the Winesap is not a portfolio.
sent1: the fanny is semiautobiographical but it is not a gram if that it headquarters curvature is not incorrect. sent2: that the farrow is pedunculate thing that is genotypical is false if there exists something such that it is a kind of a irreligionist. sent3: that the poet is a irreligionist is right if the fanny is not a kind of a irreligionist and it does not headquarter Cakchiquel. sent4: the fanny does headquarter curvature. sent5: if the fact that something does foul but it is not a portfolio does not hold then it is a portfolio. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it does recumb and is a kind of a still does not hold. sent7: if something does not outgeneral barong then it is not a kind of a irreligionist and it does not headquarter Cakchiquel. sent8: the fact that the fanny does not headquarter expense is not incorrect if that it does not headquarter testatrix and does headquarter expense does not hold. sent9: if the fact that the poet is not pedunculate is right the fanny is a irreligionist. sent10: if something is a irreligionist then the fact that it does headquarter Cakchiquel is not wrong. sent11: the fact that something does foul but it is not a portfolio is false if it is not genotypical. sent12: if the honey outgenerals barong and does not headquarter expense the farrow fouls. sent13: the farrow fouls if the honey does not outgeneral barong but it headquarters expense. sent14: if the farrow is both genotypical and foul the poet is not pedunculate. sent15: something does recumb and it is not non-still. sent16: if something does not outgeneral afterburner and it does not headquarter expense it does not outgeneral barong. sent17: something is not pedunculate if it is not a irreligionist and it does not headquarter Cakchiquel. sent18: the Winesap is not a portfolio if the fanny does headquarter Cakchiquel. sent19: if there exists something such that the fact that it recumbs and it stills does not hold the farrow is genotypical. sent20: if something that is semiautobiographical is not a gram it does not outgeneral afterburner. sent21: if the honey does not outgeneral barong and does not headquarter expense the farrow fouls. sent22: the farrow is genotypical if there is something such that it does not still.
sent6 & sent19 -> int1: the farrow is genotypical.; sent10 -> int2: the fanny headquarters Cakchiquel if it is a kind of a irreligionist.;
the Winesap is a portfolio.
sent5 -> int3: the Winesap is a kind of a portfolio if the fact that it does foul and is not a portfolio is incorrect.; sent11 -> int4: if the Winesap is not genotypical the fact that it does foul and it is not a portfolio is false.; sent7 -> int5: the fanny is not a irreligionist and does not headquarter Cakchiquel if it does not outgeneral barong.; sent16 -> int6: if that the fanny does not outgeneral afterburner and does not headquarter expense is correct it does not outgeneral barong.; sent20 -> int7: if the fanny is both semiautobiographical and not a gram then it does not outgeneral afterburner.; sent1 & sent4 -> int8: the fanny is semiautobiographical but it is not a gram.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the fanny does not outgeneral afterburner.;
$hypothesis$ = the Winesap is not a portfolio. ; $context$ = sent1: the fanny is semiautobiographical but it is not a gram if that it headquarters curvature is not incorrect. sent2: that the farrow is pedunculate thing that is genotypical is false if there exists something such that it is a kind of a irreligionist. sent3: that the poet is a irreligionist is right if the fanny is not a kind of a irreligionist and it does not headquarter Cakchiquel. sent4: the fanny does headquarter curvature. sent5: if the fact that something does foul but it is not a portfolio does not hold then it is a portfolio. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it does recumb and is a kind of a still does not hold. sent7: if something does not outgeneral barong then it is not a kind of a irreligionist and it does not headquarter Cakchiquel. sent8: the fact that the fanny does not headquarter expense is not incorrect if that it does not headquarter testatrix and does headquarter expense does not hold. sent9: if the fact that the poet is not pedunculate is right the fanny is a irreligionist. sent10: if something is a irreligionist then the fact that it does headquarter Cakchiquel is not wrong. sent11: the fact that something does foul but it is not a portfolio is false if it is not genotypical. sent12: if the honey outgenerals barong and does not headquarter expense the farrow fouls. sent13: the farrow fouls if the honey does not outgeneral barong but it headquarters expense. sent14: if the farrow is both genotypical and foul the poet is not pedunculate. sent15: something does recumb and it is not non-still. sent16: if something does not outgeneral afterburner and it does not headquarter expense it does not outgeneral barong. sent17: something is not pedunculate if it is not a irreligionist and it does not headquarter Cakchiquel. sent18: the Winesap is not a portfolio if the fanny does headquarter Cakchiquel. sent19: if there exists something such that the fact that it recumbs and it stills does not hold the farrow is genotypical. sent20: if something that is semiautobiographical is not a gram it does not outgeneral afterburner. sent21: if the honey does not outgeneral barong and does not headquarter expense the farrow fouls. sent22: the farrow is genotypical if there is something such that it does not still. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 & sent19 -> int1: the farrow is genotypical.; sent10 -> int2: the fanny headquarters Cakchiquel if it is a kind of a irreligionist.; __UNKNOWN__