if the scyphus does not glamorize Pyrrhus then the rhumb is not a gook.
sent1: the fact that the scyphus is not a gook is not false if the rhumb does not glamorize Pyrrhus. sent2: that the thimbleberry is benzenoid and/or it is a ACE is wrong if it is non-archegonial. sent3: if the scyphus does not glamorize Pyrrhus then the rhumb is a gook. sent4: the scyphus is not unidentifiable if it does not glamorize Pyrrhus. sent5: that that the scyphus either is unidentifiable or is a pyroxylin or both is correct does not hold. sent6: the rhumb does not glamorize Pyrrhus if the fact that either the scyphus is unidentifiable or it is a gook or both is wrong. sent7: the shirtsleeve does glamorize Pyrrhus but it is not a gook if the scyphus is not a macrencephaly. sent8: that the vaulting is a Josephus that does not glamorize breakaway is false if that the knobkerrie is a terreplein is true. sent9: the knobkerrie is a terreplein. sent10: the scyphus does not glamorize Pyrrhus if the fact that the rhumb is a gook and/or unidentifiable is not right. sent11: the rhumb is not a kind of a gook if the scyphus does glamorize Pyrrhus. sent12: if the nudist does not enthuse then that it is unidentifiable or it is a etiolation or both is not correct. sent13: if that the scyphus is a kind of a gook and/or does glamorize Pyrrhus is incorrect then the rhumb is not unidentifiable. sent14: something is not baptismal if it is a kind of a secondo. sent15: the scyphus is not a kind of a macrencephaly if the rhumb is not baptismal. sent16: the fact that the scyphus is unidentifiable and/or it is a ACE does not hold if it does glamorize Pyrrhus. sent17: the fact that either the rhumb does unsaddle or it is a ACE or both is not correct. sent18: if the scyphus does not glamorize Pyrrhus then that it is unidentifiable and/or is a kind of a ACE is false. sent19: the fact that if the rhumb does not glamorize Pyrrhus then that either the rhumb is a ACE or it is a gook or both is not correct hold. sent20: the scyphus is not unidentifiable.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the scyphus does not glamorize Pyrrhus.; sent18 & assump1 -> int1: that the scyphus is unidentifiable and/or a ACE is incorrect.;
the shirtsleeve is not a gook.
sent14 -> int2: the rhumb is not baptismal if that it is a secondo is not wrong.; sent8 & sent9 -> int3: the fact that the vaulting is a Josephus and does not glamorize breakaway is not true.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that that it is a kind of a Josephus that does not glamorize breakaway does not hold.;
$hypothesis$ = if the scyphus does not glamorize Pyrrhus then the rhumb is not a gook. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the scyphus is not a gook is not false if the rhumb does not glamorize Pyrrhus. sent2: that the thimbleberry is benzenoid and/or it is a ACE is wrong if it is non-archegonial. sent3: if the scyphus does not glamorize Pyrrhus then the rhumb is a gook. sent4: the scyphus is not unidentifiable if it does not glamorize Pyrrhus. sent5: that that the scyphus either is unidentifiable or is a pyroxylin or both is correct does not hold. sent6: the rhumb does not glamorize Pyrrhus if the fact that either the scyphus is unidentifiable or it is a gook or both is wrong. sent7: the shirtsleeve does glamorize Pyrrhus but it is not a gook if the scyphus is not a macrencephaly. sent8: that the vaulting is a Josephus that does not glamorize breakaway is false if that the knobkerrie is a terreplein is true. sent9: the knobkerrie is a terreplein. sent10: the scyphus does not glamorize Pyrrhus if the fact that the rhumb is a gook and/or unidentifiable is not right. sent11: the rhumb is not a kind of a gook if the scyphus does glamorize Pyrrhus. sent12: if the nudist does not enthuse then that it is unidentifiable or it is a etiolation or both is not correct. sent13: if that the scyphus is a kind of a gook and/or does glamorize Pyrrhus is incorrect then the rhumb is not unidentifiable. sent14: something is not baptismal if it is a kind of a secondo. sent15: the scyphus is not a kind of a macrencephaly if the rhumb is not baptismal. sent16: the fact that the scyphus is unidentifiable and/or it is a ACE does not hold if it does glamorize Pyrrhus. sent17: the fact that either the rhumb does unsaddle or it is a ACE or both is not correct. sent18: if the scyphus does not glamorize Pyrrhus then that it is unidentifiable and/or is a kind of a ACE is false. sent19: the fact that if the rhumb does not glamorize Pyrrhus then that either the rhumb is a ACE or it is a gook or both is not correct hold. sent20: the scyphus is not unidentifiable. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the scyphus does not glamorize Pyrrhus.; sent18 & assump1 -> int1: that the scyphus is unidentifiable and/or a ACE is incorrect.; __UNKNOWN__