there is something such that that it does not gate adhesiveness is not wrong.
sent1: if the fact that the llama is perianal hold the Mountie is a leaf-cutter. sent2: if something that is a Duralumin is not apiarian then it is not a leaf-cutter. sent3: the fact that the fact that the llama is perianal thing that is not fruitful is false is right. sent4: if the llama does gate adhesiveness then that the glen is not perianal is right. sent5: if the Mountie is a leaf-cutter the glen does not gate adhesiveness. sent6: that the llama is a kind of non-perianal thing that is not fruitful is not right. sent7: if that the llama is both not a leaf-cutter and not perianal does not hold the Mountie is fruitful. sent8: the fact that the llama does not gate adhesiveness and it does not achromatize utterer is false if the Mountie is not a leaf-cutter. sent9: that the Mountie is not a leaf-cutter and is not perianal is not correct. sent10: something gates adhesiveness. sent11: if that something does not gate adhesiveness and it does not achromatize utterer does not hold it achromatize utterer. sent12: if the fact that the llama is both not perianal and not fruitful does not hold then the Mountie is a leaf-cutter. sent13: the Mountie is not fruitful if the llama is a leaf-cutter.
sent12 & sent6 -> int1: the Mountie is a kind of a leaf-cutter.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the glen does not gate adhesiveness.; int2 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the fact that the cannabin does not achromatize utterer and it is not meager is not correct is not incorrect.
sent11 -> int3: if the fact that the llama does not gate adhesiveness and does not achromatize utterer is not true then it achromatize utterer.; sent2 -> int4: the Mountie is not a kind of a leaf-cutter if it is a Duralumin that is non-apiarian.;
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that that it does not gate adhesiveness is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the llama is perianal hold the Mountie is a leaf-cutter. sent2: if something that is a Duralumin is not apiarian then it is not a leaf-cutter. sent3: the fact that the fact that the llama is perianal thing that is not fruitful is false is right. sent4: if the llama does gate adhesiveness then that the glen is not perianal is right. sent5: if the Mountie is a leaf-cutter the glen does not gate adhesiveness. sent6: that the llama is a kind of non-perianal thing that is not fruitful is not right. sent7: if that the llama is both not a leaf-cutter and not perianal does not hold the Mountie is fruitful. sent8: the fact that the llama does not gate adhesiveness and it does not achromatize utterer is false if the Mountie is not a leaf-cutter. sent9: that the Mountie is not a leaf-cutter and is not perianal is not correct. sent10: something gates adhesiveness. sent11: if that something does not gate adhesiveness and it does not achromatize utterer does not hold it achromatize utterer. sent12: if the fact that the llama is both not perianal and not fruitful does not hold then the Mountie is a leaf-cutter. sent13: the Mountie is not fruitful if the llama is a leaf-cutter. ; $proof$ = 
sent12 & sent6 -> int1: the Mountie is a kind of a leaf-cutter.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the glen does not gate adhesiveness.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__