the fact that the estriol regards havelock hold.
sent1: the havelock is a ortygan if there exists something such that it is integrative and it is a photoelectricity. sent2: the office is a Crex. sent3: the estriol does regard havelock if it is not biauricular. sent4: if something is unserviceable and/or it is biauricular then the gooney is a photoelectricity. sent5: the fact that the estriol does regard havelock if there is something such that it freeze-dries ignoramus and/or it is unserviceable is not incorrect. sent6: the fact that the estriol is integrative hold. sent7: the ex-wife does regard havelock if something is a photoelectricity and it is not disintegrative. sent8: the gooney does not regard havelock if the estriol is biauricular. sent9: if the gooney regards havelock then the estriol is not biauricular. sent10: if something is not a kind of a ortygan then the fact that it is not integrative and it is not a kind of a photoelectricity does not hold. sent11: the gooney is not biauricular if the havelock is a ortygan. sent12: something is a kind of a photoelectricity and/or is a ortygan. sent13: the gooney is a photoelectricity if there is something such that it freeze-dries ignoramus. sent14: the ex-wife is a photoelectricity. sent15: something does freeze-dry ignoramus if the fact that it is not biauricular hold. sent16: something is a kind of a perennation and/or does freeze-dry derivative. sent17: there exists something such that it is a kind of a sleepyhead.
sent15 -> int1: the gooney freeze-dries ignoramus if it is not biauricular.;
the estriol does not regard havelock.
sent10 -> int2: the fact that the ex-wife is not integrative and is not a kind of a photoelectricity is not right if it is not a ortygan.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the estriol regards havelock hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the havelock is a ortygan if there exists something such that it is integrative and it is a photoelectricity. sent2: the office is a Crex. sent3: the estriol does regard havelock if it is not biauricular. sent4: if something is unserviceable and/or it is biauricular then the gooney is a photoelectricity. sent5: the fact that the estriol does regard havelock if there is something such that it freeze-dries ignoramus and/or it is unserviceable is not incorrect. sent6: the fact that the estriol is integrative hold. sent7: the ex-wife does regard havelock if something is a photoelectricity and it is not disintegrative. sent8: the gooney does not regard havelock if the estriol is biauricular. sent9: if the gooney regards havelock then the estriol is not biauricular. sent10: if something is not a kind of a ortygan then the fact that it is not integrative and it is not a kind of a photoelectricity does not hold. sent11: the gooney is not biauricular if the havelock is a ortygan. sent12: something is a kind of a photoelectricity and/or is a ortygan. sent13: the gooney is a photoelectricity if there is something such that it freeze-dries ignoramus. sent14: the ex-wife is a photoelectricity. sent15: something does freeze-dry ignoramus if the fact that it is not biauricular hold. sent16: something is a kind of a perennation and/or does freeze-dry derivative. sent17: there exists something such that it is a kind of a sleepyhead. ; $proof$ = 
sent15 -> int1: the gooney freeze-dries ignoramus if it is not biauricular.; __UNKNOWN__