if the merlon is endoparasitic then the fact that the kalmia is not capable and does not detail stepladder is not correct.
sent1: the fact that the kalmia is not capable and does not detail stepladder hold if the merlon detail stepladder. sent2: the corkscrew is incapable and it is not inoperable. sent3: the kalmia is not capable and does not detail stepladder if the merlon is endoparasitic. sent4: the kalmia is basilar. sent5: the fact that the kalmia is not capable and it does not detail stepladder does not hold if the merlon does detail stepladder. sent6: the fact that that the kalmia is not capable but it does detail stepladder is not right hold. sent7: the kalmia is a relaxation. sent8: the fact that the kalmia is non-endoparasitic but it is capable is false if the merlon does detail stepladder. sent9: the fact that that the kalmia is capable but it does not detail stepladder is correct does not hold. sent10: that the merlon is ornithological hold if it is endoparasitic. sent11: the merlon is not a kind of a Schliemann and it is not a Cairene. sent12: the kalmia does not detail stepladder and it is not ornithological. sent13: that if the merlon does detail stepladder the fact that the kalmia is not capable and detail stepladder is wrong is correct. sent14: if the merlon does detail stepladder then that the kalmia is non-endoparasitic thing that does not detail stepladder is incorrect. sent15: that the merlon is a kind of non-capable thing that is ornithological does not hold. sent16: the merlon is capable if it is not non-ornithological. sent17: the bilge is endoparasitic if the conjunction is endoparasitic. sent18: that the merlon is capable hold if the kalmia is capable. sent19: if that the bilge is not non-endoparasitic is right then the kalmia is capable. sent20: the kalmia is endoparasitic.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the merlon is endoparasitic.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the merlon is ornithological.;
the fact that the merlon is capable is not incorrect.
$hypothesis$ = if the merlon is endoparasitic then the fact that the kalmia is not capable and does not detail stepladder is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the kalmia is not capable and does not detail stepladder hold if the merlon detail stepladder. sent2: the corkscrew is incapable and it is not inoperable. sent3: the kalmia is not capable and does not detail stepladder if the merlon is endoparasitic. sent4: the kalmia is basilar. sent5: the fact that the kalmia is not capable and it does not detail stepladder does not hold if the merlon does detail stepladder. sent6: the fact that that the kalmia is not capable but it does detail stepladder is not right hold. sent7: the kalmia is a relaxation. sent8: the fact that the kalmia is non-endoparasitic but it is capable is false if the merlon does detail stepladder. sent9: the fact that that the kalmia is capable but it does not detail stepladder is correct does not hold. sent10: that the merlon is ornithological hold if it is endoparasitic. sent11: the merlon is not a kind of a Schliemann and it is not a Cairene. sent12: the kalmia does not detail stepladder and it is not ornithological. sent13: that if the merlon does detail stepladder the fact that the kalmia is not capable and detail stepladder is wrong is correct. sent14: if the merlon does detail stepladder then that the kalmia is non-endoparasitic thing that does not detail stepladder is incorrect. sent15: that the merlon is a kind of non-capable thing that is ornithological does not hold. sent16: the merlon is capable if it is not non-ornithological. sent17: the bilge is endoparasitic if the conjunction is endoparasitic. sent18: that the merlon is capable hold if the kalmia is capable. sent19: if that the bilge is not non-endoparasitic is right then the kalmia is capable. sent20: the kalmia is endoparasitic. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the merlon is endoparasitic.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the merlon is ornithological.; __UNKNOWN__