroidal. sent18: if that the grapeshot is not a caravanning but rhetorical is not true it is not considerable. sent19: there exists something such that it does caravan. sent20: that the potboy is not impetiginous or it is not a kind of a southeast or both is wrong if the signora is not a southeast. sent21: the fact that if the grapeshot is not considerable the signora elaborates headpiece and is not considerable is true. sent22: the potboy is not asteroidal but rhetorical. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the grapeshot is not a kind of a caravanning but it is rhetorical is not right.; sent18 & assump1 -> int1: the grapeshot is not considerable.; int1 & sent21 -> int2: the signora does elaborate headpiece and is not considerable.; sent10 -> int3: the signora is not impetiginous if it elaborates headpiece and it is not considerable.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the signora is not impetiginous.; int4 & sent8 -> int5: that the boardwalk is not a kind of an enema or it is not impetiginous or both is not right.; sent13 -> int6: the Luxemburger is not aerological.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that it is not aerological.; int7 & sent17 -> int8: the potboy is not a kind of a southeast and it is not asteroidal.; __UNKNOWN__