the triclinium is genic but it is not a kind of a agreeableness.
sent1: there is something such that it is agraphic. sent2: the binger does avoid narcotraffic and is not genic. sent3: that the binger does not avoid outlier and is not vertebrate is not correct if something is not a agreeableness. sent4: if that the triclinium is not genic and it does not avoid outlier is wrong then the pus is not a garbage. sent5: if the pus antisepticizes Cyamus then the fact that the triclinium is both genic and not a agreeableness does not hold. sent6: there exists something such that it is a woodgrain. sent7: if the binger is genic but not an inflammation then the fact that the Balmoral is a kind of an inflammation is not false. sent8: the binger is not a agreeableness if there exists something such that the fact that it is not an inflammation and it does not antisepticize Cyamus is false. sent9: the binger does not antisepticize Cyamus if there is something such that the fact that it is not a garbage and it is not a kind of a agreeableness is not right. sent10: the triclinium is not non-genic and is not a kind of a agreeableness if the fact that the binger is not a agreeableness is true. sent11: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of invertebrate thing that does not antisepticize Cyamus is false then the chlortetracycline does not avoid outlier. sent12: the chlortetracycline is not a vertebrate if the fact that the pus does not avoid outlier and it is not a garbage is wrong. sent13: if the pus is not an inflammation then the Balmoral avoids outlier but it is not an inflammation. sent14: that the pus does not avoid outlier and it is not a garbage is not correct. sent15: if something is not a kind of a vertebrate then the fact that the Balmoral is not a kind of an inflammation and does not avoid outlier is not correct.
sent12 & sent14 -> int1: the chlortetracycline is not vertebrate.; int1 -> int2: there are non-vertebrate things.;
the fact that the triclinium is genic but it is not a agreeableness is false.
$hypothesis$ = the triclinium is genic but it is not a kind of a agreeableness. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is agraphic. sent2: the binger does avoid narcotraffic and is not genic. sent3: that the binger does not avoid outlier and is not vertebrate is not correct if something is not a agreeableness. sent4: if that the triclinium is not genic and it does not avoid outlier is wrong then the pus is not a garbage. sent5: if the pus antisepticizes Cyamus then the fact that the triclinium is both genic and not a agreeableness does not hold. sent6: there exists something such that it is a woodgrain. sent7: if the binger is genic but not an inflammation then the fact that the Balmoral is a kind of an inflammation is not false. sent8: the binger is not a agreeableness if there exists something such that the fact that it is not an inflammation and it does not antisepticize Cyamus is false. sent9: the binger does not antisepticize Cyamus if there is something such that the fact that it is not a garbage and it is not a kind of a agreeableness is not right. sent10: the triclinium is not non-genic and is not a kind of a agreeableness if the fact that the binger is not a agreeableness is true. sent11: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of invertebrate thing that does not antisepticize Cyamus is false then the chlortetracycline does not avoid outlier. sent12: the chlortetracycline is not a vertebrate if the fact that the pus does not avoid outlier and it is not a garbage is wrong. sent13: if the pus is not an inflammation then the Balmoral avoids outlier but it is not an inflammation. sent14: that the pus does not avoid outlier and it is not a garbage is not correct. sent15: if something is not a kind of a vertebrate then the fact that the Balmoral is not a kind of an inflammation and does not avoid outlier is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent12 & sent14 -> int1: the chlortetracycline is not vertebrate.; int1 -> int2: there are non-vertebrate things.; __UNKNOWN__