that the pall is non-phosphorous is right.
sent1: there exists something such that that it does distinguish vacationer and is a SL is not true. sent2: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not distinguish vacationer and it is a kind of a SL is not correct that the pall is not phosphorous is not incorrect. sent3: the whiteout is a radius. sent4: that the duckpin is not phosphorous is true. sent5: the whiteout is phosphorous. sent6: the agronomist is not a kind of a tessella if there is something such that it is Yeatsian. sent7: something does not distinguish vacationer and is a kind of a SL. sent8: the pall is phosphorous and it is a radius if the whiteout is not schismatic. sent9: something that is not a tessella is schismatic and/or wires dropout. sent10: that the shark does not distinguish bull-snake and is a SL is wrong if it is a kind of a surpriser. sent11: the whiteout is a sass. sent12: the fact that the agronomist is not a tessella is not false if the fact that the mizzenmast is not Yeatsian and does wire unpredictability is incorrect. sent13: the pall is both a radius and phosphorous if it is non-schismatic. sent14: if the agronomist is not a tessella then the pall does wire dropout but it is not schismatic. sent15: if there exists something such that it distinguishes vacationer then the fact that the pall is not phosphorous is correct. sent16: if the whiteout is a radius then the fact that it does distinguish vacationer and is a SL is not correct. sent17: the whitethroat is not phosphorous. sent18: that the fact that the whiteout distinguishes vacationer and it is a SL is false hold. sent19: there is something such that that it is a kind of non-phosphorous a radius is incorrect.
there exists something such that that it does not wire peasant and it is a Trachipterus is wrong.
$hypothesis$ = that the pall is non-phosphorous is right. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that that it does distinguish vacationer and is a SL is not true. sent2: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not distinguish vacationer and it is a kind of a SL is not correct that the pall is not phosphorous is not incorrect. sent3: the whiteout is a radius. sent4: that the duckpin is not phosphorous is true. sent5: the whiteout is phosphorous. sent6: the agronomist is not a kind of a tessella if there is something such that it is Yeatsian. sent7: something does not distinguish vacationer and is a kind of a SL. sent8: the pall is phosphorous and it is a radius if the whiteout is not schismatic. sent9: something that is not a tessella is schismatic and/or wires dropout. sent10: that the shark does not distinguish bull-snake and is a SL is wrong if it is a kind of a surpriser. sent11: the whiteout is a sass. sent12: the fact that the agronomist is not a tessella is not false if the fact that the mizzenmast is not Yeatsian and does wire unpredictability is incorrect. sent13: the pall is both a radius and phosphorous if it is non-schismatic. sent14: if the agronomist is not a tessella then the pall does wire dropout but it is not schismatic. sent15: if there exists something such that it distinguishes vacationer then the fact that the pall is not phosphorous is correct. sent16: if the whiteout is a radius then the fact that it does distinguish vacationer and is a SL is not correct. sent17: the whitethroat is not phosphorous. sent18: that the fact that the whiteout distinguishes vacationer and it is a SL is false hold. sent19: there is something such that that it is a kind of non-phosphorous a radius is incorrect. ; $proof$ = 
__UNKNOWN__