the Swede is both not a gynecologist and not a asceticism.
sent1: if the intoxicant is not a kind of a innovativeness the fact that the Swede is a kind of a gynecologist and is not a kind of a asceticism does not hold. sent2: the fact that the Swede is not a kind of a gynecologist but it is a asceticism does not hold. sent3: if an abdominal is archdiocesan then the intoxicant is not a innovativeness. sent4: there exists something such that it is an abdominal and archdiocesan. sent5: that the Swede is a gynecologist but it is not a kind of a asceticism is wrong. sent6: something is a kind of a innovativeness. sent7: something is archdiocesan. sent8: that the Swede is not a kind of a gynecologist and is not a asceticism is false if the intoxicant is not a innovativeness. sent9: something that does resent Bambusa and is not a kind of a innovativeness is archdiocesan. sent10: if the intoxicant is not a kind of a innovativeness then that the Swede is not a gynecologist but it is a asceticism is not right. sent11: an abdominal thing is not a gynecologist and is not a asceticism. sent12: if the intoxicant conveys the Swede resents Bambusa and is not a innovativeness.
sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the intoxicant is not a innovativeness.; sent8 & int1 -> hypothesis;
the Swede is not a gynecologist and it is not a asceticism.
sent11 -> int2: if the Swede is an abdominal then it is not a gynecologist and it is not a asceticism.; sent9 -> int3: if the Swede resents Bambusa and is not a kind of a innovativeness it is archdiocesan.;
$hypothesis$ = the Swede is both not a gynecologist and not a asceticism. ; $context$ = sent1: if the intoxicant is not a kind of a innovativeness the fact that the Swede is a kind of a gynecologist and is not a kind of a asceticism does not hold. sent2: the fact that the Swede is not a kind of a gynecologist but it is a asceticism does not hold. sent3: if an abdominal is archdiocesan then the intoxicant is not a innovativeness. sent4: there exists something such that it is an abdominal and archdiocesan. sent5: that the Swede is a gynecologist but it is not a kind of a asceticism is wrong. sent6: something is a kind of a innovativeness. sent7: something is archdiocesan. sent8: that the Swede is not a kind of a gynecologist and is not a asceticism is false if the intoxicant is not a innovativeness. sent9: something that does resent Bambusa and is not a kind of a innovativeness is archdiocesan. sent10: if the intoxicant is not a kind of a innovativeness then that the Swede is not a gynecologist but it is a asceticism is not right. sent11: an abdominal thing is not a gynecologist and is not a asceticism. sent12: if the intoxicant conveys the Swede resents Bambusa and is not a innovativeness. ; $proof$ = 
sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the intoxicant is not a innovativeness.; sent8 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__