the umber is intelligible.
sent1: the fact that something is not non-epileptic but it does not urinate is incorrect if it is not menstrual. sent2: if the fact that the zebra is menopausal and it is a angelus is incorrect the umber is not intelligible. sent3: if something is not menopausal that it is both not epileptic and not a angelus is false. sent4: the umber is not menopausal if there exists something such that it is not a orienting. sent5: the salmonid does not brazen duplicate. sent6: there is something such that it is not a vision and does encourage neurobiologist. sent7: if the salmonid is not a nearness then it is non-menstrual and avascular. sent8: that something is a kind of menopausal thing that is a angelus does not hold if it is not an epileptic. sent9: if the salmonid does not brazen duplicate then it does not override lady and it is a kind of a hinge. sent10: that something is a kind of non-epileptic a angelus is not true if it is not menopausal. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it is not a rip and it is a kind of a orienting is not true. sent12: if something that does not override lady is a hinge then it is not a kind of a nearness. sent13: the umber is intelligible if the fact that it is not an epileptic and it is not a angelus does not hold.
sent3 -> int1: that the umber is not an epileptic and it is not a kind of a angelus is not correct if it is not menopausal.;
the umber is not intelligible.
sent8 -> int2: if the zebra is not a kind of an epileptic then that it is menopausal and it is a angelus is false.; sent1 -> int3: the fact that the salmonid is a kind of an epileptic and does not urinate is not correct if it is not menstrual.; sent12 -> int4: if the salmonid does not override lady but it does hinge it is not a kind of a nearness.; sent9 & sent5 -> int5: the salmonid does not override lady but it does hinge.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the salmonid is not a nearness.; sent7 & int6 -> int7: the salmonid is not menstrual and is avascular.; int7 -> int8: the salmonid is not menstrual.; int3 & int8 -> int9: the fact that the salmonid is a kind of an epileptic that does not urinate does not hold.; int9 -> int10: there is something such that that it is an epileptic and it does not urinate is not correct.;
$hypothesis$ = the umber is intelligible. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is not non-epileptic but it does not urinate is incorrect if it is not menstrual. sent2: if the fact that the zebra is menopausal and it is a angelus is incorrect the umber is not intelligible. sent3: if something is not menopausal that it is both not epileptic and not a angelus is false. sent4: the umber is not menopausal if there exists something such that it is not a orienting. sent5: the salmonid does not brazen duplicate. sent6: there is something such that it is not a vision and does encourage neurobiologist. sent7: if the salmonid is not a nearness then it is non-menstrual and avascular. sent8: that something is a kind of menopausal thing that is a angelus does not hold if it is not an epileptic. sent9: if the salmonid does not brazen duplicate then it does not override lady and it is a kind of a hinge. sent10: that something is a kind of non-epileptic a angelus is not true if it is not menopausal. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it is not a rip and it is a kind of a orienting is not true. sent12: if something that does not override lady is a hinge then it is not a kind of a nearness. sent13: the umber is intelligible if the fact that it is not an epileptic and it is not a angelus does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 -> int1: that the umber is not an epileptic and it is not a kind of a angelus is not correct if it is not menopausal.; __UNKNOWN__