the agglutinin is lenten and does arouse deco.
sent1: the extraction does eliminate businessperson. sent2: the agglutinin is not a disorientation if the extraction does not barb sketch and is competent. sent3: that the CRT is not incompetent is not false if it is not non-animalistic. sent4: the agglutinin is not a disorientation if the extraction does barb sketch but it is not incompetent. sent5: that the sketch eliminates businessperson and does not overpower SVR is false. sent6: the fact that the extraction does not barb sketch hold if the sketch does not barb sketch. sent7: if the sketch does not barb sketch the extraction does not barb sketch and is not an incompetent. sent8: if the fact that something barbs sketch is right it does not eliminate businessperson. sent9: the extraction does not barb sketch. sent10: the sketch does not eliminate businessperson and is not a kind of a disorientation if the agglutinin does not eliminate businessperson. sent11: the agglutinin arouses deco if it is not a disorientation. sent12: if the agglutinin is not lenten then the sketch is a kind of lenten thing that does not barb sketch. sent13: the agglutinin is not lenten and it is not incompetent if it does eliminate businessperson. sent14: that the agglutinin does not eliminate businessperson hold. sent15: the sketch does not eliminate businessperson if it barbs sketch. sent16: the sketch does not eliminate businessperson. sent17: the extraction does not barb sketch and it is not lenten. sent18: the fact that the sketch does not eliminate businessperson and it does not overpower SVR is false. sent19: if something barbs sketch it does not eliminate businessperson and does not overpower SVR. sent20: the extraction does not barb sketch if the CRT is not a disorientation and does barb sketch.
sent19 -> int1: the sketch does not eliminate businessperson and does not overpower SVR if it barbs sketch.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sketch barbs sketch.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the sketch does not eliminate businessperson and does not overpower SVR.; int2 & sent18 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the sketch does not barb sketch.; int4 & sent7 -> int5: the extraction does not barb sketch and it is not an incompetent.; int5 & sent2 -> int6: that the agglutinin is not a disorientation is not false.; int6 & sent11 -> int7: the agglutinin does arouse deco.;
the fact that the agglutinin is lenten and it arouses deco is not correct.
$hypothesis$ = the agglutinin is lenten and does arouse deco. ; $context$ = sent1: the extraction does eliminate businessperson. sent2: the agglutinin is not a disorientation if the extraction does not barb sketch and is competent. sent3: that the CRT is not incompetent is not false if it is not non-animalistic. sent4: the agglutinin is not a disorientation if the extraction does barb sketch but it is not incompetent. sent5: that the sketch eliminates businessperson and does not overpower SVR is false. sent6: the fact that the extraction does not barb sketch hold if the sketch does not barb sketch. sent7: if the sketch does not barb sketch the extraction does not barb sketch and is not an incompetent. sent8: if the fact that something barbs sketch is right it does not eliminate businessperson. sent9: the extraction does not barb sketch. sent10: the sketch does not eliminate businessperson and is not a kind of a disorientation if the agglutinin does not eliminate businessperson. sent11: the agglutinin arouses deco if it is not a disorientation. sent12: if the agglutinin is not lenten then the sketch is a kind of lenten thing that does not barb sketch. sent13: the agglutinin is not lenten and it is not incompetent if it does eliminate businessperson. sent14: that the agglutinin does not eliminate businessperson hold. sent15: the sketch does not eliminate businessperson if it barbs sketch. sent16: the sketch does not eliminate businessperson. sent17: the extraction does not barb sketch and it is not lenten. sent18: the fact that the sketch does not eliminate businessperson and it does not overpower SVR is false. sent19: if something barbs sketch it does not eliminate businessperson and does not overpower SVR. sent20: the extraction does not barb sketch if the CRT is not a disorientation and does barb sketch. ; $proof$ = 
sent19 -> int1: the sketch does not eliminate businessperson and does not overpower SVR if it barbs sketch.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sketch barbs sketch.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the sketch does not eliminate businessperson and does not overpower SVR.; int2 & sent18 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the sketch does not barb sketch.; int4 & sent7 -> int5: the extraction does not barb sketch and it is not an incompetent.; int5 & sent2 -> int6: that the agglutinin is not a disorientation is not false.; int6 & sent11 -> int7: the agglutinin does arouse deco.; __UNKNOWN__