the stumpknocker is not a totemism.
sent1: that the grapevine is not a detachment is not incorrect if there exists something such that that it does disentangle and it is a stylet is false. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it disentangles and is a kind of a stylet does not hold then the stumpknocker is not a totemism. sent3: everything is not basiscopic. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it does disentangle and it is a totemism does not hold. sent5: something is a detachment that disentangles. sent6: the fact that the ally is not an elephant is not wrong if that the vomitory is a kind of a totemism and it is a kind of a detachment is incorrect. sent7: that the grapevine is both a totemism and a stylet is false. sent8: that the vomitory is a totemism and is a detachment does not hold. sent9: there exists something such that it does disentangle and it is a stylet. sent10: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a stylet and is a detachment is not right. sent11: if there exists something such that it is not a stylet then the stumpknocker is not a totemism. sent12: if the vomitory does not disentangle that the grapevine is a totemism and it is a detachment does not hold. sent13: the grapevine is not a Wyrd if there exists something such that it does not harshen stumpknocker. sent14: if there is something such that it is not a totemism then the stumpknocker is not a detachment. sent15: the fact that either something bombards or it does not beset or both is wrong if it is not basiscopic. sent16: if the vomitory is not a detachment then that the grapevine is a totemism and a stylet is false. sent17: the grapevine is not a kind of a totemism if there exists something such that it is not a stylet. sent18: the vomitory is not a kind of a detachment. sent19: that the grapevine is a kind of a stylet that is a detachment is incorrect. sent20: the playback is not appellate.
the ally is not an elephant.
$hypothesis$ = the stumpknocker is not a totemism. ; $context$ = sent1: that the grapevine is not a detachment is not incorrect if there exists something such that that it does disentangle and it is a stylet is false. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it disentangles and is a kind of a stylet does not hold then the stumpknocker is not a totemism. sent3: everything is not basiscopic. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it does disentangle and it is a totemism does not hold. sent5: something is a detachment that disentangles. sent6: the fact that the ally is not an elephant is not wrong if that the vomitory is a kind of a totemism and it is a kind of a detachment is incorrect. sent7: that the grapevine is both a totemism and a stylet is false. sent8: that the vomitory is a totemism and is a detachment does not hold. sent9: there exists something such that it does disentangle and it is a stylet. sent10: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a stylet and is a detachment is not right. sent11: if there exists something such that it is not a stylet then the stumpknocker is not a totemism. sent12: if the vomitory does not disentangle that the grapevine is a totemism and it is a detachment does not hold. sent13: the grapevine is not a Wyrd if there exists something such that it does not harshen stumpknocker. sent14: if there is something such that it is not a totemism then the stumpknocker is not a detachment. sent15: the fact that either something bombards or it does not beset or both is wrong if it is not basiscopic. sent16: if the vomitory is not a detachment then that the grapevine is a totemism and a stylet is false. sent17: the grapevine is not a kind of a totemism if there exists something such that it is not a stylet. sent18: the vomitory is not a kind of a detachment. sent19: that the grapevine is a kind of a stylet that is a detachment is incorrect. sent20: the playback is not appellate. ; $proof$ = 
__UNKNOWN__