the dronabinol is not apteral.
sent1: if something is a kind of a skinny then it is not non-fibrillose. sent2: there exists something such that that it is not a steel and not a siege is not correct. sent3: if there is something such that that it is not a kind of a steel and is not a siege is incorrect then the dronabinol is a siege. sent4: the dronabinol does not drink cadetship. sent5: something is apteral if it drinks idiocy. sent6: if the dronabinol is apteral it is a skinny. sent7: the gum-lac is both non-cantonal and not cheerful. sent8: if that the debater is not a kind of a skinny and/or is not fibrillose does not hold the gum-lac is not fibrillose. sent9: if the gum-lac is not a hired and it is not cantonal then the pruner does drink Acadian. sent10: the gum-lac is not a hired and it is not cantonal. sent11: there exists something such that that that it is not a discourse and not cheerful is correct is false. sent12: there exists something such that the fact that it is not fibrillose and it is not a kind of a hired is wrong. sent13: if the dronabinol is not non-stainable and is a siege then it is non-apteral. sent14: if the pruner does drink Acadian and it is fibrillose then the fact that the semiprofessional does not discourse is not wrong. sent15: the fact that something does not hire but it is a synecdoche is not correct if it is not fibrillose. sent16: that the dronabinol is stainable if the semiprofessional is not a discourse hold. sent17: if the dronabinol is not cantonal the gum-lac is stainable. sent18: that there exists something such that the fact that it drinks idiocy and it is not cheerful is incorrect is not false. sent19: if that the debater does not drink idiocy but it is cheerful is not correct then the pruner is a skinny. sent20: if something is a discourse then the semiprofessional is a kind of a discourse. sent21: there is something such that the fact that it is malicious and it is not boskopoid is wrong. sent22: the semiprofessional is cheerful.
sent1 -> int1: if the pruner is a skinny the fact that it is fibrillose is right.; sent9 & sent10 -> int2: the pruner drinks Acadian.; sent2 & sent3 -> int3: the dronabinol is a siege.;
the fact that the gum-lac is not a kind of a hired and is a synecdoche is not true.
sent15 -> int4: if the gum-lac is not fibrillose then that that it is not a hired and it is a kind of a synecdoche is true is not right.;
$hypothesis$ = the dronabinol is not apteral. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a kind of a skinny then it is not non-fibrillose. sent2: there exists something such that that it is not a steel and not a siege is not correct. sent3: if there is something such that that it is not a kind of a steel and is not a siege is incorrect then the dronabinol is a siege. sent4: the dronabinol does not drink cadetship. sent5: something is apteral if it drinks idiocy. sent6: if the dronabinol is apteral it is a skinny. sent7: the gum-lac is both non-cantonal and not cheerful. sent8: if that the debater is not a kind of a skinny and/or is not fibrillose does not hold the gum-lac is not fibrillose. sent9: if the gum-lac is not a hired and it is not cantonal then the pruner does drink Acadian. sent10: the gum-lac is not a hired and it is not cantonal. sent11: there exists something such that that that it is not a discourse and not cheerful is correct is false. sent12: there exists something such that the fact that it is not fibrillose and it is not a kind of a hired is wrong. sent13: if the dronabinol is not non-stainable and is a siege then it is non-apteral. sent14: if the pruner does drink Acadian and it is fibrillose then the fact that the semiprofessional does not discourse is not wrong. sent15: the fact that something does not hire but it is a synecdoche is not correct if it is not fibrillose. sent16: that the dronabinol is stainable if the semiprofessional is not a discourse hold. sent17: if the dronabinol is not cantonal the gum-lac is stainable. sent18: that there exists something such that the fact that it drinks idiocy and it is not cheerful is incorrect is not false. sent19: if that the debater does not drink idiocy but it is cheerful is not correct then the pruner is a skinny. sent20: if something is a discourse then the semiprofessional is a kind of a discourse. sent21: there is something such that the fact that it is malicious and it is not boskopoid is wrong. sent22: the semiprofessional is cheerful. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 -> int1: if the pruner is a skinny the fact that it is fibrillose is right.; sent9 & sent10 -> int2: the pruner drinks Acadian.; sent2 & sent3 -> int3: the dronabinol is a siege.; __UNKNOWN__