the palladium is a Rosicrucian.
sent1: the apple is a Rosicrucian if there is something such that that it is both not far and not apocryphal is not right. sent2: the fact that the apple is not Rosicrucian and is not far is wrong. sent3: if there is something such that that it is not a koan and it does not demineralize no is not right then the monoplane is a kind of a misnomer. sent4: something is both not far and not apocryphal. sent5: there is something such that that it is far and it is not apocryphal is false. sent6: if there exists something such that that it is not apocryphal and not far does not hold then the apple is a kind of a Rosicrucian. sent7: the fact that something is a kind of a channels but it does not earn is not correct if it is not an edged. sent8: if there is something such that that it is non-far thing that is not apocryphal is not right then the palladium is a Rosicrucian. sent9: the fact that the apple is not far but it is apocryphal is not true. sent10: if there exists something such that it is apocryphal the palladium is a kind of a Rosicrucian. sent11: if the valsartan is not calorimetric but it is liliaceous then it is not an edged. sent12: the fact that the fact that something is a kind of a ipecac that is Ismaili is not incorrect does not hold if it is not heterozygous. sent13: if that that something does channel and does not earn hold does not hold the fact that it is not heterozygous is not incorrect. sent14: there exists something such that that it is not far but apocryphal is not right.
the palladium is not Rosicrucian.
sent12 -> int1: if the valsartan is not heterozygous then the fact that it is a kind of a ipecac that is a Ismaili does not hold.; sent13 -> int2: the valsartan is not heterozygous if that it does channel and does not earn is wrong.; sent7 -> int3: the fact that the valsartan is a channels that does not earn is false if it is not an edged.;
$hypothesis$ = the palladium is a Rosicrucian. ; $context$ = sent1: the apple is a Rosicrucian if there is something such that that it is both not far and not apocryphal is not right. sent2: the fact that the apple is not Rosicrucian and is not far is wrong. sent3: if there is something such that that it is not a koan and it does not demineralize no is not right then the monoplane is a kind of a misnomer. sent4: something is both not far and not apocryphal. sent5: there is something such that that it is far and it is not apocryphal is false. sent6: if there exists something such that that it is not apocryphal and not far does not hold then the apple is a kind of a Rosicrucian. sent7: the fact that something is a kind of a channels but it does not earn is not correct if it is not an edged. sent8: if there is something such that that it is non-far thing that is not apocryphal is not right then the palladium is a Rosicrucian. sent9: the fact that the apple is not far but it is apocryphal is not true. sent10: if there exists something such that it is apocryphal the palladium is a kind of a Rosicrucian. sent11: if the valsartan is not calorimetric but it is liliaceous then it is not an edged. sent12: the fact that the fact that something is a kind of a ipecac that is Ismaili is not incorrect does not hold if it is not heterozygous. sent13: if that that something does channel and does not earn hold does not hold the fact that it is not heterozygous is not incorrect. sent14: there exists something such that that it is not far but apocryphal is not right. ; $proof$ = 
__UNKNOWN__