the hogback does not corkscrew radioimmunoassay but it is a grazing.
sent1: The cock-a-doodle-doo does not coach truant. sent2: if the hydrophyte is a kind of a Ottawa then the Stone is a kind of a catananche. sent3: the truant does not coach cock-a-doodle-doo. sent4: the hydrophyte is a Ottawa if the hogback reads soteriology. sent5: if there exists something such that it does not coach cock-a-doodle-doo then the Stone is not a catananche. sent6: something that coaches moneywort does read soteriology. sent7: if the hydrophyte does not read soteriology the fact that the hogback does not corkscrew radioimmunoassay and does graze is incorrect. sent8: the hydrophyte does not read soteriology if the Stone does not coach moneywort. sent9: if the hogback corkscrews radioimmunoassay then that it coaches moneywort hold. sent10: if something corkscrews radioimmunoassay the fact that it does coach moneywort is not wrong. sent11: something coaches moneywort if the fact that it does not corkscrew radioimmunoassay and is a kind of a grazing is not correct.
sent11 -> int1: if that the hogback does not corkscrew radioimmunoassay and grazes does not hold then it coaches moneywort.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the hogback does not corkscrew radioimmunoassay but it does graze is not true.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the hogback coaches moneywort.; sent6 -> int3: if the hogback does coach moneywort then it reads soteriology.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the hogback does read soteriology.; int4 & sent4 -> int5: that the hydrophyte is a Ottawa is not false.; int5 & sent2 -> int6: the Stone is a catananche.; sent3 -> int7: something does not coach cock-a-doodle-doo.; int7 & sent5 -> int8: the Stone is not a catananche.; int6 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the hogback does not corkscrew radioimmunoassay but it does graze is wrong.
$hypothesis$ = the hogback does not corkscrew radioimmunoassay but it is a grazing. ; $context$ = sent1: The cock-a-doodle-doo does not coach truant. sent2: if the hydrophyte is a kind of a Ottawa then the Stone is a kind of a catananche. sent3: the truant does not coach cock-a-doodle-doo. sent4: the hydrophyte is a Ottawa if the hogback reads soteriology. sent5: if there exists something such that it does not coach cock-a-doodle-doo then the Stone is not a catananche. sent6: something that coaches moneywort does read soteriology. sent7: if the hydrophyte does not read soteriology the fact that the hogback does not corkscrew radioimmunoassay and does graze is incorrect. sent8: the hydrophyte does not read soteriology if the Stone does not coach moneywort. sent9: if the hogback corkscrews radioimmunoassay then that it coaches moneywort hold. sent10: if something corkscrews radioimmunoassay the fact that it does coach moneywort is not wrong. sent11: something coaches moneywort if the fact that it does not corkscrew radioimmunoassay and is a kind of a grazing is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent11 -> int1: if that the hogback does not corkscrew radioimmunoassay and grazes does not hold then it coaches moneywort.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the hogback does not corkscrew radioimmunoassay but it does graze is not true.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the hogback coaches moneywort.; sent6 -> int3: if the hogback does coach moneywort then it reads soteriology.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the hogback does read soteriology.; int4 & sent4 -> int5: that the hydrophyte is a Ottawa is not false.; int5 & sent2 -> int6: the Stone is a catananche.; sent3 -> int7: something does not coach cock-a-doodle-doo.; int7 & sent5 -> int8: the Stone is not a catananche.; int6 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__