the deerberry unpicks.
sent1: that the deerberry does unpick hold if the graphologist does describe Rappahannock. sent2: if the fact that the studio is not non-accessional hold that the graphologist is fore is right. sent3: the parchment is a kind of a surge that is a kind of a keeshond. sent4: if the parchment is a kind of a surge then the studio is accessional. sent5: if something is not non-fore then the fact that it describes Rappahannock is not wrong. sent6: the parchment is a keeshond and it is fore. sent7: the parchment is a keeshond.
sent3 -> int1: the parchment does surge.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: that the studio is accessional is not false.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: the graphologist is fore.; sent5 -> int4: if the graphologist is fore the fact that it does describe Rappahannock is true.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the graphologist describes Rappahannock.; int5 & sent1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the deerberry unpicks. ; $context$ = sent1: that the deerberry does unpick hold if the graphologist does describe Rappahannock. sent2: if the fact that the studio is not non-accessional hold that the graphologist is fore is right. sent3: the parchment is a kind of a surge that is a kind of a keeshond. sent4: if the parchment is a kind of a surge then the studio is accessional. sent5: if something is not non-fore then the fact that it describes Rappahannock is not wrong. sent6: the parchment is a keeshond and it is fore. sent7: the parchment is a keeshond. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 -> int1: the parchment does surge.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: that the studio is accessional is not false.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: the graphologist is fore.; sent5 -> int4: if the graphologist is fore the fact that it does describe Rappahannock is true.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the graphologist describes Rappahannock.; int5 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__