the decapod levels demand and it is a NRC.
sent1: something levels peeper and it is a slander. sent2: the peeper is not a holism if that the excretion is atrioventricular is not incorrect. sent3: the exhaust is a slander. sent4: the fact that the decapod does not level demand and is not a slander does not hold. sent5: that something levels demand and it is a NRC does not hold if it does not sun exhaust. sent6: the storminess is not a slander. sent7: the peeper does not level Rundstedt. sent8: there is something such that it does not gallivant. sent9: the peeper is atrioventricular. sent10: there is something such that it suns exhaust. sent11: if something that suns exhaust is atrioventricular the excretion is a holism. sent12: something fidgets caladium. sent13: the exhaust suns exhaust and does not gallivant. sent14: the fact that if there exists something such that it levels demand the decapod suns exhaust and does not level peeper is right. sent15: the fact that the storminess does level peeper and is not a kind of a slander if there is something such that it fidgets caladium hold. sent16: the excretion does not gallivant and levels peeper. sent17: the decapod is not a holism. sent18: the decapod levels demand if the fact that something does not sun exhaust is true. sent19: if the storminess levels peeper and it is a slander then the decapod is a NRC. sent20: that the storminess does not level peeper but it suns exhaust does not hold. sent21: the fact that the exhaust is atrioventricular is right if the peeper levels Rundstedt but it does not gallivant. sent22: if that the exhaust does not gallivant and does not level Rundstedt is not correct the excretion is not a holism. sent23: that the exhaust does not gallivant and it does not level Rundstedt is not true.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the peeper does sun exhaust.; assump1 & sent9 -> int1: the peeper does sun exhaust and is atrioventricular.; int1 -> int2: something suns exhaust and is atrioventricular.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: the excretion is a holism.; sent22 & sent23 -> int4: the excretion is not a holism.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the peeper does not sun exhaust.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that it does not sun exhaust.; int7 & sent18 -> int8: the decapod does level demand.; sent12 & sent15 -> int9: the storminess levels peeper but it is not a slander.;
the fact that the decapod does level demand and it is a NRC does not hold.
sent5 -> int10: if the decapod does not sun exhaust then the fact that it does level demand and is a NRC is not correct.; sent16 -> int11: something does not gallivant and levels peeper.;
$hypothesis$ = the decapod levels demand and it is a NRC. ; $context$ = sent1: something levels peeper and it is a slander. sent2: the peeper is not a holism if that the excretion is atrioventricular is not incorrect. sent3: the exhaust is a slander. sent4: the fact that the decapod does not level demand and is not a slander does not hold. sent5: that something levels demand and it is a NRC does not hold if it does not sun exhaust. sent6: the storminess is not a slander. sent7: the peeper does not level Rundstedt. sent8: there is something such that it does not gallivant. sent9: the peeper is atrioventricular. sent10: there is something such that it suns exhaust. sent11: if something that suns exhaust is atrioventricular the excretion is a holism. sent12: something fidgets caladium. sent13: the exhaust suns exhaust and does not gallivant. sent14: the fact that if there exists something such that it levels demand the decapod suns exhaust and does not level peeper is right. sent15: the fact that the storminess does level peeper and is not a kind of a slander if there is something such that it fidgets caladium hold. sent16: the excretion does not gallivant and levels peeper. sent17: the decapod is not a holism. sent18: the decapod levels demand if the fact that something does not sun exhaust is true. sent19: if the storminess levels peeper and it is a slander then the decapod is a NRC. sent20: that the storminess does not level peeper but it suns exhaust does not hold. sent21: the fact that the exhaust is atrioventricular is right if the peeper levels Rundstedt but it does not gallivant. sent22: if that the exhaust does not gallivant and does not level Rundstedt is not correct the excretion is not a holism. sent23: that the exhaust does not gallivant and it does not level Rundstedt is not true. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the peeper does sun exhaust.; assump1 & sent9 -> int1: the peeper does sun exhaust and is atrioventricular.; int1 -> int2: something suns exhaust and is atrioventricular.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: the excretion is a holism.; sent22 & sent23 -> int4: the excretion is not a holism.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the peeper does not sun exhaust.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that it does not sun exhaust.; int7 & sent18 -> int8: the decapod does level demand.; sent12 & sent15 -> int9: the storminess levels peeper but it is not a slander.; __UNKNOWN__