the tollgate is both anabolic and not triclinic.
sent1: the opacification is triclinic if something does stagger but it is not a thyrotropin. sent2: the fact that if the groundhog snags stranglehold but it is not neuralgic the opacification powwows hold. sent3: if the fact that the cartouche is not a watchfulness and does not rice groundhog is not right the aviator is not a watchfulness. sent4: the fact that the tollgate does not charm Taichung and snags specialist is not right if the aviator is not a kind of a watchfulness. sent5: that the cartouche is not a watchfulness and it does not rice groundhog does not hold if it does not snag neutralization. sent6: if that the kweek is a blepharospasm is correct the tollgate is anabolic thing that is not triclinic. sent7: the opacification does not powwow if the aviator is a powwow and staggers. sent8: if something is pediatrics then it does stagger and it is not a kind of a thyrotropin. sent9: the kweek is pediatrics if there exists something such that that it does not charm Taichung and snags specialist is not correct. sent10: the aviator is a kind of a powwow and does stagger. sent11: the groundhog is not a blepharospasm if the opacification is not a blepharospasm. sent12: the tollgate is anabolic. sent13: that the groundhog is anabolic thing that is a powwow is false if it is not a blepharospasm. sent14: if the fact that either the cartouche is not a kind of a resonance or it does not rice tollgate or both is true then it does not snag neutralization. sent15: if something is triclinic it is not a kind of a blepharospasm. sent16: if the groundhog does not snag stranglehold the kweek is a kind of a blepharospasm. sent17: the cartouche either is not a resonance or does not rice tollgate or both.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the groundhog does snag stranglehold but it is not neuralgic.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the opacification is a powwow.; sent7 & sent10 -> int2: the opacification does not powwow.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the groundhog snags stranglehold and is non-neuralgic is not correct.;
the backbencher is not anabolic.
sent15 -> int5: the opacification is not a kind of a blepharospasm if it is triclinic.; sent8 -> int6: the kweek staggers and is not a thyrotropin if it is pediatrics.; sent14 & sent17 -> int7: the cartouche does not snag neutralization.; sent5 & int7 -> int8: that the cartouche is not a watchfulness and does not rice groundhog is false.; sent3 & int8 -> int9: the aviator is not a watchfulness.; sent4 & int9 -> int10: the fact that the fact that the tollgate does not charm Taichung and does snag specialist is not true is true.; int10 -> int11: there is something such that the fact that it does not charm Taichung and it does snag specialist does not hold.; int11 & sent9 -> int12: the kweek is pediatrics.; int6 & int12 -> int13: the kweek does stagger and is not a thyrotropin.; int13 -> int14: there is something such that it does stagger and is not a thyrotropin.; int14 & sent1 -> int15: the opacification is triclinic.; int5 & int15 -> int16: the opacification is not a blepharospasm.; sent11 & int16 -> int17: the groundhog is not a blepharospasm.; sent13 & int17 -> int18: that the groundhog is anabolic and it does powwow is not right.; int18 -> int19: there exists something such that that it is anabolic and it does powwow is not correct.;
$hypothesis$ = the tollgate is both anabolic and not triclinic. ; $context$ = sent1: the opacification is triclinic if something does stagger but it is not a thyrotropin. sent2: the fact that if the groundhog snags stranglehold but it is not neuralgic the opacification powwows hold. sent3: if the fact that the cartouche is not a watchfulness and does not rice groundhog is not right the aviator is not a watchfulness. sent4: the fact that the tollgate does not charm Taichung and snags specialist is not right if the aviator is not a kind of a watchfulness. sent5: that the cartouche is not a watchfulness and it does not rice groundhog does not hold if it does not snag neutralization. sent6: if that the kweek is a blepharospasm is correct the tollgate is anabolic thing that is not triclinic. sent7: the opacification does not powwow if the aviator is a powwow and staggers. sent8: if something is pediatrics then it does stagger and it is not a kind of a thyrotropin. sent9: the kweek is pediatrics if there exists something such that that it does not charm Taichung and snags specialist is not correct. sent10: the aviator is a kind of a powwow and does stagger. sent11: the groundhog is not a blepharospasm if the opacification is not a blepharospasm. sent12: the tollgate is anabolic. sent13: that the groundhog is anabolic thing that is a powwow is false if it is not a blepharospasm. sent14: if the fact that either the cartouche is not a kind of a resonance or it does not rice tollgate or both is true then it does not snag neutralization. sent15: if something is triclinic it is not a kind of a blepharospasm. sent16: if the groundhog does not snag stranglehold the kweek is a kind of a blepharospasm. sent17: the cartouche either is not a resonance or does not rice tollgate or both. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the groundhog does snag stranglehold but it is not neuralgic.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the opacification is a powwow.; sent7 & sent10 -> int2: the opacification does not powwow.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the groundhog snags stranglehold and is non-neuralgic is not correct.; __UNKNOWN__