the disturber lands flame-out if the Turk's-cap does refrain outdoorswoman.
sent1: that the communicator is not archipelagic but it is a Bentham is false if the outdoorswoman lands flame-out. sent2: the fact that the communicator is archipelagic and does not refrain oxygenation is incorrect if the outdoorswoman is a Bentham. sent3: if the communicator is not a Bentham the disturber lands flame-out. sent4: that the communicator is not a kind of a Bentham but it does refrain oxygenation is incorrect. sent5: the outdoorswoman is a kind of a Bentham if that the communicator is not archipelagic is true. sent6: that the outdoorswoman is not archipelagic and it does not refrain oxygenation is not true if the fact that the communicator is a Bentham is right. sent7: the disturber does refrain oxygenation. sent8: if that the communicator does not refrain outdoorswoman and it does not land flame-out is not right that the Turk's-cap is a kind of a Bentham hold. sent9: the communicator does not gorge Jung. sent10: the fact that the communicator is erect and is a kind of a drudge is false. sent11: if the outdoorswoman is not a kind of a Bentham the communicator is archipelagic. sent12: the fact that the disturber is archipelagic but it does not land flame-out is not true. sent13: the fact that the outdoorswoman does not refrain outdoorswoman and is not a Bentham is incorrect if the communicator is archipelagic. sent14: if the outdoorswoman does refrain outdoorswoman then that the Turk's-cap lands flame-out but it is not archipelagic is false. sent15: that the Turk's-cap does land flame-out but it is not archipelagic does not hold if that the disturber does refrain outdoorswoman is correct.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the Turk's-cap does refrain outdoorswoman.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the communicator is a Bentham.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the outdoorswoman is not archipelagic and it does not refrain oxygenation does not hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the disturber lands flame-out if the Turk's-cap does refrain outdoorswoman. ; $context$ = sent1: that the communicator is not archipelagic but it is a Bentham is false if the outdoorswoman lands flame-out. sent2: the fact that the communicator is archipelagic and does not refrain oxygenation is incorrect if the outdoorswoman is a Bentham. sent3: if the communicator is not a Bentham the disturber lands flame-out. sent4: that the communicator is not a kind of a Bentham but it does refrain oxygenation is incorrect. sent5: the outdoorswoman is a kind of a Bentham if that the communicator is not archipelagic is true. sent6: that the outdoorswoman is not archipelagic and it does not refrain oxygenation is not true if the fact that the communicator is a Bentham is right. sent7: the disturber does refrain oxygenation. sent8: if that the communicator does not refrain outdoorswoman and it does not land flame-out is not right that the Turk's-cap is a kind of a Bentham hold. sent9: the communicator does not gorge Jung. sent10: the fact that the communicator is erect and is a kind of a drudge is false. sent11: if the outdoorswoman is not a kind of a Bentham the communicator is archipelagic. sent12: the fact that the disturber is archipelagic but it does not land flame-out is not true. sent13: the fact that the outdoorswoman does not refrain outdoorswoman and is not a Bentham is incorrect if the communicator is archipelagic. sent14: if the outdoorswoman does refrain outdoorswoman then that the Turk's-cap lands flame-out but it is not archipelagic is false. sent15: that the Turk's-cap does land flame-out but it is not archipelagic does not hold if that the disturber does refrain outdoorswoman is correct. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the Turk's-cap does refrain outdoorswoman.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the communicator is a Bentham.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the outdoorswoman is not archipelagic and it does not refrain oxygenation does not hold.; __UNKNOWN__