the methaqualone is Romansh.
sent1: the fact that something does not loot sowbread but it loots anticipation is not correct if it is a hijab. sent2: something is a restrainer and it is Rosicrucian. sent3: that the fishnet does loot sowbread and does not loot anticipation does not hold if the henna does loot sowbread. sent4: the reedbird is a Rosicrucian if that the poisoner is both not a hijab and a restrainer is not correct. sent5: the fact that the fishnet does not loot sowbread but it loots anticipation does not hold if the henna does loot sowbread. sent6: if the henna loots sowbread that the fishnet does not loots sowbread and does not loot anticipation is wrong. sent7: something that loots sowbread is a Romansh. sent8: the fact that the methaqualone is the Romansh if that the methaqualone is not a Chartism hold is not wrong. sent9: the traveler is not sexual and it is not a kind of a nibble. sent10: something is non-Rosicrucian thing that is a kind of a hijab. sent11: the methaqualone is not a Romansh if that the poisoner is a kind of a Romansh that loots sowbread is incorrect. sent12: if something is not a kind of a hijab then the fact that it is a Romansh and it does loot sowbread is incorrect. sent13: if the reedbird is a hijab the henna does loot sowbread. sent14: if something that is not a restrainer is not non-Rosicrucian then the methaqualone is not a kind of a Chartism. sent15: if the poisoner is a restrainer the reedbird is a hijab. sent16: that the poisoner is a kind of a restrainer and it is Rosicrucian is not true. sent17: the fishnet does not loot sowbread and it does not loot anticipation. sent18: that the fishnet does not loot sowbread and loots anticipation is not right. sent19: the poisoner is not a restrainer.
the methaqualone is not Romansh.
sent12 -> int1: that if the poisoner is not a kind of the hijab then that the poisoner is Romansh thing that does loot sowbread is not correct hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the methaqualone is Romansh. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something does not loot sowbread but it loots anticipation is not correct if it is a hijab. sent2: something is a restrainer and it is Rosicrucian. sent3: that the fishnet does loot sowbread and does not loot anticipation does not hold if the henna does loot sowbread. sent4: the reedbird is a Rosicrucian if that the poisoner is both not a hijab and a restrainer is not correct. sent5: the fact that the fishnet does not loot sowbread but it loots anticipation does not hold if the henna does loot sowbread. sent6: if the henna loots sowbread that the fishnet does not loots sowbread and does not loot anticipation is wrong. sent7: something that loots sowbread is a Romansh. sent8: the fact that the methaqualone is the Romansh if that the methaqualone is not a Chartism hold is not wrong. sent9: the traveler is not sexual and it is not a kind of a nibble. sent10: something is non-Rosicrucian thing that is a kind of a hijab. sent11: the methaqualone is not a Romansh if that the poisoner is a kind of a Romansh that loots sowbread is incorrect. sent12: if something is not a kind of a hijab then the fact that it is a Romansh and it does loot sowbread is incorrect. sent13: if the reedbird is a hijab the henna does loot sowbread. sent14: if something that is not a restrainer is not non-Rosicrucian then the methaqualone is not a kind of a Chartism. sent15: if the poisoner is a restrainer the reedbird is a hijab. sent16: that the poisoner is a kind of a restrainer and it is Rosicrucian is not true. sent17: the fishnet does not loot sowbread and it does not loot anticipation. sent18: that the fishnet does not loot sowbread and loots anticipation is not right. sent19: the poisoner is not a restrainer. ; $proof$ = 
__UNKNOWN__