the negativist is a microgauss.
sent1: that the Piston is hydrophobic but it does not melanize Hollywood does not hold if there exists something such that it is not malignant. sent2: the fact that the naproxen does not singularize Liverpool but it is a Mwera does not hold. sent3: if the coon singularizes Liverpool then that the naproxen does not singularizes Liverpool and it is not a Mwera is not right. sent4: the coon singularizes Liverpool if the coprolite does repine double-prop. sent5: the naproxen does not singularize Liverpool and it is not a kind of a Mwera if there exists something such that it is a natural. sent6: if the fact that the consignee is both civics and not inspiratory is incorrect then it is not malignant. sent7: if the consignee is inspiratory it is not malignant. sent8: the parang is not hydrophobic if that it is hydrophobic and it is natural is false. sent9: the naproxen is not a kind of a Mwera if there exists something such that it is a natural. sent10: the coprolite is a kind of a Mwera. sent11: if the clofibrate does not melanize cot that the parang is hydrophobic and it is a natural is incorrect. sent12: if the fact that the consignee is not civics does not hold the coprolite repines double-prop. sent13: that the consignee is civics and is not non-inspiratory is not true. sent14: the Piston is not malignant and singularizes Liverpool if the bargello is a Mwera. sent15: the fact that the Piston is a kind of hydrophobic thing that does melanize Hollywood is not correct. sent16: that the coprolite does singularize straggler is not false. sent17: the bargello is natural if it is a bleu. sent18: if the Piston is non-malignant thing that does singularize Liverpool the naproxen does not singularize Liverpool. sent19: the clofibrate does not melanize cot. sent20: the fact that if there are non-malignant things then the fact that the Piston is hydrophobic and it does melanize Hollywood is incorrect is not false. sent21: the bargello melanizes cot and/or is a bleu. sent22: that the naproxen is not a kind of a Mwera is not incorrect. sent23: if there is something such that that it is civics and it repines double-prop is incorrect then the coprolite is not civics. sent24: the negativist is not a microgauss if the consignee is inspiratory but it is not a kind of a microgauss. sent25: there exists something such that it is malignant. sent26: if the bargello melanizes cot then it is a kind of a natural. sent27: if the naproxen does not singularize Liverpool then the fact that the coon is civics and repines double-prop is false.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the consignee is civics and non-inspiratory.; assump1 -> int1: the consignee is civics.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the coprolite repines double-prop.; int2 & sent4 -> int3: the coon singularizes Liverpool.; int3 & sent3 -> int4: the fact that the naproxen does not singularize Liverpool and it is not a Mwera is not correct.; sent21 & sent26 & sent17 -> int5: the bargello is natural.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it is natural.; int6 & sent5 -> int7: the naproxen does not singularize Liverpool and is not a Mwera.; int4 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the fact that the consignee is both civics and not inspiratory is wrong.; int9 & sent6 -> int10: the consignee is not malignant.; int10 -> int11: something is not malignant.; int11 & sent1 -> int12: that the Piston is a kind of hydrophobic thing that does not melanize Hollywood is wrong.;
the negativist is not a microgauss.
sent11 & sent19 -> int13: the fact that the parang is hydrophobic and it is natural is not right.; sent8 & int13 -> int14: the fact that the parang is not hydrophobic hold.; int14 -> int15: something is not hydrophobic.;
$hypothesis$ = the negativist is a microgauss. ; $context$ = sent1: that the Piston is hydrophobic but it does not melanize Hollywood does not hold if there exists something such that it is not malignant. sent2: the fact that the naproxen does not singularize Liverpool but it is a Mwera does not hold. sent3: if the coon singularizes Liverpool then that the naproxen does not singularizes Liverpool and it is not a Mwera is not right. sent4: the coon singularizes Liverpool if the coprolite does repine double-prop. sent5: the naproxen does not singularize Liverpool and it is not a kind of a Mwera if there exists something such that it is a natural. sent6: if the fact that the consignee is both civics and not inspiratory is incorrect then it is not malignant. sent7: if the consignee is inspiratory it is not malignant. sent8: the parang is not hydrophobic if that it is hydrophobic and it is natural is false. sent9: the naproxen is not a kind of a Mwera if there exists something such that it is a natural. sent10: the coprolite is a kind of a Mwera. sent11: if the clofibrate does not melanize cot that the parang is hydrophobic and it is a natural is incorrect. sent12: if the fact that the consignee is not civics does not hold the coprolite repines double-prop. sent13: that the consignee is civics and is not non-inspiratory is not true. sent14: the Piston is not malignant and singularizes Liverpool if the bargello is a Mwera. sent15: the fact that the Piston is a kind of hydrophobic thing that does melanize Hollywood is not correct. sent16: that the coprolite does singularize straggler is not false. sent17: the bargello is natural if it is a bleu. sent18: if the Piston is non-malignant thing that does singularize Liverpool the naproxen does not singularize Liverpool. sent19: the clofibrate does not melanize cot. sent20: the fact that if there are non-malignant things then the fact that the Piston is hydrophobic and it does melanize Hollywood is incorrect is not false. sent21: the bargello melanizes cot and/or is a bleu. sent22: that the naproxen is not a kind of a Mwera is not incorrect. sent23: if there is something such that that it is civics and it repines double-prop is incorrect then the coprolite is not civics. sent24: the negativist is not a microgauss if the consignee is inspiratory but it is not a kind of a microgauss. sent25: there exists something such that it is malignant. sent26: if the bargello melanizes cot then it is a kind of a natural. sent27: if the naproxen does not singularize Liverpool then the fact that the coon is civics and repines double-prop is false. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the consignee is civics and non-inspiratory.; assump1 -> int1: the consignee is civics.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the coprolite repines double-prop.; int2 & sent4 -> int3: the coon singularizes Liverpool.; int3 & sent3 -> int4: the fact that the naproxen does not singularize Liverpool and it is not a Mwera is not correct.; sent21 & sent26 & sent17 -> int5: the bargello is natural.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it is natural.; int6 & sent5 -> int7: the naproxen does not singularize Liverpool and is not a Mwera.; int4 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the fact that the consignee is both civics and not inspiratory is wrong.; int9 & sent6 -> int10: the consignee is not malignant.; int10 -> int11: something is not malignant.; int11 & sent1 -> int12: that the Piston is a kind of hydrophobic thing that does not melanize Hollywood is wrong.; __UNKNOWN__