the vower does not subtilize Congo and is a hemagglutination.
sent1: if the ebb is directional the nelfinavir does subtilize prescience. sent2: the nelfinavir subtilizes prescience or it is a kind of a sticker or both if it is not unscientific. sent3: if the leaven is not a kind of a sticker the nelfinavir is not a kind of a sticker. sent4: if something is not directional that it does not subtilize Congo and it is a hemagglutination does not hold. sent5: if the nelfinavir is not a Bangkok then either it is scientific or it subtilizes prescience or both. sent6: that that the leaven is nonhuman and it is unscientific does not hold is not wrong if something is not a kind of a sticker. sent7: there exists something such that it is directional. sent8: if that the leaven does subtilize Congo and is not nonhuman does not hold the fact that it is not a hemagglutination is not wrong. sent9: that the vower does not subtilize Congo but it is a hemagglutination if the leaven does not subtilize Congo is right. sent10: something does not subtilize Congo if it is unscientific. sent11: if the nelfinavir is not a hemagglutination then the vower is not a kind of a hemagglutination. sent12: the nelfinavir is not migrational. sent13: if the ebb is not unscientific the vower is a kind of human thing that is not a kind of a Bangkok. sent14: the fact that that the leaven is nonhuman thing that is not a Bangkok is not true is not wrong if there is something such that it is not directional. sent15: the vower does not subtilize Congo if the leaven does not subtilize Congo. sent16: there is something such that it is not a decisiveness. sent17: that the ebb is directional and is not a hemagglutination is incorrect. sent18: if the ebb is directional then the fact that either the nelfinavir does not subtilize prescience or it is a sticker or both is not true. sent19: the vower does not subtilize Congo but it is unscientific. sent20: the ebb is unscientific and/or directional if it is not a sticker. sent21: the nelfinavir does subtilize prescience and/or it is a Bangkok. sent22: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a hemagglutination. sent23: if that something is nonhuman but it is not a Bangkok is wrong the fact that it does not subtilize Congo hold. sent24: the rebound is not nonhuman. sent25: the nelfinavir is not unscientific.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the ebb is directional.; sent18 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the nelfinavir does not subtilize prescience and/or it is a sticker is not true.; sent23 -> int2: the leaven does not subtilize Congo if that it is nonhuman and it is not a Bangkok is wrong.;
that that the vower does not subtilize Congo and is a hemagglutination is false is not wrong.
sent4 -> int3: if the fact that the vower is not directional is correct that it does not subtilize Congo and it is a hemagglutination is not true.;
$hypothesis$ = the vower does not subtilize Congo and is a hemagglutination. ; $context$ = sent1: if the ebb is directional the nelfinavir does subtilize prescience. sent2: the nelfinavir subtilizes prescience or it is a kind of a sticker or both if it is not unscientific. sent3: if the leaven is not a kind of a sticker the nelfinavir is not a kind of a sticker. sent4: if something is not directional that it does not subtilize Congo and it is a hemagglutination does not hold. sent5: if the nelfinavir is not a Bangkok then either it is scientific or it subtilizes prescience or both. sent6: that that the leaven is nonhuman and it is unscientific does not hold is not wrong if something is not a kind of a sticker. sent7: there exists something such that it is directional. sent8: if that the leaven does subtilize Congo and is not nonhuman does not hold the fact that it is not a hemagglutination is not wrong. sent9: that the vower does not subtilize Congo but it is a hemagglutination if the leaven does not subtilize Congo is right. sent10: something does not subtilize Congo if it is unscientific. sent11: if the nelfinavir is not a hemagglutination then the vower is not a kind of a hemagglutination. sent12: the nelfinavir is not migrational. sent13: if the ebb is not unscientific the vower is a kind of human thing that is not a kind of a Bangkok. sent14: the fact that that the leaven is nonhuman thing that is not a Bangkok is not true is not wrong if there is something such that it is not directional. sent15: the vower does not subtilize Congo if the leaven does not subtilize Congo. sent16: there is something such that it is not a decisiveness. sent17: that the ebb is directional and is not a hemagglutination is incorrect. sent18: if the ebb is directional then the fact that either the nelfinavir does not subtilize prescience or it is a sticker or both is not true. sent19: the vower does not subtilize Congo but it is unscientific. sent20: the ebb is unscientific and/or directional if it is not a sticker. sent21: the nelfinavir does subtilize prescience and/or it is a Bangkok. sent22: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a hemagglutination. sent23: if that something is nonhuman but it is not a Bangkok is wrong the fact that it does not subtilize Congo hold. sent24: the rebound is not nonhuman. sent25: the nelfinavir is not unscientific. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the ebb is directional.; sent18 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the nelfinavir does not subtilize prescience and/or it is a sticker is not true.; sent23 -> int2: the leaven does not subtilize Congo if that it is nonhuman and it is not a Bangkok is wrong.; __UNKNOWN__