that the guestroom quacks is incorrect.
sent1: something does not foal Mandaeanism and is not predicative. sent2: that the jade is a flick that does vent estate is correct. sent3: if the guestroom is not avirulent but an irritability then the powerbroker does vent Girondism. sent4: the jade is not a kind of a lot if something does not foal Mandaeanism and it is not predicative. sent5: the choc does decoy liveliness and does decoy horseplay if it is not an irritability. sent6: the guestroom foals Mandaeanism. sent7: something does not vent Djanet if it is not a monotheism and it is an originator. sent8: the pantyhose is unwieldy if the bellboy vents estate. sent9: the powerbroker is a kind of an irritability. sent10: the powerbroker does not vent Girondism but it is a barbarization. sent11: the fact that the powerbroker decoys liveliness and does not decoy horseplay does not hold if the jade does not lot. sent12: if something does not vent Girondism and is a barbarization then it does not decoy horseplay. sent13: the powerbroker does vent estate and is a kind of a barbarization. sent14: everything is avirulent. sent15: if an unwieldy thing vents estate then it is not a quack. sent16: the powerbroker is a barbarization. sent17: there exists something such that it does not foal Mandaeanism. sent18: something does not foal Mandaeanism but it is predicative. sent19: something that does decoy liveliness is avirulent and non-hydrokinetic. sent20: the jade is not a kind of a quack if it does not lot and it is unwieldy. sent21: the guestroom is unwieldy if the powerbroker does not decoy liveliness and is an irritability. sent22: the choc is a kind of a quack. sent23: the distaff is a lot or it does vent estate or both. sent24: if the distaff is a lot then the bellboy vents estate. sent25: the guestroom is avirulent. sent26: the jade is not a lot if there is something such that it does foal Mandaeanism and it is not predicative.
sent12 -> int1: if the fact that the powerbroker does not vent Girondism but it is a barbarization hold then the fact that it does not decoy horseplay is true.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the powerbroker does not decoy horseplay.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the powerbroker decoys liveliness.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the powerbroker decoys liveliness but it does not decoy horseplay.; sent1 & sent4 -> int4: that the jade is not a lot is correct.; sent11 & int4 -> int5: that the powerbroker does decoy liveliness but it does not decoy horseplay is wrong.; int3 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the powerbroker does not decoy liveliness.; int7 & sent9 -> int8: the powerbroker does not decoy liveliness and is a kind of an irritability.; int8 & sent21 -> int9: the guestroom is unwieldy.; sent15 -> int10: the guestroom does not quack if it is unwieldy and vents estate.;
the guestroom is a quack.
$hypothesis$ = that the guestroom quacks is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not foal Mandaeanism and is not predicative. sent2: that the jade is a flick that does vent estate is correct. sent3: if the guestroom is not avirulent but an irritability then the powerbroker does vent Girondism. sent4: the jade is not a kind of a lot if something does not foal Mandaeanism and it is not predicative. sent5: the choc does decoy liveliness and does decoy horseplay if it is not an irritability. sent6: the guestroom foals Mandaeanism. sent7: something does not vent Djanet if it is not a monotheism and it is an originator. sent8: the pantyhose is unwieldy if the bellboy vents estate. sent9: the powerbroker is a kind of an irritability. sent10: the powerbroker does not vent Girondism but it is a barbarization. sent11: the fact that the powerbroker decoys liveliness and does not decoy horseplay does not hold if the jade does not lot. sent12: if something does not vent Girondism and is a barbarization then it does not decoy horseplay. sent13: the powerbroker does vent estate and is a kind of a barbarization. sent14: everything is avirulent. sent15: if an unwieldy thing vents estate then it is not a quack. sent16: the powerbroker is a barbarization. sent17: there exists something such that it does not foal Mandaeanism. sent18: something does not foal Mandaeanism but it is predicative. sent19: something that does decoy liveliness is avirulent and non-hydrokinetic. sent20: the jade is not a kind of a quack if it does not lot and it is unwieldy. sent21: the guestroom is unwieldy if the powerbroker does not decoy liveliness and is an irritability. sent22: the choc is a kind of a quack. sent23: the distaff is a lot or it does vent estate or both. sent24: if the distaff is a lot then the bellboy vents estate. sent25: the guestroom is avirulent. sent26: the jade is not a lot if there is something such that it does foal Mandaeanism and it is not predicative. ; $proof$ = 
sent12 -> int1: if the fact that the powerbroker does not vent Girondism but it is a barbarization hold then the fact that it does not decoy horseplay is true.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the powerbroker does not decoy horseplay.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the powerbroker decoys liveliness.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the powerbroker decoys liveliness but it does not decoy horseplay.; sent1 & sent4 -> int4: that the jade is not a lot is correct.; sent11 & int4 -> int5: that the powerbroker does decoy liveliness but it does not decoy horseplay is wrong.; int3 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the powerbroker does not decoy liveliness.; int7 & sent9 -> int8: the powerbroker does not decoy liveliness and is a kind of an irritability.; int8 & sent21 -> int9: the guestroom is unwieldy.; sent15 -> int10: the guestroom does not quack if it is unwieldy and vents estate.; __UNKNOWN__