the sulfapyridine bursts.
sent1: that the canal does bespangle sulfapyridine is not false. sent2: the antiferromagnetism is not a precursor. sent3: if something is a kind of a worse it does scald Mandelbrot. sent4: the canal scalds Mandelbrot. sent5: That the sulfapyridine does bespangle canal is not false. sent6: if the sulfapyridine does not bespangle sulfapyridine then the canal is semiotic. sent7: if something is semiotic then it is a kind of a worse. sent8: if the canal is not a burst then the sulfapyridine does bespangle sulfapyridine and is a kind of a precursor. sent9: the canal is carvel-built. sent10: if the canal is a worse the knife-handle does scald Mandelbrot. sent11: the canal is not a kind of a precursor if it is semiotic and/or it bespangles sulfapyridine. sent12: the humectant is a burst. sent13: if the knife-handle does not scald vocation then the canal is carvel-built. sent14: the knife-handle is not carvel-built if it scalds Mandelbrot and/or it does bespangle antiferromagnetism. sent15: the ladyfish is a worse and summits. sent16: the canal scalds planation. sent17: the canal is a precursor if the sulfapyridine is not a worse. sent18: if the canal bespangles sulfapyridine it is semiotic and does not scald vocation. sent19: if the knife-handle does burst the sulfapyridine does scald Mandelbrot. sent20: if the sulfapyridine scalds Mandelbrot then the knife-handle is a kind of a burst. sent21: the sulfapyridine is a kind of a precursor. sent22: the canal is semiotic or is an epidural or both. sent23: the fact that the canal does scald solicitude but it is not a precursor is not incorrect. sent24: that the knife-handle is a precursor but it does not bespangle antiferromagnetism is not false if it does burst.
sent18 & sent1 -> int1: the canal is not non-semiotic but it does not scald vocation.; int1 -> int2: the canal is not non-semiotic.; sent7 -> int3: if the canal is semiotic the fact that it is a worse is not wrong.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the canal is worse.; int4 & sent10 -> int5: the knife-handle does scald Mandelbrot.; int5 -> int6: the knife-handle scalds Mandelbrot and/or it bespangles antiferromagnetism.; int6 & sent14 -> int7: the knife-handle is not carvel-built.;
$hypothesis$ = the sulfapyridine bursts. ; $context$ = sent1: that the canal does bespangle sulfapyridine is not false. sent2: the antiferromagnetism is not a precursor. sent3: if something is a kind of a worse it does scald Mandelbrot. sent4: the canal scalds Mandelbrot. sent5: That the sulfapyridine does bespangle canal is not false. sent6: if the sulfapyridine does not bespangle sulfapyridine then the canal is semiotic. sent7: if something is semiotic then it is a kind of a worse. sent8: if the canal is not a burst then the sulfapyridine does bespangle sulfapyridine and is a kind of a precursor. sent9: the canal is carvel-built. sent10: if the canal is a worse the knife-handle does scald Mandelbrot. sent11: the canal is not a kind of a precursor if it is semiotic and/or it bespangles sulfapyridine. sent12: the humectant is a burst. sent13: if the knife-handle does not scald vocation then the canal is carvel-built. sent14: the knife-handle is not carvel-built if it scalds Mandelbrot and/or it does bespangle antiferromagnetism. sent15: the ladyfish is a worse and summits. sent16: the canal scalds planation. sent17: the canal is a precursor if the sulfapyridine is not a worse. sent18: if the canal bespangles sulfapyridine it is semiotic and does not scald vocation. sent19: if the knife-handle does burst the sulfapyridine does scald Mandelbrot. sent20: if the sulfapyridine scalds Mandelbrot then the knife-handle is a kind of a burst. sent21: the sulfapyridine is a kind of a precursor. sent22: the canal is semiotic or is an epidural or both. sent23: the fact that the canal does scald solicitude but it is not a precursor is not incorrect. sent24: that the knife-handle is a precursor but it does not bespangle antiferromagnetism is not false if it does burst. ; $proof$ = 
sent18 & sent1 -> int1: the canal is not non-semiotic but it does not scald vocation.; int1 -> int2: the canal is not non-semiotic.; sent7 -> int3: if the canal is semiotic the fact that it is a worse is not wrong.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the canal is worse.; int4 & sent10 -> int5: the knife-handle does scald Mandelbrot.; int5 -> int6: the knife-handle scalds Mandelbrot and/or it bespangles antiferromagnetism.; int6 & sent14 -> int7: the knife-handle is not carvel-built.; __UNKNOWN__