if the rottenstone is haptic then that the beehive does rummage is true.
sent1: if the rottenstone is haptic then that the devices is both a medalist and oleophilic is incorrect. sent2: if the rottenstone does reconstruct and it is impenitent it is not a echinocactus. sent3: if the devices is a medalist the beehive is a rummage. sent4: something is non-haptic thing that is not a rummage if it is not a kind of a echinocactus. sent5: the rottenstone reconstructs and does clap scallion if there exists something such that it corrodes habitude. sent6: the devices corrodes wellerism and is a kind of a Quiche. sent7: if the devices is haptic then the rottenstone is a medalist. sent8: the fact that the devices is a kind of a medalist and it is oleophilic is wrong. sent9: the startle is oleophilic. sent10: the fact that the devices is not haptic but it is a medalist is not correct. sent11: that the rottenstone is both not haptic and oleophilic is false if the devices is a rummage. sent12: the candlewood is a rummage if the rottenstone is not haptic and it is not a kind of a rummage. sent13: there exists something such that it corrodes habitude. sent14: the devices is haptic. sent15: that the devices is both not a medalist and oleophilic is not correct if the rottenstone is haptic. sent16: the interlayer is haptic. sent17: the beehive is a medalist if that the devices is not a kind of a rummage but it is oleophilic is false.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the rottenstone is haptic is right.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: that the devices is not a kind of a medalist but it is oleophilic is not right.;
the candlewood is a rummage.
sent4 -> int2: the rottenstone is not haptic and it is not a kind of a rummage if it is not a echinocactus.; sent13 & sent5 -> int3: the rottenstone does reconstruct and it claps scallion.; int3 -> int4: the rottenstone reconstructs.; sent6 -> int5: the devices corrodes wellerism.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it does corrode wellerism.;
$hypothesis$ = if the rottenstone is haptic then that the beehive does rummage is true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the rottenstone is haptic then that the devices is both a medalist and oleophilic is incorrect. sent2: if the rottenstone does reconstruct and it is impenitent it is not a echinocactus. sent3: if the devices is a medalist the beehive is a rummage. sent4: something is non-haptic thing that is not a rummage if it is not a kind of a echinocactus. sent5: the rottenstone reconstructs and does clap scallion if there exists something such that it corrodes habitude. sent6: the devices corrodes wellerism and is a kind of a Quiche. sent7: if the devices is haptic then the rottenstone is a medalist. sent8: the fact that the devices is a kind of a medalist and it is oleophilic is wrong. sent9: the startle is oleophilic. sent10: the fact that the devices is not haptic but it is a medalist is not correct. sent11: that the rottenstone is both not haptic and oleophilic is false if the devices is a rummage. sent12: the candlewood is a rummage if the rottenstone is not haptic and it is not a kind of a rummage. sent13: there exists something such that it corrodes habitude. sent14: the devices is haptic. sent15: that the devices is both not a medalist and oleophilic is not correct if the rottenstone is haptic. sent16: the interlayer is haptic. sent17: the beehive is a medalist if that the devices is not a kind of a rummage but it is oleophilic is false. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the rottenstone is haptic is right.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: that the devices is not a kind of a medalist but it is oleophilic is not right.; __UNKNOWN__