the star-thistle is synclinal.
sent1: if the condiment does dilapidate then the wallboard is not obvious. sent2: if the condiment does not undercut Indriidae then the wallboard is not obvious. sent3: the star-thistle is synclinal if that the kalumpang is not obvious and does not disapprove condiment is not correct. sent4: that either the condiment dilapidates or it does not undercut Indriidae or both is not incorrect. sent5: the star-thistle is synclinal and/or it does not undercut Indriidae. sent6: that the greenery undercuts Indriidae but it does not solarize is not true. sent7: that the wallboard is obvious but it does not solarize is not correct. sent8: if the greenery is not obvious then the fact that the kalumpang is not obvious and does not disapprove condiment is not correct.
sent4 & sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the wallboard is not obvious is true.;
$hypothesis$ = the star-thistle is synclinal. ; $context$ = sent1: if the condiment does dilapidate then the wallboard is not obvious. sent2: if the condiment does not undercut Indriidae then the wallboard is not obvious. sent3: the star-thistle is synclinal if that the kalumpang is not obvious and does not disapprove condiment is not correct. sent4: that either the condiment dilapidates or it does not undercut Indriidae or both is not incorrect. sent5: the star-thistle is synclinal and/or it does not undercut Indriidae. sent6: that the greenery undercuts Indriidae but it does not solarize is not true. sent7: that the wallboard is obvious but it does not solarize is not correct. sent8: if the greenery is not obvious then the fact that the kalumpang is not obvious and does not disapprove condiment is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent4 & sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the wallboard is not obvious is true.; __UNKNOWN__