the wildfowl subtilizes malignity and/or it is a aphasic.
sent1: there exists something such that that it is phonetics and it is a Hydnocarpus does not hold. sent2: if that something is not phonetics hold then the fact that the epithelium does subtilize Labour hold. sent3: the epithelium is a Carmichael but it is not an unwieldiness. sent4: that if the quark is a kind of non-hepatic thing that does subtilize lawn then the afterdamp is non-hepatic is correct. sent5: the fact that the epithelium is not an unwieldiness is not false. sent6: something is monotheistic but it is not cockney. sent7: if there is something such that it is monotheistic and not a cockney the alphabetizer is courteous. sent8: if something is hepatic it is a ponce. sent9: if the fact that the alphabetizer is courteous hold then the duff is non-adventitial. sent10: the quark is a kind of non-hepatic thing that subtilizes lawn if there is something such that that it is not immunotherapeutic hold. sent11: if the fact that the duff is not a kind of a warhead and/or it is not a Stanton is not correct then it is not immunotherapeutic. sent12: that the wildfowl does subtilize malignity and/or is a aphasic does not hold if that the epithelium does not subtilize Labour is not incorrect. sent13: there is something such that it is a kind of phonetics thing that is a Hydnocarpus. sent14: there exists something such that it subtilizes Labour. sent15: the fact that the duff is not a warhead or it is not a Stanton or both is incorrect if it is not adventitial. sent16: if the epithelium is phonetics the wildfowl is phonetics. sent17: if there is something such that the fact that the fact that it is phonetics and is a kind of a Hydnocarpus is right is not true then the epithelium subtilizes Labour. sent18: the fact that something is not a Carmichael and not phonetics is incorrect if it does subtilize Labour.
sent1 & sent17 -> int1: the epithelium does subtilize Labour.; sent3 -> int2: the epithelium is a Carmichael.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the epithelium subtilizes Labour and is a Carmichael.; int3 -> int4: there exists something such that it subtilizes Labour and it is a Carmichael.;
the fact that the wildfowl does subtilize malignity or it is a kind of a aphasic or both is not true.
sent8 -> int5: the afterdamp is a ponce if it is not non-hepatic.; sent6 & sent7 -> int6: the alphabetizer is courteous.; sent9 & int6 -> int7: the duff is not adventitial.; sent15 & int7 -> int8: the fact that the duff is not a kind of a warhead or it is not a Stanton or both is wrong.; sent11 & int8 -> int9: the duff is not immunotherapeutic.; int9 -> int10: there is something such that it is not immunotherapeutic.; int10 & sent10 -> int11: the quark is not hepatic but it does subtilize lawn.; sent4 & int11 -> int12: the afterdamp is hepatic.; int5 & int12 -> int13: the afterdamp is a ponce.; int13 -> int14: there is something such that it is a kind of a ponce.;
$hypothesis$ = the wildfowl subtilizes malignity and/or it is a aphasic. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that that it is phonetics and it is a Hydnocarpus does not hold. sent2: if that something is not phonetics hold then the fact that the epithelium does subtilize Labour hold. sent3: the epithelium is a Carmichael but it is not an unwieldiness. sent4: that if the quark is a kind of non-hepatic thing that does subtilize lawn then the afterdamp is non-hepatic is correct. sent5: the fact that the epithelium is not an unwieldiness is not false. sent6: something is monotheistic but it is not cockney. sent7: if there is something such that it is monotheistic and not a cockney the alphabetizer is courteous. sent8: if something is hepatic it is a ponce. sent9: if the fact that the alphabetizer is courteous hold then the duff is non-adventitial. sent10: the quark is a kind of non-hepatic thing that subtilizes lawn if there is something such that that it is not immunotherapeutic hold. sent11: if the fact that the duff is not a kind of a warhead and/or it is not a Stanton is not correct then it is not immunotherapeutic. sent12: that the wildfowl does subtilize malignity and/or is a aphasic does not hold if that the epithelium does not subtilize Labour is not incorrect. sent13: there is something such that it is a kind of phonetics thing that is a Hydnocarpus. sent14: there exists something such that it subtilizes Labour. sent15: the fact that the duff is not a warhead or it is not a Stanton or both is incorrect if it is not adventitial. sent16: if the epithelium is phonetics the wildfowl is phonetics. sent17: if there is something such that the fact that the fact that it is phonetics and is a kind of a Hydnocarpus is right is not true then the epithelium subtilizes Labour. sent18: the fact that something is not a Carmichael and not phonetics is incorrect if it does subtilize Labour. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 & sent17 -> int1: the epithelium does subtilize Labour.; sent3 -> int2: the epithelium is a Carmichael.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the epithelium subtilizes Labour and is a Carmichael.; int3 -> int4: there exists something such that it subtilizes Labour and it is a Carmichael.; __UNKNOWN__