the buntal is perishable if that the dentist suffices and is a thumbhole is not correct.
sent1: the buntal is a kind of a Florentine if the caiman is not unicellular. sent2: if the dentist does not suffice then the caiman is not unicellular. sent3: something is not solanaceous if it is a thumbhole and it is imperishable. sent4: that the buntal is not imperishable if the dentist suffices and is a kind of a thumbhole hold. sent5: the dentist is not a thumbhole. sent6: if the dentist does not suffice the buntal is not imperishable. sent7: the dentist is not solanaceous. sent8: the dentist is imperishable if the buntal is not a kind of a thumbhole. sent9: the buntal is a kind of a Florentine. sent10: that that the buntal is imperishable and it is unicellular is not correct is not false. sent11: the buntal does not suffice if the fact that the dentist is not non-solanaceous but imperishable is incorrect. sent12: the caiman is not unicellular if that the dentist does suffice and is a thumbhole does not hold. sent13: the caiman is not unicellular if the dentist does suffice and it is a kind of a thumbhole. sent14: that the dentist is solanaceous and it suffices is wrong. sent15: if the caiman is not unicellular the buntal is Florentine and is solanaceous.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the dentist does suffice and is a kind of a thumbhole is wrong.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the caiman is not unicellular.; int1 & sent15 -> int2: the buntal is a Florentine and it is solanaceous.;
$hypothesis$ = the buntal is perishable if that the dentist suffices and is a thumbhole is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the buntal is a kind of a Florentine if the caiman is not unicellular. sent2: if the dentist does not suffice then the caiman is not unicellular. sent3: something is not solanaceous if it is a thumbhole and it is imperishable. sent4: that the buntal is not imperishable if the dentist suffices and is a kind of a thumbhole hold. sent5: the dentist is not a thumbhole. sent6: if the dentist does not suffice the buntal is not imperishable. sent7: the dentist is not solanaceous. sent8: the dentist is imperishable if the buntal is not a kind of a thumbhole. sent9: the buntal is a kind of a Florentine. sent10: that that the buntal is imperishable and it is unicellular is not correct is not false. sent11: the buntal does not suffice if the fact that the dentist is not non-solanaceous but imperishable is incorrect. sent12: the caiman is not unicellular if that the dentist does suffice and is a thumbhole does not hold. sent13: the caiman is not unicellular if the dentist does suffice and it is a kind of a thumbhole. sent14: that the dentist is solanaceous and it suffices is wrong. sent15: if the caiman is not unicellular the buntal is Florentine and is solanaceous. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the dentist does suffice and is a kind of a thumbhole is wrong.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the caiman is not unicellular.; int1 & sent15 -> int2: the buntal is a Florentine and it is solanaceous.; __UNKNOWN__