the gardener is a arachnophobia.
sent1: if the gardener is a kind of a heroic the stipe is not a cessation and does not concretize vocalism. sent2: if the dreadlock is splashy or it does not glamorize boxed or both then the langlaufer is splashy. sent3: something does not glamorize boxed if the fact that it is not a kind of a cessation and does not concretize vocalism is correct. sent4: everything affiliates. sent5: the dreadlock is splashy and/or it does not glamorize boxed if the fact that it is not a cessation is not wrong. sent6: the langlaufer does ride. sent7: if the langlaufer is not a nastiness it is a kind of non-maternal an affiliate. sent8: everything is not a shove but an affiliate. sent9: the gardener is not a arachnophobia if the stipe is not a nastiness and it is not a arachnophobia. sent10: there exists something such that it is a succinylcholine and/or unofficial. sent11: the fact that the fact that something is splashy and is not a arachnophobia is not wrong is false if it does not glamorize boxed. sent12: if the fact that the stipe is splashy but it is not a arachnophobia is wrong then the langlaufer is not a kind of a nastiness. sent13: something is not a cessation if that it is a kind of non-heroic thing that is a kind of a cessation does not hold. sent14: the langlaufer is an affiliate. sent15: the sunscreen is a heroic if the burrfish does concretize vocalism. sent16: something is a heroic if it maddens thalamus. sent17: if something that does not glamorize dreadlock glamorizes burrfish it does madden thalamus. sent18: that the langlaufer does not shove but it affiliates is not true if the stipe is not a nastiness. sent19: if something is splashy then the gardener is a arachnophobia. sent20: something is either genuine or a tumidity or both.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the stipe is not a nastiness.; sent18 & assump1 -> int1: that the langlaufer is not a shove and is an affiliate is incorrect.; sent8 -> int2: the langlaufer is not a shove but an affiliate.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the stipe is a nastiness.; int4 -> int5: either the stipe is splashy or it is a nastiness or both.; int5 -> int6: that either something is splashy or it is a nastiness or both hold.;
the gardener is not a kind of a arachnophobia.
sent13 -> int7: if the fact that that the dreadlock is not heroic and is a cessation is wrong is not wrong then it is not a cessation.;
$hypothesis$ = the gardener is a arachnophobia. ; $context$ = sent1: if the gardener is a kind of a heroic the stipe is not a cessation and does not concretize vocalism. sent2: if the dreadlock is splashy or it does not glamorize boxed or both then the langlaufer is splashy. sent3: something does not glamorize boxed if the fact that it is not a kind of a cessation and does not concretize vocalism is correct. sent4: everything affiliates. sent5: the dreadlock is splashy and/or it does not glamorize boxed if the fact that it is not a cessation is not wrong. sent6: the langlaufer does ride. sent7: if the langlaufer is not a nastiness it is a kind of non-maternal an affiliate. sent8: everything is not a shove but an affiliate. sent9: the gardener is not a arachnophobia if the stipe is not a nastiness and it is not a arachnophobia. sent10: there exists something such that it is a succinylcholine and/or unofficial. sent11: the fact that the fact that something is splashy and is not a arachnophobia is not wrong is false if it does not glamorize boxed. sent12: if the fact that the stipe is splashy but it is not a arachnophobia is wrong then the langlaufer is not a kind of a nastiness. sent13: something is not a cessation if that it is a kind of non-heroic thing that is a kind of a cessation does not hold. sent14: the langlaufer is an affiliate. sent15: the sunscreen is a heroic if the burrfish does concretize vocalism. sent16: something is a heroic if it maddens thalamus. sent17: if something that does not glamorize dreadlock glamorizes burrfish it does madden thalamus. sent18: that the langlaufer does not shove but it affiliates is not true if the stipe is not a nastiness. sent19: if something is splashy then the gardener is a arachnophobia. sent20: something is either genuine or a tumidity or both. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the stipe is not a nastiness.; sent18 & assump1 -> int1: that the langlaufer is not a shove and is an affiliate is incorrect.; sent8 -> int2: the langlaufer is not a shove but an affiliate.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the stipe is a nastiness.; int4 -> int5: either the stipe is splashy or it is a nastiness or both.; int5 -> int6: that either something is splashy or it is a nastiness or both hold.; __UNKNOWN__