the moneymaker is not a priming.
sent1: the carapace is a defamation if that the ordinary is a dopamine and is not fashionable is not correct. sent2: the intussusception is generational if the imprint is riparian. sent3: if the intussusception is a kind of a manservant then the imprint is generational. sent4: the moneymaker does not prime if there exists something such that it is a kind of a Cotula. sent5: something that processes BLT is a priming. sent6: if that the ordinary is a Cotula but it is not generational does not hold the imprint is fashionable. sent7: the moneymaker is not riparian if that the ordinary is riparian and is not a manservant is not right. sent8: the carapace is a defamation if the ordinary is fashionable. sent9: if the carapace is a defamation then the intussusception processes BLT and is not riparian. sent10: if there exists something such that it is generational or it is a kind of a Cotula or both then the moneymaker does not prime. sent11: that the ordinary is a kind of a dopamine and it is not unfashionable is not correct. sent12: the fact that the intussusception is a manservant is not wrong if it processes BLT and it is riparian. sent13: that the intussusception is not riparian is not incorrect if the carapace is a defamation. sent14: if something is generational then that it is riparian and it is not a kind of a manservant does not hold. sent15: the fact that the ordinary is a kind of a dopamine that is not fashionable does not hold. sent16: if something that does process BLT is riparian it is a manservant. sent17: the intussusception is not riparian.
sent1 & sent15 -> int1: the carapace is a defamation.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the intussusception does process BLT and is non-riparian.;
the moneymaker primes.
sent5 -> int3: if the moneymaker does process BLT then it is not non-priming.; sent14 -> int4: that the ordinary is riparian and is not a manservant is false if it is generational.;
$hypothesis$ = the moneymaker is not a priming. ; $context$ = sent1: the carapace is a defamation if that the ordinary is a dopamine and is not fashionable is not correct. sent2: the intussusception is generational if the imprint is riparian. sent3: if the intussusception is a kind of a manservant then the imprint is generational. sent4: the moneymaker does not prime if there exists something such that it is a kind of a Cotula. sent5: something that processes BLT is a priming. sent6: if that the ordinary is a Cotula but it is not generational does not hold the imprint is fashionable. sent7: the moneymaker is not riparian if that the ordinary is riparian and is not a manservant is not right. sent8: the carapace is a defamation if the ordinary is fashionable. sent9: if the carapace is a defamation then the intussusception processes BLT and is not riparian. sent10: if there exists something such that it is generational or it is a kind of a Cotula or both then the moneymaker does not prime. sent11: that the ordinary is a kind of a dopamine and it is not unfashionable is not correct. sent12: the fact that the intussusception is a manservant is not wrong if it processes BLT and it is riparian. sent13: that the intussusception is not riparian is not incorrect if the carapace is a defamation. sent14: if something is generational then that it is riparian and it is not a kind of a manservant does not hold. sent15: the fact that the ordinary is a kind of a dopamine that is not fashionable does not hold. sent16: if something that does process BLT is riparian it is a manservant. sent17: the intussusception is not riparian. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 & sent15 -> int1: the carapace is a defamation.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the intussusception does process BLT and is non-riparian.; __UNKNOWN__