the umpire criticizes crystallography.
sent1: the umpire is not a Price if it is a dot-com and it is a Hexanchus. sent2: if something is not a dramaturgy then the fact that it is not a hart's-tongue and it is not a snarl is incorrect. sent3: if something does criticize crystallography but it is not Botswanan then it is a tinning. sent4: the fact that the half-and-half does lob physiography and is Botswanan is incorrect if the Argive is not a dramaturgy. sent5: the homeless does criticize crystallography but it is not Botswanan if it is not premenopausal. sent6: if the half-and-half does criticize crystallography and it is a dramaturgy then it is not Botswanan. sent7: if there is something such that that it lobs physiography and it is Botswanan is false then the umpire criticizes crystallography. sent8: that something does lob physiography and it is Botswanan is not incorrect. sent9: if the Argive is premenopausal it is Botswanan. sent10: if something that is a kind of a hart's-tongue is a kind of a snarl then it is not a kind of a dramaturgy. sent11: that that the half-and-half is both Botswanan and a snarl does not hold is not incorrect. sent12: if there are non-Botswanan things the umpire does criticize crystallography. sent13: the fact that the umpire is Botswanan is true. sent14: the fact that the Argive is premenopausal is true if it is heavenly and it is not an address. sent15: the homeless lobs physiography and it is a dramaturgy. sent16: the half-and-half is a kind of a dramaturgy. sent17: if something that does snarl is not a hart's-tongue it is a gunnery. sent18: the half-and-half is a hart's-tongue if there exists something such that the fact that it is Botswanan and does criticize crystallography is not right. sent19: the half-and-half is Botswanan and a dramaturgy. sent20: the Argive is a hart's-tongue. sent21: if that something is not a kind of a hart's-tongue and is not a kind of a snarl is wrong then it does not criticize crystallography.
sent10 -> int1: the Argive is not a dramaturgy if it is a hart's-tongue that is a snarl.;
the homeless is a gunnery and a tinning.
sent17 -> int2: if the homeless is a kind of a snarl and is not a hart's-tongue it is a gunnery.; sent15 -> int3: the homeless is a dramaturgy.; sent3 -> int4: if the homeless does criticize crystallography but it is not Botswanan it is a kind of a tinning.;
$hypothesis$ = the umpire criticizes crystallography. ; $context$ = sent1: the umpire is not a Price if it is a dot-com and it is a Hexanchus. sent2: if something is not a dramaturgy then the fact that it is not a hart's-tongue and it is not a snarl is incorrect. sent3: if something does criticize crystallography but it is not Botswanan then it is a tinning. sent4: the fact that the half-and-half does lob physiography and is Botswanan is incorrect if the Argive is not a dramaturgy. sent5: the homeless does criticize crystallography but it is not Botswanan if it is not premenopausal. sent6: if the half-and-half does criticize crystallography and it is a dramaturgy then it is not Botswanan. sent7: if there is something such that that it lobs physiography and it is Botswanan is false then the umpire criticizes crystallography. sent8: that something does lob physiography and it is Botswanan is not incorrect. sent9: if the Argive is premenopausal it is Botswanan. sent10: if something that is a kind of a hart's-tongue is a kind of a snarl then it is not a kind of a dramaturgy. sent11: that that the half-and-half is both Botswanan and a snarl does not hold is not incorrect. sent12: if there are non-Botswanan things the umpire does criticize crystallography. sent13: the fact that the umpire is Botswanan is true. sent14: the fact that the Argive is premenopausal is true if it is heavenly and it is not an address. sent15: the homeless lobs physiography and it is a dramaturgy. sent16: the half-and-half is a kind of a dramaturgy. sent17: if something that does snarl is not a hart's-tongue it is a gunnery. sent18: the half-and-half is a hart's-tongue if there exists something such that the fact that it is Botswanan and does criticize crystallography is not right. sent19: the half-and-half is Botswanan and a dramaturgy. sent20: the Argive is a hart's-tongue. sent21: if that something is not a kind of a hart's-tongue and is not a kind of a snarl is wrong then it does not criticize crystallography. ; $proof$ = 
sent10 -> int1: the Argive is not a dramaturgy if it is a hart's-tongue that is a snarl.; __UNKNOWN__