if the Farmer is not myrmecophytic the fact that the agamid is not drinkable and is not a kind of a trip is incorrect.
sent1: the kapuka is not a hyalinization and is not drinkable if the agamid is not myrmecophytic. sent2: if the Farmer is not myrmecophytic the fact that the agamid is not drinkable but it is a trip is incorrect. sent3: the Farmer is myrmecophytic if that the kapuka is a hyalinization and/or it is a kind of a lotus-eater is not right. sent4: if the agamid is not a hyalinization that the fact that the kapuka does not trip or it is drinkable or both is not true is not incorrect. sent5: if the agamid is not drinkable then that the fact that the Farmer is not a kind of a trip and it is not myrmecophytic is wrong is not false. sent6: the agamid is not drinkable. sent7: if the kapuka is not a trip then that the fact that the agamid is not a lotus-eater and not a hyalinization is not incorrect is not correct. sent8: that the agamid either is not myrmecophytic or is drinkable or both is not right. sent9: if the agamid is a trip then the fact that the kapuka is not a hyalinization or it is a lotus-eater or both is not correct. sent10: if the Farmer is not myrmecophytic that the agamid is drinkable but it is not a kind of a trip is false. sent11: the agamid is not drinkable and it does not trip if the Farmer is non-myrmecophytic. sent12: that the agamid is a kind of drinkable thing that is not a trip is not true. sent13: the fact that the agamid is not drinkable and trips is false. sent14: that the agamid is not myrmecophytic or it does trip or both is false. sent15: the agamid does not consternate eyesore. sent16: the fact that the Farmer is both not a lotus-eater and not myrmecophytic is false. sent17: if the agamid is not a trip then the kapuka is a hyalinization. sent18: the fact that the agamid does not snooker verst and/or is archaeological is not right. sent19: if the Farmer is not a trip the fact that the kapuka is not a kind of a lotus-eater and is myrmecophytic is incorrect. sent20: if the agamid is not a kind of a trip the fact that the kapuka is not a hyalinization and/or is a lotus-eater does not hold. sent21: the kapuka is a hyalinization.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the agamid is a kind of undrinkable thing that is not a trip.; assump2 -> int1: the agamid does not trip.; int1 & sent20 -> int2: that the kapuka is not a hyalinization or is a kind of a lotus-eater or both is wrong.;
$hypothesis$ = if the Farmer is not myrmecophytic the fact that the agamid is not drinkable and is not a kind of a trip is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the kapuka is not a hyalinization and is not drinkable if the agamid is not myrmecophytic. sent2: if the Farmer is not myrmecophytic the fact that the agamid is not drinkable but it is a trip is incorrect. sent3: the Farmer is myrmecophytic if that the kapuka is a hyalinization and/or it is a kind of a lotus-eater is not right. sent4: if the agamid is not a hyalinization that the fact that the kapuka does not trip or it is drinkable or both is not true is not incorrect. sent5: if the agamid is not drinkable then that the fact that the Farmer is not a kind of a trip and it is not myrmecophytic is wrong is not false. sent6: the agamid is not drinkable. sent7: if the kapuka is not a trip then that the fact that the agamid is not a lotus-eater and not a hyalinization is not incorrect is not correct. sent8: that the agamid either is not myrmecophytic or is drinkable or both is not right. sent9: if the agamid is a trip then the fact that the kapuka is not a hyalinization or it is a lotus-eater or both is not correct. sent10: if the Farmer is not myrmecophytic that the agamid is drinkable but it is not a kind of a trip is false. sent11: the agamid is not drinkable and it does not trip if the Farmer is non-myrmecophytic. sent12: that the agamid is a kind of drinkable thing that is not a trip is not true. sent13: the fact that the agamid is not drinkable and trips is false. sent14: that the agamid is not myrmecophytic or it does trip or both is false. sent15: the agamid does not consternate eyesore. sent16: the fact that the Farmer is both not a lotus-eater and not myrmecophytic is false. sent17: if the agamid is not a trip then the kapuka is a hyalinization. sent18: the fact that the agamid does not snooker verst and/or is archaeological is not right. sent19: if the Farmer is not a trip the fact that the kapuka is not a kind of a lotus-eater and is myrmecophytic is incorrect. sent20: if the agamid is not a kind of a trip the fact that the kapuka is not a hyalinization and/or is a lotus-eater does not hold. sent21: the kapuka is a hyalinization. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the agamid is a kind of undrinkable thing that is not a trip.; assump2 -> int1: the agamid does not trip.; int1 & sent20 -> int2: that the kapuka is not a hyalinization or is a kind of a lotus-eater or both is wrong.; __UNKNOWN__