the bastinado exults rustic.
sent1: if the bastinado is non-botanic the fact that the pichiciago does not clap greasiness and exults rustic does not hold. sent2: the bastinado does clap innumerableness. sent3: the chalcopyrite is botanic if the bastinado exults rustic. sent4: the leader is a kind of non-chlorotic thing that is not non-craniometric if the elbow is egoistic. sent5: if that the elbow is thermionics is right then it is not a kind of a think. sent6: the leader is not a kind of a cloud if the caliph is flats and it does clap greasiness. sent7: if the elbow is not a kind of a think then it is biocatalytic but not non-egoistic. sent8: the fact that something corrodes pichiciago and/or it is a snootiness is right if it is not chlorotic. sent9: the bastinado is not a kind of a cloud. sent10: something is a kind of an exhalation. sent11: the leader does cloud. sent12: the caliph is not chlorotic. sent13: the elbow exults rustic if the bastinado is a snootiness. sent14: if the chalcopyrite is botanic then the caliph is flats. sent15: if something is botanic then it does exult rustic. sent16: that the elbow does clap greasiness but it is not a kind of a snootiness is false. sent17: the leader is both egoistic and a snootiness. sent18: the caliph claps greasiness if that that the elbow claps greasiness but it is not a snootiness is not incorrect is not true. sent19: something does corrode pichiciago if it is not chlorotic and it is not a snootiness. sent20: the bastinado is both botanic and not non-flats if the chalcopyrite does not clap greasiness. sent21: the chalcopyrite is not a kind of a cloud and it is not a flats if the caliph corrodes pichiciago. sent22: something does clap greasiness if the fact that it does not clap greasiness and exults rustic does not hold. sent23: the elbow is thermionics if something is an exhalation. sent24: if the leader is egoistic and it is a snootiness then the caliph is not a kind of a snootiness. sent25: that the fact that something is not a cloud and does clap greasiness is correct does not hold if it corrodes pichiciago. sent26: the caliph does corrode pichiciago if the leader does corrode pichiciago.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the bastinado does exult rustic is true.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the chalcopyrite is botanic.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the caliph is a flats.; sent18 & sent16 -> int3: the caliph does clap greasiness.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the caliph is a flats and it does clap greasiness.; int4 & sent6 -> int5: the leader is not a cloud.; int5 & sent11 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis;
the pichiciago claps greasiness.
sent22 -> int7: if the fact that the pichiciago does not clap greasiness and does exult rustic is incorrect then it does clap greasiness.; sent8 -> int8: if the leader is not chlorotic it does corrode pichiciago or it is a snootiness or both.; sent10 & sent23 -> int9: the elbow is thermionics.; sent5 & int9 -> int10: the elbow does not think.; sent7 & int10 -> int11: the elbow is biocatalytic and it is egoistic.; int11 -> int12: the fact that the elbow is egoistic is not false.; sent4 & int12 -> int13: the leader is not chlorotic but it is craniometric.; int13 -> int14: the leader is not chlorotic.; int8 & int14 -> int15: the leader corrodes pichiciago and/or it is a kind of a snootiness.;
$hypothesis$ = the bastinado exults rustic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bastinado is non-botanic the fact that the pichiciago does not clap greasiness and exults rustic does not hold. sent2: the bastinado does clap innumerableness. sent3: the chalcopyrite is botanic if the bastinado exults rustic. sent4: the leader is a kind of non-chlorotic thing that is not non-craniometric if the elbow is egoistic. sent5: if that the elbow is thermionics is right then it is not a kind of a think. sent6: the leader is not a kind of a cloud if the caliph is flats and it does clap greasiness. sent7: if the elbow is not a kind of a think then it is biocatalytic but not non-egoistic. sent8: the fact that something corrodes pichiciago and/or it is a snootiness is right if it is not chlorotic. sent9: the bastinado is not a kind of a cloud. sent10: something is a kind of an exhalation. sent11: the leader does cloud. sent12: the caliph is not chlorotic. sent13: the elbow exults rustic if the bastinado is a snootiness. sent14: if the chalcopyrite is botanic then the caliph is flats. sent15: if something is botanic then it does exult rustic. sent16: that the elbow does clap greasiness but it is not a kind of a snootiness is false. sent17: the leader is both egoistic and a snootiness. sent18: the caliph claps greasiness if that that the elbow claps greasiness but it is not a snootiness is not incorrect is not true. sent19: something does corrode pichiciago if it is not chlorotic and it is not a snootiness. sent20: the bastinado is both botanic and not non-flats if the chalcopyrite does not clap greasiness. sent21: the chalcopyrite is not a kind of a cloud and it is not a flats if the caliph corrodes pichiciago. sent22: something does clap greasiness if the fact that it does not clap greasiness and exults rustic does not hold. sent23: the elbow is thermionics if something is an exhalation. sent24: if the leader is egoistic and it is a snootiness then the caliph is not a kind of a snootiness. sent25: that the fact that something is not a cloud and does clap greasiness is correct does not hold if it corrodes pichiciago. sent26: the caliph does corrode pichiciago if the leader does corrode pichiciago. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the bastinado does exult rustic is true.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the chalcopyrite is botanic.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the caliph is a flats.; sent18 & sent16 -> int3: the caliph does clap greasiness.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the caliph is a flats and it does clap greasiness.; int4 & sent6 -> int5: the leader is not a cloud.; int5 & sent11 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__