the fact that the aircrewman is a kind of non-defensive thing that is not rationalist is true.
sent1: there is something such that it is a Pomacentrus. sent2: there is something such that it is expansionist. sent3: if there exists something such that it is a Pomacentrus then the fact that that the slip-on is not a carat and it is not expansionist is not wrong is false. sent4: if the congress is not rationalist then the aircrewman is not rationalist. sent5: that the aircrewman is not rationalist and not expansionist is not true if something is a defensive. sent6: that something is not defensive and it is not rationalist is incorrect if it is not a kind of a Pomacentrus. sent7: that the slip-on is a carat and is not expansionist is false. sent8: if there exists something such that it is rationalist the fact that the aircrewman is not a defensive and is not expansionist is not true. sent9: the fact that the aircrewman is a carat and it is expansionist is wrong if it is not a kind of a reciprocal. sent10: if the fact that the fact that something is both a carat and expansionist hold is not true then it is not a Pomacentrus. sent11: if the congress is not rationalist the aircrewman is non-defensive and it is not rationalist. sent12: the congress is not rationalist if the slip-on is a kind of a carat.
sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the slip-on is not a carat and not expansionist does not hold.;
that the aircrewman is not a kind of a defensive and is not rationalist does not hold.
sent6 -> int2: if the fact that the aircrewman is not a kind of a Pomacentrus is correct the fact that it is not defensive and it is not rationalist is incorrect.; sent10 -> int3: if the fact that the aircrewman is a carat and it is expansionist is incorrect then it is not a Pomacentrus.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the aircrewman is a kind of non-defensive thing that is not rationalist is true. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is a Pomacentrus. sent2: there is something such that it is expansionist. sent3: if there exists something such that it is a Pomacentrus then the fact that that the slip-on is not a carat and it is not expansionist is not wrong is false. sent4: if the congress is not rationalist then the aircrewman is not rationalist. sent5: that the aircrewman is not rationalist and not expansionist is not true if something is a defensive. sent6: that something is not defensive and it is not rationalist is incorrect if it is not a kind of a Pomacentrus. sent7: that the slip-on is a carat and is not expansionist is false. sent8: if there exists something such that it is rationalist the fact that the aircrewman is not a defensive and is not expansionist is not true. sent9: the fact that the aircrewman is a carat and it is expansionist is wrong if it is not a kind of a reciprocal. sent10: if the fact that the fact that something is both a carat and expansionist hold is not true then it is not a Pomacentrus. sent11: if the congress is not rationalist the aircrewman is non-defensive and it is not rationalist. sent12: the congress is not rationalist if the slip-on is a kind of a carat. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the slip-on is not a carat and not expansionist does not hold.; __UNKNOWN__