the rectus is not non-cerebral.
sent1: the rectus is revivalistic if the yenta is an arrogance. sent2: that the yenta is not caloric and it is not a kind of a partaker is not right. sent3: that the yenta is an arrogance is not false if that it is not caloric and it is not a partaker is wrong. sent4: the fact that the yenta is not caloric and is a kind of a partaker is incorrect. sent5: something is cerebral if it is revivalistic. sent6: that the yenta is both caloric and not a partaker is not true.
sent3 & sent2 -> int1: the yenta is a kind of an arrogance.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the rectus is revivalistic.; sent5 -> int3: the rectus is cerebral if it is revivalistic.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the rectus is not non-cerebral. ; $context$ = sent1: the rectus is revivalistic if the yenta is an arrogance. sent2: that the yenta is not caloric and it is not a kind of a partaker is not right. sent3: that the yenta is an arrogance is not false if that it is not caloric and it is not a partaker is wrong. sent4: the fact that the yenta is not caloric and is a kind of a partaker is incorrect. sent5: something is cerebral if it is revivalistic. sent6: that the yenta is both caloric and not a partaker is not true. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 & sent2 -> int1: the yenta is a kind of an arrogance.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the rectus is revivalistic.; sent5 -> int3: the rectus is cerebral if it is revivalistic.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__