the hollyhock is a folklore and/or it is appealable.
sent1: if something does not catalyze Zoroastrian that it is a folklore or it is appealable or both is false. sent2: everything is a kind of a barbecuing. sent3: everything is unbreakable. sent4: the cornerback does slice fieldfare if the gee-gee does not slice fieldfare and does instrument slat. sent5: if the chance does not slice fieldfare that either it is a mustachio or it does not fingerprint sucker or both is wrong. sent6: the gee-gee does instrument slat. sent7: if the cornerback is an electric and it slices fieldfare the chance does not slices fieldfare. sent8: a non-contemptible thing is not non-Balzacian. sent9: the hollyhock is a folklore or is a Whitehorse or both. sent10: something is a Lyrurus. sent11: if something is Balzacian that it does not fingerprint pustule hold. sent12: something is electric if that it is non-valuable thing that is not an electric is not true. sent13: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a Lyrurus the fact that the cornerback is non-valuable and non-electric is not correct. sent14: if the amalgam does not fingerprint pustule then the response is a folklore and it is classicistic. sent15: the fact that the hollyhock is not appealable but it does catalyze Zoroastrian is not true if there is something such that it is a folklore. sent16: the gee-gee does not slice fieldfare if the fact that it is an inquiry that does not fingerprint Pellaea is incorrect. sent17: that the gee-gee is a kind of an inquiry that does not fingerprint Pellaea is not correct. sent18: the straitjacket is appealable if there is something such that the fact that it is not appealable and it does catalyze Zoroastrian is false. sent19: if there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is a mustachio or does not fingerprint sucker or both is true does not hold that the amalgam is not contemptible hold.
that either the hollyhock is a folklore or it is appealable or both is not right.
sent1 -> int1: if the hollyhock does not catalyze Zoroastrian then that it is a kind of a folklore or it is appealable or both is not correct.;
$hypothesis$ = the hollyhock is a folklore and/or it is appealable. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not catalyze Zoroastrian that it is a folklore or it is appealable or both is false. sent2: everything is a kind of a barbecuing. sent3: everything is unbreakable. sent4: the cornerback does slice fieldfare if the gee-gee does not slice fieldfare and does instrument slat. sent5: if the chance does not slice fieldfare that either it is a mustachio or it does not fingerprint sucker or both is wrong. sent6: the gee-gee does instrument slat. sent7: if the cornerback is an electric and it slices fieldfare the chance does not slices fieldfare. sent8: a non-contemptible thing is not non-Balzacian. sent9: the hollyhock is a folklore or is a Whitehorse or both. sent10: something is a Lyrurus. sent11: if something is Balzacian that it does not fingerprint pustule hold. sent12: something is electric if that it is non-valuable thing that is not an electric is not true. sent13: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a Lyrurus the fact that the cornerback is non-valuable and non-electric is not correct. sent14: if the amalgam does not fingerprint pustule then the response is a folklore and it is classicistic. sent15: the fact that the hollyhock is not appealable but it does catalyze Zoroastrian is not true if there is something such that it is a folklore. sent16: the gee-gee does not slice fieldfare if the fact that it is an inquiry that does not fingerprint Pellaea is incorrect. sent17: that the gee-gee is a kind of an inquiry that does not fingerprint Pellaea is not correct. sent18: the straitjacket is appealable if there is something such that the fact that it is not appealable and it does catalyze Zoroastrian is false. sent19: if there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is a mustachio or does not fingerprint sucker or both is true does not hold that the amalgam is not contemptible hold. ; $proof$ = 
__UNKNOWN__