the ammobium is not a kind of a palindrome and does not pursue.
sent1: that the gastroenterologist follows but it does not pursue does not hold. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it is non-spectrographic thing that does not pursue is not right the weka pursue. sent3: the gastroenterologist does not eviscerate meter and does not irradiate if the AS is a pupil. sent4: something is a palindrome and irradiates if it does not eviscerate meter. sent5: if the ammobium is boneless then the weka is a pupil. sent6: the ammobium is not a palindrome. sent7: that the Revere is not spectrographic and it does not pursue is wrong. sent8: that the gastroenterologist does not eviscerate meter is not incorrect. sent9: the fact that the gastroenterologist is a kind of a Saintpaulia that does follow is not correct if the ammobium irradiates. sent10: if the AS is bicapsular and is not a Liszt then the gastroenterologist is bicapsular. sent11: the gastroenterologist does eviscerate meter if it does follow. sent12: That the meter does not eviscerate gastroenterologist is not incorrect. sent13: the ammobium is boneless if the gastroenterologist is boneless. sent14: if that the gastroenterologist is a kind of a Saintpaulia that does not follow is wrong then it does eviscerate meter. sent15: that the gastroenterologist is a kind of a Saintpaulia that does follow is incorrect. sent16: if the AS lathers duty it is bicapsular and is not a Liszt. sent17: if something that pursues is a kind of a pupil it does not eviscerate meter. sent18: the fact that the gastroenterologist is a Saintpaulia but it does not follow is false if the ammobium irradiates. sent19: that if the ammobium does not irradiate the ammobium is not a palindrome hold. sent20: if something is bicapsular then it is boneless.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the ammobium irradiates.; sent18 & assump1 -> int1: that the gastroenterologist is a Saintpaulia but it does not follow does not hold.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the gastroenterologist eviscerates meter.; int2 & sent8 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the ammobium does not irradiate.;
the weka is a palindrome.
sent4 -> int5: if that the weka does not eviscerate meter hold the fact that it is a palindrome and it irradiates is true.; sent17 -> int6: if the weka pursues and is a pupil the fact that it does not eviscerate meter is not incorrect.; sent7 -> int7: there is something such that that it is not spectrographic and does not pursue is not right.; int7 & sent2 -> int8: the weka pursues.; sent20 -> int9: the gastroenterologist is boneless if it is bicapsular.;
$hypothesis$ = the ammobium is not a kind of a palindrome and does not pursue. ; $context$ = sent1: that the gastroenterologist follows but it does not pursue does not hold. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it is non-spectrographic thing that does not pursue is not right the weka pursue. sent3: the gastroenterologist does not eviscerate meter and does not irradiate if the AS is a pupil. sent4: something is a palindrome and irradiates if it does not eviscerate meter. sent5: if the ammobium is boneless then the weka is a pupil. sent6: the ammobium is not a palindrome. sent7: that the Revere is not spectrographic and it does not pursue is wrong. sent8: that the gastroenterologist does not eviscerate meter is not incorrect. sent9: the fact that the gastroenterologist is a kind of a Saintpaulia that does follow is not correct if the ammobium irradiates. sent10: if the AS is bicapsular and is not a Liszt then the gastroenterologist is bicapsular. sent11: the gastroenterologist does eviscerate meter if it does follow. sent12: That the meter does not eviscerate gastroenterologist is not incorrect. sent13: the ammobium is boneless if the gastroenterologist is boneless. sent14: if that the gastroenterologist is a kind of a Saintpaulia that does not follow is wrong then it does eviscerate meter. sent15: that the gastroenterologist is a kind of a Saintpaulia that does follow is incorrect. sent16: if the AS lathers duty it is bicapsular and is not a Liszt. sent17: if something that pursues is a kind of a pupil it does not eviscerate meter. sent18: the fact that the gastroenterologist is a Saintpaulia but it does not follow is false if the ammobium irradiates. sent19: that if the ammobium does not irradiate the ammobium is not a palindrome hold. sent20: if something is bicapsular then it is boneless. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the ammobium irradiates.; sent18 & assump1 -> int1: that the gastroenterologist is a Saintpaulia but it does not follow does not hold.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the gastroenterologist eviscerates meter.; int2 & sent8 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the ammobium does not irradiate.; __UNKNOWN__