the lactose is not a kind of a professionalization.
sent1: the fact that the frottage is a Moorish is correct if it does segregate recovery. sent2: the lactose segregates recovery if it is a professionalization. sent3: there is something such that it is not a villainy but unpardonable. sent4: the lactose is a villainy if that the sinapism is a professionalization is right. sent5: the lactose does not embower Soutine. sent6: if something does not usher hotspur and does not exhilarate allegiance then the extractor is not a judas. sent7: the sinapism does not embower Soutine and is a villainy. sent8: there exists something such that it does not usher hotspur and it does not exhilarate allegiance. sent9: if the frottage is a Moorish then that the brickyard is not pardonable is not wrong. sent10: if the Oxonian is not a manifold that the frottage is not a Moorish and is a kind of a titter is not true. sent11: the brickyard is not unpardonable if there exists something such that it is both not a reproach and a professionalization. sent12: something is not unpardonable if that it is unpardonable thing that does not segregate recovery is not correct. sent13: the lactose is a professionalization but it does not reproach if the sinapism is not unpardonable. sent14: the sinapism does not embower Soutine. sent15: the lactose embowers Soutine if the sinapism is a kind of a professionalization. sent16: the frottage does segregate recovery. sent17: if the fact that the brickyard is a kind of a Moorish is not incorrect then the fact that the sinapism is unpardonable and does not segregate recovery is false. sent18: The recovery does segregate frottage.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the lactose is a professionalization.; sent1 & sent16 -> int1: the frottage is a kind of a Moorish.; sent9 & int1 -> int2: the brickyard is unpardonable.;
the lactose is a professionalization.
sent12 -> int3: that the sinapism is not unpardonable hold if that it is a kind of unpardonable thing that does not segregate recovery does not hold.; sent8 & sent6 -> int4: that the extractor is a judas is not correct.; int4 -> int5: something is not a judas.;
$hypothesis$ = the lactose is not a kind of a professionalization. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the frottage is a Moorish is correct if it does segregate recovery. sent2: the lactose segregates recovery if it is a professionalization. sent3: there is something such that it is not a villainy but unpardonable. sent4: the lactose is a villainy if that the sinapism is a professionalization is right. sent5: the lactose does not embower Soutine. sent6: if something does not usher hotspur and does not exhilarate allegiance then the extractor is not a judas. sent7: the sinapism does not embower Soutine and is a villainy. sent8: there exists something such that it does not usher hotspur and it does not exhilarate allegiance. sent9: if the frottage is a Moorish then that the brickyard is not pardonable is not wrong. sent10: if the Oxonian is not a manifold that the frottage is not a Moorish and is a kind of a titter is not true. sent11: the brickyard is not unpardonable if there exists something such that it is both not a reproach and a professionalization. sent12: something is not unpardonable if that it is unpardonable thing that does not segregate recovery is not correct. sent13: the lactose is a professionalization but it does not reproach if the sinapism is not unpardonable. sent14: the sinapism does not embower Soutine. sent15: the lactose embowers Soutine if the sinapism is a kind of a professionalization. sent16: the frottage does segregate recovery. sent17: if the fact that the brickyard is a kind of a Moorish is not incorrect then the fact that the sinapism is unpardonable and does not segregate recovery is false. sent18: The recovery does segregate frottage. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the lactose is a professionalization.; sent1 & sent16 -> int1: the frottage is a kind of a Moorish.; sent9 & int1 -> int2: the brickyard is unpardonable.; __UNKNOWN__