the fact that the Rastafarian either is auxetic or does uphold Renoir or both is incorrect.
sent1: the fact that the omentum is a loss and it is a crocketed is wrong. sent2: that the cycloserine is a kind of noxious thing that does not uphold Renoir is not correct. sent3: if the fact that something is not meiotic and does crane tarragon is incorrect it is meiotic. sent4: if the Rastafarian is auxetic then it is not sericultural. sent5: if the omentum does not uphold Renoir then that either the Rastafarian is not non-auxetic or it uphold Renoir or both is incorrect. sent6: that something is not a kind of a Hubel and it is not aerobics is wrong if the fact that it is meiotic is correct. sent7: something that is not a crocketed is a kind of auxetic thing that is Pasteurian. sent8: if there are meiotic things then that the accretion is not meiotic but it cranes tarragon is not correct. sent9: the instep either is not Pasteurian or is a crocketed or both. sent10: that the omentum is a crocketed and is sericultural is wrong. sent11: the instep is Pasteurian if there is something such that the fact that either it is not a kind of a loss or it is sericultural or both is wrong. sent12: the fact that the formation is not unconventional and does not uphold Kwangju does not hold if the catalyst is not non-aerobics. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is astronautic and is not a palatine does not hold. sent14: if the fact that the cycloserine is noxious but it is not a crocketed is not true it upholds metrology. sent15: that the timber either is sericultural or does crane conservatism or both is wrong. sent16: if the Rastafarian does uphold Renoir it is not sericultural. sent17: if the accretion is aerobics the catalyst is aerobics. sent18: if the paramagnetism does not uphold metrology then the fact that the cycloserine is noxious thing that is a seaplane is wrong. sent19: something is aerobics if that it is both not a Hubel and not aerobics does not hold. sent20: the cycloserine does not uphold metrology. sent21: the facial is meiotic if there is something such that the fact that it is astronautic and it is not a palatine is not correct. sent22: the fact that the Rastafarian either upholds Renoir or is noxious or both is false if the cycloserine is not noxious. sent23: The metrology does not uphold cycloserine. sent24: the paramagnetism does not uphold metrology if the fact that the formation is non-unconventional thing that does not uphold Kwangju is incorrect. sent25: if the instep is not noxious the Rastafarian is not a crocketed. sent26: if the instep is Pasteurian then the fact that the cycloserine is not non-noxious and not a crocketed is not true.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the omentum is not a kind of a loss or it is sericultural or both is false.; assump1 -> int1: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a loss and/or is sericultural is not right.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the instep is Pasteurian.; int2 & sent26 -> int3: the fact that the cycloserine is noxious but it is not a crocketed is false.; int3 & sent14 -> int4: the fact that the cycloserine does uphold metrology hold.; int4 & sent20 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the omentum is not a loss or it is sericultural or both.;
the Rastafarian is auxetic or it upholds Renoir or both.
sent7 -> int7: if the Rastafarian is not a kind of a crocketed it is auxetic and it is Pasteurian.; sent19 -> int8: the accretion is aerobics if that it is not a Hubel and it is not aerobics does not hold.; sent6 -> int9: the fact that the accretion is not a Hubel and not aerobics is not true if it is meiotic.; sent3 -> int10: if that the accretion is not meiotic and cranes tarragon is not true that it is meiotic hold.; sent13 & sent21 -> int11: the facial is meiotic.; int11 -> int12: there is something such that it is meiotic.; int12 & sent8 -> int13: the fact that the accretion is a kind of non-meiotic thing that does crane tarragon does not hold.; int10 & int13 -> int14: that the accretion is meiotic hold.; int9 & int14 -> int15: that the accretion is not a Hubel and it is not aerobics does not hold.; int8 & int15 -> int16: the accretion is aerobics.; sent17 & int16 -> int17: the catalyst is aerobics.; sent12 & int17 -> int18: the fact that the formation is not unconventional and does not uphold Kwangju is false.; sent24 & int18 -> int19: the paramagnetism does not uphold metrology.; sent18 & int19 -> int20: the fact that the cycloserine is both noxious and a seaplane is false.; int20 -> int21: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of noxious thing that is a seaplane is wrong.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Rastafarian either is auxetic or does uphold Renoir or both is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the omentum is a loss and it is a crocketed is wrong. sent2: that the cycloserine is a kind of noxious thing that does not uphold Renoir is not correct. sent3: if the fact that something is not meiotic and does crane tarragon is incorrect it is meiotic. sent4: if the Rastafarian is auxetic then it is not sericultural. sent5: if the omentum does not uphold Renoir then that either the Rastafarian is not non-auxetic or it uphold Renoir or both is incorrect. sent6: that something is not a kind of a Hubel and it is not aerobics is wrong if the fact that it is meiotic is correct. sent7: something that is not a crocketed is a kind of auxetic thing that is Pasteurian. sent8: if there are meiotic things then that the accretion is not meiotic but it cranes tarragon is not correct. sent9: the instep either is not Pasteurian or is a crocketed or both. sent10: that the omentum is a crocketed and is sericultural is wrong. sent11: the instep is Pasteurian if there is something such that the fact that either it is not a kind of a loss or it is sericultural or both is wrong. sent12: the fact that the formation is not unconventional and does not uphold Kwangju does not hold if the catalyst is not non-aerobics. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is astronautic and is not a palatine does not hold. sent14: if the fact that the cycloserine is noxious but it is not a crocketed is not true it upholds metrology. sent15: that the timber either is sericultural or does crane conservatism or both is wrong. sent16: if the Rastafarian does uphold Renoir it is not sericultural. sent17: if the accretion is aerobics the catalyst is aerobics. sent18: if the paramagnetism does not uphold metrology then the fact that the cycloserine is noxious thing that is a seaplane is wrong. sent19: something is aerobics if that it is both not a Hubel and not aerobics does not hold. sent20: the cycloserine does not uphold metrology. sent21: the facial is meiotic if there is something such that the fact that it is astronautic and it is not a palatine is not correct. sent22: the fact that the Rastafarian either upholds Renoir or is noxious or both is false if the cycloserine is not noxious. sent23: The metrology does not uphold cycloserine. sent24: the paramagnetism does not uphold metrology if the fact that the formation is non-unconventional thing that does not uphold Kwangju is incorrect. sent25: if the instep is not noxious the Rastafarian is not a crocketed. sent26: if the instep is Pasteurian then the fact that the cycloserine is not non-noxious and not a crocketed is not true. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the omentum is not a kind of a loss or it is sericultural or both is false.; assump1 -> int1: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a loss and/or is sericultural is not right.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the instep is Pasteurian.; int2 & sent26 -> int3: the fact that the cycloserine is noxious but it is not a crocketed is false.; int3 & sent14 -> int4: the fact that the cycloserine does uphold metrology hold.; int4 & sent20 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the omentum is not a loss or it is sericultural or both.; __UNKNOWN__