the cornerback is geophysical but it does not tunnel marathon.
sent1: the fowler is a kind of a check. sent2: the coffeeberry does peck newsstand. sent3: if the coffeeberry is a suit then the newsstand is a suit but it does not deaminate disentangler. sent4: the coffeeberry is not a flounder but it is geophysical. sent5: the coffeeberry is not a flounder. sent6: the newsstand does suit if the coffeeberry is not licit. sent7: the coffeeberry is a Conospermum if that it does not flounder and it does deaminate disentangler does not hold. sent8: if the coffeeberry is a flounder it is a Conospermum. sent9: the newsstand is a kind of a suit. sent10: the chalcopyrite is a kind of a druidism. sent11: something is licit and a check if it does not suit. sent12: the asteroid is non-chaetal but it does deaminate disentangler. sent13: that something is a kind of geophysical thing that does not tunnel marathon is wrong if it does check. sent14: that the coffeeberry is a flounder and it deaminates disentangler does not hold. sent15: if the newsstand suits and is not licit the fowler does not check. sent16: if the chalcopyrite is geophysical then the cornerback does not tunnel marathon. sent17: the fowler tunnels aspiration. sent18: the cornerback does not tunnel marathon. sent19: the fact that the coffeeberry does not tunnel marathon is correct. sent20: the coffeeberry is not licit if it is not a flounder and it deaminates disentangler. sent21: the chalcopyrite is not a suit. sent22: the newsstand is a kind of a suit that is not licit if the coffeeberry is not licit. sent23: if the coffeeberry is galactic that the chalcopyrite is geophysical is not wrong. sent24: if the cornerback does flounder the fowler is a flounder and is not a kind of a check. sent25: the coffeeberry is galactic if the fact that it is a kind of a Conospermum is right. sent26: the fact that if the coffeeberry is a kind of the flounder and it does deaminate disentangler the coffeeberry is not licit hold. sent27: the cornerback is licit.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the coffeeberry is not a kind of a flounder but it deaminates disentangler.; sent20 & assump1 -> int1: the coffeeberry is not licit.; int1 & sent22 -> int2: the newsstand is a kind of a suit but it is not licit.; int2 & sent15 -> int3: the fowler is not a check.; int3 & sent1 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the coffeeberry does not flounder but it does deaminate disentangler is not correct.; int5 & sent7 -> int6: the coffeeberry is a Conospermum.; int6 & sent25 -> int7: the coffeeberry is galactic.; int7 & sent23 -> int8: that the chalcopyrite is geophysical hold.;
that the cornerback is geophysical thing that does not tunnel marathon is not true.
sent13 -> int9: the fact that the cornerback is a kind of geophysical thing that does not tunnel marathon is not correct if it does check.; sent11 -> int10: if the cornerback is not a kind of a suit it is licit and it is a check.;
$hypothesis$ = the cornerback is geophysical but it does not tunnel marathon. ; $context$ = sent1: the fowler is a kind of a check. sent2: the coffeeberry does peck newsstand. sent3: if the coffeeberry is a suit then the newsstand is a suit but it does not deaminate disentangler. sent4: the coffeeberry is not a flounder but it is geophysical. sent5: the coffeeberry is not a flounder. sent6: the newsstand does suit if the coffeeberry is not licit. sent7: the coffeeberry is a Conospermum if that it does not flounder and it does deaminate disentangler does not hold. sent8: if the coffeeberry is a flounder it is a Conospermum. sent9: the newsstand is a kind of a suit. sent10: the chalcopyrite is a kind of a druidism. sent11: something is licit and a check if it does not suit. sent12: the asteroid is non-chaetal but it does deaminate disentangler. sent13: that something is a kind of geophysical thing that does not tunnel marathon is wrong if it does check. sent14: that the coffeeberry is a flounder and it deaminates disentangler does not hold. sent15: if the newsstand suits and is not licit the fowler does not check. sent16: if the chalcopyrite is geophysical then the cornerback does not tunnel marathon. sent17: the fowler tunnels aspiration. sent18: the cornerback does not tunnel marathon. sent19: the fact that the coffeeberry does not tunnel marathon is correct. sent20: the coffeeberry is not licit if it is not a flounder and it deaminates disentangler. sent21: the chalcopyrite is not a suit. sent22: the newsstand is a kind of a suit that is not licit if the coffeeberry is not licit. sent23: if the coffeeberry is galactic that the chalcopyrite is geophysical is not wrong. sent24: if the cornerback does flounder the fowler is a flounder and is not a kind of a check. sent25: the coffeeberry is galactic if the fact that it is a kind of a Conospermum is right. sent26: the fact that if the coffeeberry is a kind of the flounder and it does deaminate disentangler the coffeeberry is not licit hold. sent27: the cornerback is licit. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the coffeeberry is not a kind of a flounder but it deaminates disentangler.; sent20 & assump1 -> int1: the coffeeberry is not licit.; int1 & sent22 -> int2: the newsstand is a kind of a suit but it is not licit.; int2 & sent15 -> int3: the fowler is not a check.; int3 & sent1 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the coffeeberry does not flounder but it does deaminate disentangler is not correct.; int5 & sent7 -> int6: the coffeeberry is a Conospermum.; int6 & sent25 -> int7: the coffeeberry is galactic.; int7 & sent23 -> int8: that the chalcopyrite is geophysical hold.; __UNKNOWN__