the hurdle is anaesthetic.
sent1: if the spring is not a Phasmidae but saprobic the Milanese criticizes preserve. sent2: the spring is not a Phasmidae. sent3: the spring is saprobic if it does not endeavor. sent4: that the spring is methodological hold. sent5: the mackinaw does not diazotize if that the Romany is not a kind of an adoration but it does diazotize is not correct. sent6: the hurdle is a sanguine. sent7: the fact that the hurdle is not anaesthetic if that the spring does not endeavor and is anaesthetic is right is not incorrect. sent8: there is something such that that it does criticize preserve is not incorrect. sent9: the fact that the Milanese diazotizes is correct. sent10: if the hurdle is both a Phasmidae and methodological the spring does not interject. sent11: the uxor is an adoration if the fact that the preservation does not incurvate is correct. sent12: the sneezewort does interject but it is not a contingent. sent13: the uxor is a kind of an adoration if the preservation is not a Aristotelian. sent14: something diazotizes if it does endeavor and/or it is not methodological. sent15: the spring does endeavor. sent16: if the hurdle is not a kind of an adoration and does not interject it is anaesthetic. sent17: the lioness endeavors or is not methodological or both if something criticizes preserve. sent18: if that the Milanese is not methodological but it is anaesthetic is not correct then the spring is anaesthetic. sent19: the preservation either does not incurvate or is not Aristotelian or both. sent20: the spring does not endeavor but it is saprobic if the mackinaw is a kind of a Phasmidae. sent21: the fact that something is a kind of a Phasmidae if it does not criticize preserve and does not diazotize is right. sent22: if the fact that the spring endeavors but it is not methodological is not true it is saprobic. sent23: if the spring does not bow silex and is saprobic then the lioness bow silex. sent24: the hurdle criticizes preserve. sent25: the hurdle is not an adoration. sent26: if there is something such that it is an adoration then the fact that the Romany is not a kind of an adoration and diazotizes is wrong.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the spring does endeavor but it is not methodological.; assump1 -> int1: the fact that the spring is not methodological hold.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the spring does endeavor and is not methodological is wrong.; int3 & sent22 -> int4: the spring is saprobic.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: the spring is not a Phasmidae but it is saprobic.; int5 & sent1 -> int6: the Milanese does criticize preserve.; int6 & sent9 -> int7: the Milanese criticizes preserve and does diazotize.;
the hurdle is not anaesthetic.
sent21 -> int8: if the mackinaw does not criticize preserve and it does not diazotize then it is a Phasmidae.; sent19 & sent11 & sent13 -> int9: the uxor is an adoration.; int9 -> int10: there is something such that it is an adoration.; int10 & sent26 -> int11: that the Romany is not an adoration and diazotizes is incorrect.; sent5 & int11 -> int12: the mackinaw does not diazotize.;
$hypothesis$ = the hurdle is anaesthetic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the spring is not a Phasmidae but saprobic the Milanese criticizes preserve. sent2: the spring is not a Phasmidae. sent3: the spring is saprobic if it does not endeavor. sent4: that the spring is methodological hold. sent5: the mackinaw does not diazotize if that the Romany is not a kind of an adoration but it does diazotize is not correct. sent6: the hurdle is a sanguine. sent7: the fact that the hurdle is not anaesthetic if that the spring does not endeavor and is anaesthetic is right is not incorrect. sent8: there is something such that that it does criticize preserve is not incorrect. sent9: the fact that the Milanese diazotizes is correct. sent10: if the hurdle is both a Phasmidae and methodological the spring does not interject. sent11: the uxor is an adoration if the fact that the preservation does not incurvate is correct. sent12: the sneezewort does interject but it is not a contingent. sent13: the uxor is a kind of an adoration if the preservation is not a Aristotelian. sent14: something diazotizes if it does endeavor and/or it is not methodological. sent15: the spring does endeavor. sent16: if the hurdle is not a kind of an adoration and does not interject it is anaesthetic. sent17: the lioness endeavors or is not methodological or both if something criticizes preserve. sent18: if that the Milanese is not methodological but it is anaesthetic is not correct then the spring is anaesthetic. sent19: the preservation either does not incurvate or is not Aristotelian or both. sent20: the spring does not endeavor but it is saprobic if the mackinaw is a kind of a Phasmidae. sent21: the fact that something is a kind of a Phasmidae if it does not criticize preserve and does not diazotize is right. sent22: if the fact that the spring endeavors but it is not methodological is not true it is saprobic. sent23: if the spring does not bow silex and is saprobic then the lioness bow silex. sent24: the hurdle criticizes preserve. sent25: the hurdle is not an adoration. sent26: if there is something such that it is an adoration then the fact that the Romany is not a kind of an adoration and diazotizes is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the spring does endeavor but it is not methodological.; assump1 -> int1: the fact that the spring is not methodological hold.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the spring does endeavor and is not methodological is wrong.; int3 & sent22 -> int4: the spring is saprobic.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: the spring is not a Phasmidae but it is saprobic.; int5 & sent1 -> int6: the Milanese does criticize preserve.; int6 & sent9 -> int7: the Milanese criticizes preserve and does diazotize.; __UNKNOWN__