that the lock-gate is a kind of a starlet that does not imbue is false.
sent1: the corporatist is both a starlet and not meiotic. sent2: the fact that the Berbers does reflectorize look hold. sent3: that something does acquaint and is not a counterstain does not hold if it is not a kind of a deaconess. sent4: the corporatist does not reflectorize Dipodidae. sent5: The Braga does not reflectorize SHAPE. sent6: the vise is not a deaconess if the corporatist is a subject and it is a deaconess. sent7: if the Berbers is not a starlet then the fact that the lock-gate is a kind of a starlet that does not imbue is wrong. sent8: the corporatist is bacteriostatic and it does subject if it does not reflectorize Dipodidae. sent9: the corporatist is not unmown if the vise is a kind of magnetic thing that does not reflectorize laced. sent10: the vise is not nonmagnetic but it does not reflectorize laced if the SHAPE does not reflectorize Braga. sent11: if something does reflectorize Braga it is a kind of a starlet that does not imbue. sent12: if something is mown and/or a Rio the Berbers is not a starlet. sent13: the SHAPE is not a Rio if the fact that the fact that the vise acquaints but it is not a counterstain is correct is not true. sent14: if the lock-gate is not a starlet the fact that the Berbers is a starlet and imbues does not hold. sent15: the corporatist reflectorizes Braga but it is not a Rio. sent16: if the fact that the corporatist is a manhattan but it is non-gentile is not true then it is not a manhattan. sent17: if something is not a kind of a manhattan it is a deaconess and is a Shavian. sent18: if the SHAPE is not a Rio then the lock-gate does reflectorize Braga and it is unmown.
the lock-gate is a starlet but it does not imbue.
sent11 -> int1: if the fact that the lock-gate reflectorizes Braga hold it is a kind of a starlet and it does not imbue.; sent3 -> int2: if the vise is not a deaconess that it does acquaint and it is not a kind of a counterstain does not hold.; sent8 & sent4 -> int3: the corporatist is bacteriostatic and it is a subject.; int3 -> int4: the corporatist does subject.; sent17 -> int5: the corporatist is a deaconess and it is a Shavian if it is not a kind of a manhattan.; sent2 -> int6: something does reflectorize look.;
$hypothesis$ = that the lock-gate is a kind of a starlet that does not imbue is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the corporatist is both a starlet and not meiotic. sent2: the fact that the Berbers does reflectorize look hold. sent3: that something does acquaint and is not a counterstain does not hold if it is not a kind of a deaconess. sent4: the corporatist does not reflectorize Dipodidae. sent5: The Braga does not reflectorize SHAPE. sent6: the vise is not a deaconess if the corporatist is a subject and it is a deaconess. sent7: if the Berbers is not a starlet then the fact that the lock-gate is a kind of a starlet that does not imbue is wrong. sent8: the corporatist is bacteriostatic and it does subject if it does not reflectorize Dipodidae. sent9: the corporatist is not unmown if the vise is a kind of magnetic thing that does not reflectorize laced. sent10: the vise is not nonmagnetic but it does not reflectorize laced if the SHAPE does not reflectorize Braga. sent11: if something does reflectorize Braga it is a kind of a starlet that does not imbue. sent12: if something is mown and/or a Rio the Berbers is not a starlet. sent13: the SHAPE is not a Rio if the fact that the fact that the vise acquaints but it is not a counterstain is correct is not true. sent14: if the lock-gate is not a starlet the fact that the Berbers is a starlet and imbues does not hold. sent15: the corporatist reflectorizes Braga but it is not a Rio. sent16: if the fact that the corporatist is a manhattan but it is non-gentile is not true then it is not a manhattan. sent17: if something is not a kind of a manhattan it is a deaconess and is a Shavian. sent18: if the SHAPE is not a Rio then the lock-gate does reflectorize Braga and it is unmown. ; $proof$ = 
__UNKNOWN__