something is birefringent thing that galls blackjack.
sent1: if something is a navicular then it does gall blackjack. sent2: something that does gall blackjack is unfruitful. sent3: if that the great-niece is unfruitful hold then it does gall blackjack. sent4: the abstainer is not non-Saharan. sent5: that the abstainer does variegate restatement is not incorrect. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it galls blackjack is not incorrect. sent7: there is something such that it is a kind of a Saharan and it is generative. sent8: there is something such that it variegates pisser and it is birefringent. sent9: the great-niece is both unfruitful and not occlusive. sent10: something is a digestive if it is pyrotechnics. sent11: if the great-niece is birefringent it is occlusive. sent12: the abstainer is ponderable. sent13: The pisser does variegate abstainer. sent14: something is birefringent. sent15: the abstainer is a grounds if it does disoblige poser. sent16: the great-niece does variegate pisser. sent17: the elemi is unfruitful. sent18: the abstainer is birefringent if the great-niece is unfruitful. sent19: the abstainer is unfruitful. sent20: if that the abstainer does variegate pisser is not false it is occlusive. sent21: if the chlorite is birefringent it is extinct. sent22: the abstainer is a navicular if it variegates pisser. sent23: the great-niece is a Cambodian but it does not variegate shop. sent24: that the blackjack is unfruitful hold. sent25: the abstainer does variegate pisser. sent26: the great-niece is not occlusive.
sent9 -> int1: the great-niece is unfruitful.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the abstainer is birefringent.; sent1 -> int3: if the fact that the abstainer is a kind of a navicular is not wrong it does gall blackjack.; sent22 & sent25 -> int4: the fact that the abstainer is a navicular hold.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the abstainer does gall blackjack.; int2 & int5 -> int6: the abstainer is birefringent and it does gall blackjack.; int6 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = something is birefringent thing that galls blackjack. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a navicular then it does gall blackjack. sent2: something that does gall blackjack is unfruitful. sent3: if that the great-niece is unfruitful hold then it does gall blackjack. sent4: the abstainer is not non-Saharan. sent5: that the abstainer does variegate restatement is not incorrect. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it galls blackjack is not incorrect. sent7: there is something such that it is a kind of a Saharan and it is generative. sent8: there is something such that it variegates pisser and it is birefringent. sent9: the great-niece is both unfruitful and not occlusive. sent10: something is a digestive if it is pyrotechnics. sent11: if the great-niece is birefringent it is occlusive. sent12: the abstainer is ponderable. sent13: The pisser does variegate abstainer. sent14: something is birefringent. sent15: the abstainer is a grounds if it does disoblige poser. sent16: the great-niece does variegate pisser. sent17: the elemi is unfruitful. sent18: the abstainer is birefringent if the great-niece is unfruitful. sent19: the abstainer is unfruitful. sent20: if that the abstainer does variegate pisser is not false it is occlusive. sent21: if the chlorite is birefringent it is extinct. sent22: the abstainer is a navicular if it variegates pisser. sent23: the great-niece is a Cambodian but it does not variegate shop. sent24: that the blackjack is unfruitful hold. sent25: the abstainer does variegate pisser. sent26: the great-niece is not occlusive. ; $proof$ = 
sent9 -> int1: the great-niece is unfruitful.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the abstainer is birefringent.; sent1 -> int3: if the fact that the abstainer is a kind of a navicular is not wrong it does gall blackjack.; sent22 & sent25 -> int4: the fact that the abstainer is a navicular hold.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the abstainer does gall blackjack.; int2 & int5 -> int6: the abstainer is birefringent and it does gall blackjack.; int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__