the drop-leaf does not alternate and does not discount.
sent1: the naphtha is not alkahestic but it is leonine if that the conidiophore does not concern dowel is right. sent2: the drop-leaf does reopen chip if the coca reopen chip. sent3: if something does not expense Lutjanus then the coca does not reopen chip. sent4: the drop-leaf is not alternating and is not a discount if the lovage does not reopen cleanness. sent5: if the cone is not an upright then the conidiophore does not concern dowel. sent6: the cone is not an upright if that the coca does not reopen chip and does not reopen Nice is true. sent7: the lovage does not reopen cleanness if the naphtha is both non-alkahestic and leonine. sent8: the fact that the coca does not reopen Nice is not false if it is a playsuit and/or not starchless. sent9: there exists something such that it does not expense Lutjanus. sent10: something reopens chip and it does reopen Nice if it is not upright. sent11: the fact that something is both non-alternating and not a discount is not correct if it does reopen chip.
sent9 & sent3 -> int1: the coca does not reopen chip.;
that the drop-leaf is non-alternating thing that does not discount is false.
sent11 -> int2: the fact that the drop-leaf does not alternate and it is not a kind of a discount is incorrect if it does reopen chip.; sent10 -> int3: the coca does reopen chip and reopens Nice if it is not an upright.;
$hypothesis$ = the drop-leaf does not alternate and does not discount. ; $context$ = sent1: the naphtha is not alkahestic but it is leonine if that the conidiophore does not concern dowel is right. sent2: the drop-leaf does reopen chip if the coca reopen chip. sent3: if something does not expense Lutjanus then the coca does not reopen chip. sent4: the drop-leaf is not alternating and is not a discount if the lovage does not reopen cleanness. sent5: if the cone is not an upright then the conidiophore does not concern dowel. sent6: the cone is not an upright if that the coca does not reopen chip and does not reopen Nice is true. sent7: the lovage does not reopen cleanness if the naphtha is both non-alkahestic and leonine. sent8: the fact that the coca does not reopen Nice is not false if it is a playsuit and/or not starchless. sent9: there exists something such that it does not expense Lutjanus. sent10: something reopens chip and it does reopen Nice if it is not upright. sent11: the fact that something is both non-alternating and not a discount is not correct if it does reopen chip. ; $proof$ = 
sent9 & sent3 -> int1: the coca does not reopen chip.; __UNKNOWN__