that if the mainstay is a kind of non-unipolar thing that does sentimentalise mezuzah then the deacon does not joyride is right.
sent1: if something is a joyride and/or it is not unipolar then it is not unipolar. sent2: the deacon is not unipolar. sent3: the mainstay is not Orphic and rationalizes Boyle. sent4: the mainstay is honorable if there is something such that that it does hollow and it is not honorable is wrong. sent5: that the mainstay is unipolar and it sentimentalises mezuzah is not right if the deacon is a joyride. sent6: the mainstay is not a kind of a joyride but it does sentimentalise mezuzah. sent7: if something does not rationalize Bellerophon it is a joyride or it is not unipolar or both. sent8: if the deacon is a kind of a joyride the mainstay is not unipolar but it sentimentalises mezuzah. sent9: the fact that if the fact that the deacon does not pool and does not rationalize Bellerophon is not true then the fact that the nawab does not rationalize Bellerophon is not false is not false. sent10: that the deacon is not a kind of a joyride and is unipolar does not hold. sent11: everything is non-municipal. sent12: that the mainstay does not fin and is incautious is wrong. sent13: the mainstay sentimentalises mezuzah. sent14: the deacon is pilosebaceous if the mainstay is a kind of non-pilosebaceous thing that does not neglect Namtar. sent15: if something is pilosebaceous then the fact that it does not pool and it does not rationalize Bellerophon is false. sent16: the fact that the phytohormone does not sentimentalise enallage but it is unipolar does not hold. sent17: something is not pilosebaceous and does not neglect Namtar if it is not dishonorable. sent18: if something is not municipal then that it is a hollow and it is not honorable does not hold. sent19: if the mainstay is a kind of non-unipolar thing that does sentimentalise mezuzah the deacon is a joyride.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the deacon is a joyride.;
the nawab is not unipolar.
sent1 -> int1: if the fact that the nawab joy-rides or is not unipolar or both is correct then it is not unipolar.; sent18 -> int2: that the clapboard is a hollow but it is not honorable is false if it is not municipal.; sent11 -> int3: the clapboard is not municipal.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the clapboard does hollow but it is not honorable does not hold.; int4 -> int5: there exists nothing such that it is a hollow and not honorable.; int5 -> int6: that that the design does hollow but it is not honorable hold is not true.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that the fact that it is hollow and is not honorable is not right.; sent4 & int7 -> int8: the mainstay is honorable.; sent17 -> int9: if the mainstay is honorable then it is not pilosebaceous and does not neglect Namtar.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the mainstay is non-pilosebaceous thing that does not neglect Namtar.; sent14 & int10 -> int11: the deacon is pilosebaceous.; sent15 -> int12: if the fact that the deacon is pilosebaceous hold the fact that it does not pool and it does not rationalize Bellerophon is wrong.; int11 & int12 -> int13: that the deacon is not a kind of a pool and it does not rationalize Bellerophon is not true.; int13 & sent9 -> int14: the nawab does not rationalize Bellerophon.; sent7 -> int15: if the nawab does not rationalize Bellerophon it is either a joyride or not unipolar or both.; int14 & int15 -> int16: the nawab is a joyride or non-unipolar or both.; int1 & int16 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that if the mainstay is a kind of non-unipolar thing that does sentimentalise mezuzah then the deacon does not joyride is right. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a joyride and/or it is not unipolar then it is not unipolar. sent2: the deacon is not unipolar. sent3: the mainstay is not Orphic and rationalizes Boyle. sent4: the mainstay is honorable if there is something such that that it does hollow and it is not honorable is wrong. sent5: that the mainstay is unipolar and it sentimentalises mezuzah is not right if the deacon is a joyride. sent6: the mainstay is not a kind of a joyride but it does sentimentalise mezuzah. sent7: if something does not rationalize Bellerophon it is a joyride or it is not unipolar or both. sent8: if the deacon is a kind of a joyride the mainstay is not unipolar but it sentimentalises mezuzah. sent9: the fact that if the fact that the deacon does not pool and does not rationalize Bellerophon is not true then the fact that the nawab does not rationalize Bellerophon is not false is not false. sent10: that the deacon is not a kind of a joyride and is unipolar does not hold. sent11: everything is non-municipal. sent12: that the mainstay does not fin and is incautious is wrong. sent13: the mainstay sentimentalises mezuzah. sent14: the deacon is pilosebaceous if the mainstay is a kind of non-pilosebaceous thing that does not neglect Namtar. sent15: if something is pilosebaceous then the fact that it does not pool and it does not rationalize Bellerophon is false. sent16: the fact that the phytohormone does not sentimentalise enallage but it is unipolar does not hold. sent17: something is not pilosebaceous and does not neglect Namtar if it is not dishonorable. sent18: if something is not municipal then that it is a hollow and it is not honorable does not hold. sent19: if the mainstay is a kind of non-unipolar thing that does sentimentalise mezuzah the deacon is a joyride. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the deacon is a joyride.; __UNKNOWN__