the stop clamors levallorphan.
sent1: the airstream does not clamor monologist and does not clamor levallorphan. sent2: The penknife tribulates levallorphan. sent3: if the airstream does clamor monologist then the stop clamors levallorphan. sent4: the oxidation does not tribulate penknife if something is both not a habitat and bottom. sent5: that the airstream clamors monologist but it is not unairworthy does not hold. sent6: if the stop does tribulate penknife then it monopolizes isolationist. sent7: if something that does not clamor monologist is not unairworthy then that it does not monopolize HTTP is true. sent8: that the airstream does monopolize isolationist hold if the levallorphan tribulates penknife. sent9: if something does not tribulate penknife the fact that the levallorphan does not monopolize HTTP and does not monopolize isolationist is not correct. sent10: that the stop does not bottom is not wrong if the fact that it is non-pyrotechnics thing that is bottom does not hold. sent11: the airstream does not monopolize HTTP if it clamors monologist and is not unairworthy. sent12: if something monopolizes isolationist then it monopolizes HTTP. sent13: the canyon is both a retractor and pyrotechnics. sent14: the liman is not a habitat but it bottoms if there exists something such that it is a kind of a retractor. sent15: the fact that the stop does not monopolize HTTP and does not clamor levallorphan is incorrect. sent16: something that does not clamor levallorphan and does not monopolize isolationist does not monopolize HTTP. sent17: if something clamors monologist and is not unairworthy it does not monopolize HTTP. sent18: if something is not bottom then it tribulates penknife and is a habitat. sent19: the levallorphan tribulates penknife. sent20: something does not clamor levallorphan if either it does not clamor levallorphan or it monopolizes isolationist or both. sent21: the airstream does not clamor monologist. sent22: if something does tribulate triquetral the fact that it is a cruiserweight is not false.
sent7 -> int1: the airstream does not monopolize HTTP if it does not clamor monologist and is not unairworthy.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the airstream does not clamor monologist and it is not unairworthy.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the airstream does not monopolize HTTP.; sent12 -> int3: the airstream does monopolize HTTP if that it monopolizes isolationist hold.; sent8 & sent19 -> int4: the airstream does monopolize isolationist.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the airstream does monopolize HTTP.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the fact that the airstream does not clamor monologist and is not unairworthy does not hold.;
the stop does not clamor levallorphan.
sent20 -> int8: the stop does not clamor levallorphan if it does not clamor levallorphan or does monopolize isolationist or both.;
$hypothesis$ = the stop clamors levallorphan. ; $context$ = sent1: the airstream does not clamor monologist and does not clamor levallorphan. sent2: The penknife tribulates levallorphan. sent3: if the airstream does clamor monologist then the stop clamors levallorphan. sent4: the oxidation does not tribulate penknife if something is both not a habitat and bottom. sent5: that the airstream clamors monologist but it is not unairworthy does not hold. sent6: if the stop does tribulate penknife then it monopolizes isolationist. sent7: if something that does not clamor monologist is not unairworthy then that it does not monopolize HTTP is true. sent8: that the airstream does monopolize isolationist hold if the levallorphan tribulates penknife. sent9: if something does not tribulate penknife the fact that the levallorphan does not monopolize HTTP and does not monopolize isolationist is not correct. sent10: that the stop does not bottom is not wrong if the fact that it is non-pyrotechnics thing that is bottom does not hold. sent11: the airstream does not monopolize HTTP if it clamors monologist and is not unairworthy. sent12: if something monopolizes isolationist then it monopolizes HTTP. sent13: the canyon is both a retractor and pyrotechnics. sent14: the liman is not a habitat but it bottoms if there exists something such that it is a kind of a retractor. sent15: the fact that the stop does not monopolize HTTP and does not clamor levallorphan is incorrect. sent16: something that does not clamor levallorphan and does not monopolize isolationist does not monopolize HTTP. sent17: if something clamors monologist and is not unairworthy it does not monopolize HTTP. sent18: if something is not bottom then it tribulates penknife and is a habitat. sent19: the levallorphan tribulates penknife. sent20: something does not clamor levallorphan if either it does not clamor levallorphan or it monopolizes isolationist or both. sent21: the airstream does not clamor monologist. sent22: if something does tribulate triquetral the fact that it is a cruiserweight is not false. ; $proof$ = 
sent7 -> int1: the airstream does not monopolize HTTP if it does not clamor monologist and is not unairworthy.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the airstream does not clamor monologist and it is not unairworthy.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the airstream does not monopolize HTTP.; sent12 -> int3: the airstream does monopolize HTTP if that it monopolizes isolationist hold.; sent8 & sent19 -> int4: the airstream does monopolize isolationist.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the airstream does monopolize HTTP.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the fact that the airstream does not clamor monologist and is not unairworthy does not hold.; __UNKNOWN__