the azathioprine is not a urine but it does squire acne if the boomer does not metabolize hyperthermia.
sent1: the boomer is a kind of a urine. sent2: the boomer is a Taoist. sent3: if the azathioprine is not a urine then the boomer does metabolize hyperthermia and does squire acne. sent4: if something squires insentience that it does not accomplish and is a clumber does not hold. sent5: if that the azathioprine is a Gallinago and it does replicate bob is incorrect it is not an explanation. sent6: if something is a electroencephalograph then it does not squire manul and it is liliaceous. sent7: there is something such that the fact that it is useless or it is not a Lombard or both is false. sent8: the boomer does not replicate beluga. sent9: the boomer is not a kind of a urine but it metabolizes hyperthermia if the azathioprine does not squire acne. sent10: if the manul does not squire manul but it is liliaceous then the boomer is not a kind of a Gallinago. sent11: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a Gallinago then the fact that the azathioprine is a kind of a Gallinago and it replicates bob is not correct. sent12: if that the boomer is not a urine but it squires acne is not true then the azathioprine does metabolize hyperthermia. sent13: something does metabolize laity and it does metabolize harrow if it is not an explanation. sent14: something does squire insentience and does metabolize hyperthermia if it is not nascent. sent15: if the azathioprine does not metabolize hyperthermia but it is a urine the boomer does squire acne. sent16: if there exists something such that that it is useless and/or it is not a kind of a Lombard does not hold then the manul is a kind of a electroencephalograph. sent17: if there exists something such that it metabolizes laity the whinchat is not nascent.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the azathioprine is not a kind of a urine but it squires acne is false.;
the fact that the whinchat does not accomplish but it is a clumber does not hold.
sent4 -> int1: the fact that the whinchat does not accomplish and is a kind of a clumber is wrong if it does squire insentience.; sent14 -> int2: if the whinchat is not nascent it squires insentience and it does metabolize hyperthermia.; sent13 -> int3: the azathioprine metabolizes laity and metabolizes harrow if it is not an explanation.; sent6 -> int4: the manul does not squire manul and is liliaceous if it is a kind of a electroencephalograph.; sent7 & sent16 -> int5: the manul is a electroencephalograph.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the manul does not squire manul but it is liliaceous.; sent10 & int6 -> int7: the boomer is not a kind of a Gallinago.; int7 -> int8: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Gallinago.; int8 & sent11 -> int9: that the azathioprine is a Gallinago and does replicate bob is not correct.; sent5 & int9 -> int10: the azathioprine is not an explanation.; int3 & int10 -> int11: the azathioprine does metabolize laity and it does metabolize harrow.; int11 -> int12: the azathioprine metabolizes laity.; int12 -> int13: there exists something such that it does metabolize laity.; int13 & sent17 -> int14: the whinchat is non-nascent.; int2 & int14 -> int15: the whinchat does squire insentience and it does metabolize hyperthermia.; int15 -> int16: the whinchat squires insentience.; int1 & int16 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the azathioprine is not a urine but it does squire acne if the boomer does not metabolize hyperthermia. ; $context$ = sent1: the boomer is a kind of a urine. sent2: the boomer is a Taoist. sent3: if the azathioprine is not a urine then the boomer does metabolize hyperthermia and does squire acne. sent4: if something squires insentience that it does not accomplish and is a clumber does not hold. sent5: if that the azathioprine is a Gallinago and it does replicate bob is incorrect it is not an explanation. sent6: if something is a electroencephalograph then it does not squire manul and it is liliaceous. sent7: there is something such that the fact that it is useless or it is not a Lombard or both is false. sent8: the boomer does not replicate beluga. sent9: the boomer is not a kind of a urine but it metabolizes hyperthermia if the azathioprine does not squire acne. sent10: if the manul does not squire manul but it is liliaceous then the boomer is not a kind of a Gallinago. sent11: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a Gallinago then the fact that the azathioprine is a kind of a Gallinago and it replicates bob is not correct. sent12: if that the boomer is not a urine but it squires acne is not true then the azathioprine does metabolize hyperthermia. sent13: something does metabolize laity and it does metabolize harrow if it is not an explanation. sent14: something does squire insentience and does metabolize hyperthermia if it is not nascent. sent15: if the azathioprine does not metabolize hyperthermia but it is a urine the boomer does squire acne. sent16: if there exists something such that that it is useless and/or it is not a kind of a Lombard does not hold then the manul is a kind of a electroencephalograph. sent17: if there exists something such that it metabolizes laity the whinchat is not nascent. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the azathioprine is not a kind of a urine but it squires acne is false.; __UNKNOWN__