the fact that the bacteriologist is a multitude is right.
sent1: the bacteriologist is a kind of a gagman and does motley. sent2: the thermel is a wailer if the fact that the shopaholic does not justify shopaholic but it is upland is not correct. sent3: if the thermel does not justify dauntlessness and/or it is a Lycium then the shopaholic is not a capillarity. sent4: that something does justify succession and is not upland is not true if it is not a wailer. sent5: there exists something such that it justifies succession. sent6: if the shopaholic is a wailer it is upland. sent7: something is a multitude. sent8: the succession does justify shopaholic if there is something such that the fact that it does justify succession and is non-upland is incorrect. sent9: the osmund does justify dauntlessness if the succession is a capillarity but it is not a wailer. sent10: the bacteriologist is cytotoxic if there is something such that it justifies dauntlessness and is a Lycium. sent11: if that the bacteriologist is cytotoxic is not false it is a kind of a multitude. sent12: the succession is a capillarity and not a wailer if the thermel is a kind of a wailer. sent13: the fact that the thermel is a theist is true if the osmund is a gagman. sent14: if something that is not a multitude is not a kind of a Santiago it is not cytotoxic. sent15: the osmund is a gagman if the bacteriologist is a gagman. sent16: something is a Lycium. sent17: if something is not a kind of a Lycium that it does not justify dauntlessness and it is not a capillarity is not correct. sent18: either the thermel does not justify dauntlessness or it is a Lycium or both. sent19: the thermel is a kind of a wailer if the shopaholic justifies shopaholic. sent20: the shopaholic is not a multitude and it is not a Santiago if the thermel is a kind of a theist. sent21: if something is not cytotoxic then it is not a Lycium. sent22: the succession is a capillarity if the thermel is a kind of a wailer. sent23: if the fact that something is not a capillarity is not false then the fact that it is not a wailer and is upland is false. sent24: the osmund is a Lycium. sent25: the fact that the fact that the shopaholic does not justify shopaholic but it is not non-upland does not hold hold if something justifies succession.
sent5 & sent25 -> int1: that the shopaholic does not justify shopaholic but it is upland is false.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the thermel is a kind of a wailer.; int2 & sent12 -> int3: the succession is a capillarity but not a wailer.; int3 & sent9 -> int4: the osmund justifies dauntlessness.; int4 & sent24 -> int5: the osmund does justify dauntlessness and it is a kind of a Lycium.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it does justify dauntlessness and is a Lycium.; int6 & sent10 -> int7: the bacteriologist is cytotoxic.; int7 & sent11 -> hypothesis;
the bacteriologist is not a multitude.
sent23 -> int8: the fact that the shopaholic is not a wailer but it is upland is not correct if it is not a capillarity.; sent3 & sent18 -> int9: the shopaholic is not a kind of a capillarity.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the fact that the shopaholic is not a wailer but upland does not hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the bacteriologist is a multitude is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the bacteriologist is a kind of a gagman and does motley. sent2: the thermel is a wailer if the fact that the shopaholic does not justify shopaholic but it is upland is not correct. sent3: if the thermel does not justify dauntlessness and/or it is a Lycium then the shopaholic is not a capillarity. sent4: that something does justify succession and is not upland is not true if it is not a wailer. sent5: there exists something such that it justifies succession. sent6: if the shopaholic is a wailer it is upland. sent7: something is a multitude. sent8: the succession does justify shopaholic if there is something such that the fact that it does justify succession and is non-upland is incorrect. sent9: the osmund does justify dauntlessness if the succession is a capillarity but it is not a wailer. sent10: the bacteriologist is cytotoxic if there is something such that it justifies dauntlessness and is a Lycium. sent11: if that the bacteriologist is cytotoxic is not false it is a kind of a multitude. sent12: the succession is a capillarity and not a wailer if the thermel is a kind of a wailer. sent13: the fact that the thermel is a theist is true if the osmund is a gagman. sent14: if something that is not a multitude is not a kind of a Santiago it is not cytotoxic. sent15: the osmund is a gagman if the bacteriologist is a gagman. sent16: something is a Lycium. sent17: if something is not a kind of a Lycium that it does not justify dauntlessness and it is not a capillarity is not correct. sent18: either the thermel does not justify dauntlessness or it is a Lycium or both. sent19: the thermel is a kind of a wailer if the shopaholic justifies shopaholic. sent20: the shopaholic is not a multitude and it is not a Santiago if the thermel is a kind of a theist. sent21: if something is not cytotoxic then it is not a Lycium. sent22: the succession is a capillarity if the thermel is a kind of a wailer. sent23: if the fact that something is not a capillarity is not false then the fact that it is not a wailer and is upland is false. sent24: the osmund is a Lycium. sent25: the fact that the fact that the shopaholic does not justify shopaholic but it is not non-upland does not hold hold if something justifies succession. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 & sent25 -> int1: that the shopaholic does not justify shopaholic but it is upland is false.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the thermel is a kind of a wailer.; int2 & sent12 -> int3: the succession is a capillarity but not a wailer.; int3 & sent9 -> int4: the osmund justifies dauntlessness.; int4 & sent24 -> int5: the osmund does justify dauntlessness and it is a kind of a Lycium.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it does justify dauntlessness and is a Lycium.; int6 & sent10 -> int7: the bacteriologist is cytotoxic.; int7 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__