the fact that the suricate decoys stoner and does not exalt is wrong.
sent1: that the suricate decoys stoner and does exalt is incorrect. sent2: the fact that the fistula does not decoy Apia and it is not a clairvoyant is false if there exists something such that it is subsurface. sent3: if the fact that something is subsurface hold that the fistula does not decoy Apia but it is a kind of a clairvoyant is not right. sent4: the fistula is a kind of a grindstone. sent5: that the suricate does decoy stoner and exalts is incorrect if the fact that the fistula does not exalts is correct. sent6: something is subsurface. sent7: that the adenoid is not a grindstone hold if it is not a kind of a principality. sent8: the fact that something is a clairvoyant but it does not exalt does not hold if it is not responsive. sent9: if that the adenoid is not responsive and/or it is not a kind of a clairvoyant is false then the fistula does decoy Apia. sent10: there exists something such that it does exalt. sent11: if that something is a clairvoyant and does not exalt is not true it is not a kind of a clairvoyant. sent12: that the fistula does not decoy Apia and is a clairvoyant does not hold. sent13: if something is responsive and it exalts then the adenoid is a grindstone. sent14: the fact that something decoys Apia and it is subsurface does not hold if it is not a clairvoyant. sent15: the fistula is responsive if it is a clairvoyant. sent16: the fact that the fact that the adenoid is not the grindstone is right if that the adenoid is a principality and it does institute is not correct is not false. sent17: that the suricate decoys stoner and does not exalt is not right if the fistula does not exalt. sent18: the fact that there is something such that it is responsive is correct. sent19: if the fact that the fistula does not decoy Apia and is not a kind of a clairvoyant is not true then it is responsive.
sent6 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the fistula does not decoy Apia and it is not a clairvoyant is wrong.; int1 & sent19 -> int2: the fistula is responsive.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the fistula exalts is not incorrect.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the fistula is responsive and it does exalt.; int3 -> int4: there exists something such that it is a kind of responsive thing that does exalt.; int4 & sent13 -> int5: the adenoid is a kind of a grindstone.;
the suricate does decoy stoner and does not exalt.
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the suricate decoys stoner and does not exalt is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: that the suricate decoys stoner and does exalt is incorrect. sent2: the fact that the fistula does not decoy Apia and it is not a clairvoyant is false if there exists something such that it is subsurface. sent3: if the fact that something is subsurface hold that the fistula does not decoy Apia but it is a kind of a clairvoyant is not right. sent4: the fistula is a kind of a grindstone. sent5: that the suricate does decoy stoner and exalts is incorrect if the fact that the fistula does not exalts is correct. sent6: something is subsurface. sent7: that the adenoid is not a grindstone hold if it is not a kind of a principality. sent8: the fact that something is a clairvoyant but it does not exalt does not hold if it is not responsive. sent9: if that the adenoid is not responsive and/or it is not a kind of a clairvoyant is false then the fistula does decoy Apia. sent10: there exists something such that it does exalt. sent11: if that something is a clairvoyant and does not exalt is not true it is not a kind of a clairvoyant. sent12: that the fistula does not decoy Apia and is a clairvoyant does not hold. sent13: if something is responsive and it exalts then the adenoid is a grindstone. sent14: the fact that something decoys Apia and it is subsurface does not hold if it is not a clairvoyant. sent15: the fistula is responsive if it is a clairvoyant. sent16: the fact that the fact that the adenoid is not the grindstone is right if that the adenoid is a principality and it does institute is not correct is not false. sent17: that the suricate decoys stoner and does not exalt is not right if the fistula does not exalt. sent18: the fact that there is something such that it is responsive is correct. sent19: if the fact that the fistula does not decoy Apia and is not a kind of a clairvoyant is not true then it is responsive. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the fistula does not decoy Apia and it is not a clairvoyant is wrong.; int1 & sent19 -> int2: the fistula is responsive.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the fistula exalts is not incorrect.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the fistula is responsive and it does exalt.; int3 -> int4: there exists something such that it is a kind of responsive thing that does exalt.; int4 & sent13 -> int5: the adenoid is a kind of a grindstone.; __UNKNOWN__