the koto is unpriestly thing that is a kind of a heated.
sent1: if that something is Calcuttan thing that is noseless is false then it does not seek EDS. sent2: the fact that the tipper is immunological but it is not a remit is not true. sent3: the schizocarp seeks food if the reformatory is a kind of a gaudy. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is attachable and it is not zygotic is incorrect then the reformatory is a gaudy. sent5: the tipper is not immunological if that it is immunological and it is not a remit is wrong. sent6: the fact that the diazonium is not priestly hold if the storksbill is non-zygotic. sent7: the koto is not priestly but it is a kind of a heated if the diazonium is not priestly. sent8: the reformatory does remit. sent9: that that the schizocarp is both Calcuttan and noseless does not hold hold if the tipper is not immunological.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the storksbill is both attachable and not zygotic is incorrect.; assump1 -> int1: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of attachable thing that is not zygotic is incorrect.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the reformatory is a kind of a gaudy.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the schizocarp does seek food.; sent1 -> int4: if that the schizocarp is Calcuttan and is noseless is false it does not seek EDS.; sent5 & sent2 -> int5: the tipper is not immunological.; sent9 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the schizocarp is Calcuttan and noseless is incorrect.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the schizocarp does not seek EDS.;
$hypothesis$ = the koto is unpriestly thing that is a kind of a heated. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is Calcuttan thing that is noseless is false then it does not seek EDS. sent2: the fact that the tipper is immunological but it is not a remit is not true. sent3: the schizocarp seeks food if the reformatory is a kind of a gaudy. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is attachable and it is not zygotic is incorrect then the reformatory is a gaudy. sent5: the tipper is not immunological if that it is immunological and it is not a remit is wrong. sent6: the fact that the diazonium is not priestly hold if the storksbill is non-zygotic. sent7: the koto is not priestly but it is a kind of a heated if the diazonium is not priestly. sent8: the reformatory does remit. sent9: that that the schizocarp is both Calcuttan and noseless does not hold hold if the tipper is not immunological. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the storksbill is both attachable and not zygotic is incorrect.; assump1 -> int1: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of attachable thing that is not zygotic is incorrect.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the reformatory is a kind of a gaudy.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the schizocarp does seek food.; sent1 -> int4: if that the schizocarp is Calcuttan and is noseless is false it does not seek EDS.; sent5 & sent2 -> int5: the tipper is not immunological.; sent9 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the schizocarp is Calcuttan and noseless is incorrect.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the schizocarp does not seek EDS.; __UNKNOWN__