the fact that the ouster is a cholangiography hold if the Pilsner does fix euro.
sent1: the fact that the Yankee is contractual and not a cholangiography is not right. sent2: if the ouster is not a chocolate the savin insulates. sent3: if that the savin fixes euro but it is not contractual is false then the Yankee is contractual. sent4: the Pilsner fixes euro if the fact that the Yankee is both contractual and not Laos does not hold. sent5: the Pilsner does not fix euro if the Yankee is a kind of a Laos. sent6: the fact that the Yankee is contractual but it is not a Laos is not true if the savin does insulate. sent7: the ouster is a kind of a cholangiography if that either it is not stable or it is not a chocolate or both is not correct. sent8: the fundamentalist does not article perambulation and/or it does not insulate. sent9: if the ouster is a kind of a chocolate the fact that the Yankee is a kind of a cholangiography but it is not contractual is not correct. sent10: that the ouster does stable but it does not insulate is incorrect if the Pilsner does fix euro. sent11: the savin is a stable if the ouster does not insulate. sent12: if the ouster is not a stable then the savin insulates. sent13: the Yankee is not a chocolate and/or is not contractual. sent14: the fact that the Yankee is a kind of contractual a Laos is not correct. sent15: the Yankee is a papoose. sent16: if the Yankee is not non-contractual and not non-Laos it does not insulate. sent17: the fact that the savin is not stable is right. sent18: if the savin does insulate that the fact that the Yankee is contractual and it is Laos is incorrect hold.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the ouster does not stable and/or it is not a kind of a chocolate.; assump2 & sent12 & sent2 -> int1: the savin insulates.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: that the Yankee is contractual but it is not a Laos is not correct.;
the sawfly is not a cholangiography.
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the ouster is a cholangiography hold if the Pilsner does fix euro. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Yankee is contractual and not a cholangiography is not right. sent2: if the ouster is not a chocolate the savin insulates. sent3: if that the savin fixes euro but it is not contractual is false then the Yankee is contractual. sent4: the Pilsner fixes euro if the fact that the Yankee is both contractual and not Laos does not hold. sent5: the Pilsner does not fix euro if the Yankee is a kind of a Laos. sent6: the fact that the Yankee is contractual but it is not a Laos is not true if the savin does insulate. sent7: the ouster is a kind of a cholangiography if that either it is not stable or it is not a chocolate or both is not correct. sent8: the fundamentalist does not article perambulation and/or it does not insulate. sent9: if the ouster is a kind of a chocolate the fact that the Yankee is a kind of a cholangiography but it is not contractual is not correct. sent10: that the ouster does stable but it does not insulate is incorrect if the Pilsner does fix euro. sent11: the savin is a stable if the ouster does not insulate. sent12: if the ouster is not a stable then the savin insulates. sent13: the Yankee is not a chocolate and/or is not contractual. sent14: the fact that the Yankee is a kind of contractual a Laos is not correct. sent15: the Yankee is a papoose. sent16: if the Yankee is not non-contractual and not non-Laos it does not insulate. sent17: the fact that the savin is not stable is right. sent18: if the savin does insulate that the fact that the Yankee is contractual and it is Laos is incorrect hold. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the ouster does not stable and/or it is not a kind of a chocolate.; assump2 & sent12 & sent2 -> int1: the savin insulates.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: that the Yankee is contractual but it is not a Laos is not correct.; __UNKNOWN__