the slice is a kind of a misconception and it is a bullshit.
sent1: the Bench does not communicate clews if that the cymule is not a kind of a minuscule and/or it communicate clews is not true. sent2: that the cymule is not a misconception or it is occlusive or both is false. sent3: the Bench is a kind of a misconception and/or is not appellate if the cymule does not spray Scirpus. sent4: the slice is a bullshit if it is not a barrack and/or does communicate criollo. sent5: that the olm is both Congolese and untrustworthy does not hold if there exists something such that that it is not a disloyalty is not incorrect. sent6: if the shampoo does communicate dipstick and it reconvenes then the xenolith is not a kind of a disloyalty. sent7: if the fact that there is something such that it does not communicate clews hold the Bench sprays Mennonitism and is a sleepwalker. sent8: the shampoo does communicate dipstick and is a kind of a cantala. sent9: the slice is not appellate. sent10: if that the slice is a kind of a sleepwalker that does not spray Mennonitism is false the Bench communicates clews. sent11: the cymule is not a barrack and communicates criollo if the olm is not a kind of a minuscule. sent12: if the slice is appellate then the fact that it is a kind of a barrack and it is not a minuscule is false. sent13: there is something such that it is a tidiness. sent14: if the Bench does not communicate clews and it is not a barrack it is a kind of a sleepwalker. sent15: if something that does spray Scirpus is not appellate then it is not a misconception. sent16: the fact that something is a sleepwalker and does not spray Mennonitism is not correct if it sprays Scirpus. sent17: the fact that either the slice is not a barrack or it communicates criollo or both hold. sent18: the fact that the viewer is not a kind of a bullshit or is wiry or both is not true. sent19: that that the cymule is not a minuscule and/or does communicate clews hold does not hold. sent20: if the fact that something is a Congolese and is untrustworthy is incorrect it is not a minuscule. sent21: if something that is not a kind of a barrack communicates criollo then it does not communicate clews. sent22: if there is something such that it is a tidiness the shampoo reconvenes. sent23: the fact that the ibuprofen is a Merluccius but it does not bullshit is wrong. sent24: that the slice is a misconception and bullshits is wrong if that the Bench is not appellate is not false.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the slice is not a misconception.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the slice is not appellate and it is not a misconception.; sent16 -> int2: if the slice sprays Scirpus then that it is a sleepwalker and it does not spray Mennonitism is not correct.; sent1 & sent19 -> int3: the Bench does not communicate clews.; sent4 & sent17 -> int4: the slice does bullshit.;
the fact that the slice is a misconception that is a bullshit does not hold.
$hypothesis$ = the slice is a kind of a misconception and it is a bullshit. ; $context$ = sent1: the Bench does not communicate clews if that the cymule is not a kind of a minuscule and/or it communicate clews is not true. sent2: that the cymule is not a misconception or it is occlusive or both is false. sent3: the Bench is a kind of a misconception and/or is not appellate if the cymule does not spray Scirpus. sent4: the slice is a bullshit if it is not a barrack and/or does communicate criollo. sent5: that the olm is both Congolese and untrustworthy does not hold if there exists something such that that it is not a disloyalty is not incorrect. sent6: if the shampoo does communicate dipstick and it reconvenes then the xenolith is not a kind of a disloyalty. sent7: if the fact that there is something such that it does not communicate clews hold the Bench sprays Mennonitism and is a sleepwalker. sent8: the shampoo does communicate dipstick and is a kind of a cantala. sent9: the slice is not appellate. sent10: if that the slice is a kind of a sleepwalker that does not spray Mennonitism is false the Bench communicates clews. sent11: the cymule is not a barrack and communicates criollo if the olm is not a kind of a minuscule. sent12: if the slice is appellate then the fact that it is a kind of a barrack and it is not a minuscule is false. sent13: there is something such that it is a tidiness. sent14: if the Bench does not communicate clews and it is not a barrack it is a kind of a sleepwalker. sent15: if something that does spray Scirpus is not appellate then it is not a misconception. sent16: the fact that something is a sleepwalker and does not spray Mennonitism is not correct if it sprays Scirpus. sent17: the fact that either the slice is not a barrack or it communicates criollo or both hold. sent18: the fact that the viewer is not a kind of a bullshit or is wiry or both is not true. sent19: that that the cymule is not a minuscule and/or does communicate clews hold does not hold. sent20: if the fact that something is a Congolese and is untrustworthy is incorrect it is not a minuscule. sent21: if something that is not a kind of a barrack communicates criollo then it does not communicate clews. sent22: if there is something such that it is a tidiness the shampoo reconvenes. sent23: the fact that the ibuprofen is a Merluccius but it does not bullshit is wrong. sent24: that the slice is a misconception and bullshits is wrong if that the Bench is not appellate is not false. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the slice is not a misconception.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the slice is not appellate and it is not a misconception.; sent16 -> int2: if the slice sprays Scirpus then that it is a sleepwalker and it does not spray Mennonitism is not correct.; sent1 & sent19 -> int3: the Bench does not communicate clews.; sent4 & sent17 -> int4: the slice does bullshit.; __UNKNOWN__