that the stout is a kind of non-Martian thing that does not leap allotrope is not true.
sent1: that the stout is non-Martian thing that leaps allotrope does not hold. sent2: if the arbor does not dangle headdress then that the fact that the stout is non-Martian thing that leaps allotrope is not false is wrong. sent3: that the arbor is insubstantial is true if there exists something such that it does dangle hematite and it does not dangle headdress. sent4: the arbor does not dangle hematite if the allotrope is insubstantial. sent5: that the stout is a Martian but it does not leap allotrope is not correct. sent6: if the arbor does not dangle headdress then that the stout is a kind of a Martian but it does not leap allotrope is not right. sent7: that the radicle is non-slippery thing that is not indestructible does not hold. sent8: the allotrope leaps trademarked. sent9: if that the arbor does not dangle headdress is true the fact that the stout is not Martian and it does not leap allotrope does not hold. sent10: if the fact that the dotard is a Leviticus and is homeostatic does not hold the arbor does not leap trademarked. sent11: if something that does not dangle hematite does dangle headdress then that it is homeostatic hold. sent12: that the radicle is both not slippery and a Leviticus is not true. sent13: that the arbor is not homeostatic is not incorrect if that the radicle is not slippery and is not a kind of a Leviticus does not hold. sent14: something is not Martian and it does not leap allotrope if it does leap trademarked. sent15: if the arbor is insubstantial and does not leap trademarked then the allotrope leap trademarked. sent16: the allotrope does not dangle hematite. sent17: that the radicle is slippery and is not a kind of a Leviticus does not hold. sent18: that the dotard is a Leviticus and it is homeostatic does not hold if it is not a kind of a stew. sent19: something does dangle hematite if the fact that it is both not slippery and not indestructible is not correct. sent20: the radicle does not dangle headdress. sent21: the allotrope does leap trademarked and is insubstantial.
sent21 -> int1: the allotrope is insubstantial.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the arbor does not dangle hematite is not incorrect.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the arbor dangles headdress.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the arbor does not dangle hematite and does dangle headdress.; sent11 -> int4: if the arbor does not dangle hematite but it dangles headdress it is homeostatic.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the arbor is homeostatic.;
the stout is not a kind of a Martian and it does not leap allotrope.
sent14 -> int6: the stout is not a Martian and it does not leap allotrope if it does leap trademarked.; sent19 -> int7: the radicle does dangle hematite if that it is not slippery and it is not indestructible is false.; int7 & sent7 -> int8: the radicle does dangle hematite.; int8 & sent20 -> int9: the radicle does dangle hematite and does not dangle headdress.; int9 -> int10: something dangles hematite but it does not dangle headdress.; int10 & sent3 -> int11: the arbor is insubstantial.;
$hypothesis$ = that the stout is a kind of non-Martian thing that does not leap allotrope is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: that the stout is non-Martian thing that leaps allotrope does not hold. sent2: if the arbor does not dangle headdress then that the fact that the stout is non-Martian thing that leaps allotrope is not false is wrong. sent3: that the arbor is insubstantial is true if there exists something such that it does dangle hematite and it does not dangle headdress. sent4: the arbor does not dangle hematite if the allotrope is insubstantial. sent5: that the stout is a Martian but it does not leap allotrope is not correct. sent6: if the arbor does not dangle headdress then that the stout is a kind of a Martian but it does not leap allotrope is not right. sent7: that the radicle is non-slippery thing that is not indestructible does not hold. sent8: the allotrope leaps trademarked. sent9: if that the arbor does not dangle headdress is true the fact that the stout is not Martian and it does not leap allotrope does not hold. sent10: if the fact that the dotard is a Leviticus and is homeostatic does not hold the arbor does not leap trademarked. sent11: if something that does not dangle hematite does dangle headdress then that it is homeostatic hold. sent12: that the radicle is both not slippery and a Leviticus is not true. sent13: that the arbor is not homeostatic is not incorrect if that the radicle is not slippery and is not a kind of a Leviticus does not hold. sent14: something is not Martian and it does not leap allotrope if it does leap trademarked. sent15: if the arbor is insubstantial and does not leap trademarked then the allotrope leap trademarked. sent16: the allotrope does not dangle hematite. sent17: that the radicle is slippery and is not a kind of a Leviticus does not hold. sent18: that the dotard is a Leviticus and it is homeostatic does not hold if it is not a kind of a stew. sent19: something does dangle hematite if the fact that it is both not slippery and not indestructible is not correct. sent20: the radicle does not dangle headdress. sent21: the allotrope does leap trademarked and is insubstantial. ; $proof$ = 
sent21 -> int1: the allotrope is insubstantial.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the arbor does not dangle hematite is not incorrect.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the arbor dangles headdress.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the arbor does not dangle hematite and does dangle headdress.; sent11 -> int4: if the arbor does not dangle hematite but it dangles headdress it is homeostatic.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the arbor is homeostatic.; __UNKNOWN__