the dietary does convoy megathere.
sent1: if something that is a polydactyly does forward that it does not convoy megathere is true. sent2: if something does decamp the fact that it is non-monovalent and it is a kind of a propanediol is not correct. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it offers infiltration and is summery is not true. sent4: the mademoiselle does offer infiltration but it does not convoy pounding if it does not offer highbinder. sent5: the fact that the culvert does elapse and does convoy pounding is wrong. sent6: the mademoiselle does not offer highbinder if it is not a kind of a polydactyly and it is not a kind of a paca. sent7: if the polemics offers highbinder the dietary is a polydactyly. sent8: if the culvert elapses and is summery it does not convoy pounding. sent9: everything is an acuity. sent10: if the polemics is a paca the dietary is a kind of a polydactyly. sent11: if the polemics convoys megathere the dietary convoys megathere. sent12: if there exists something such that it does elapse the polemics does not offer infiltration. sent13: the dietary is both summery and forward. sent14: the fact that something does not elapse and does convoy pounding does not hold if it is an acuity. sent15: the mademoiselle is not a polydactyly. sent16: if there exists something such that that it does not elapse and it does convoy pounding is not right then the polemics does not offer infiltration. sent17: if the culvert is an acuity the fact that it does elapse and does convoy pounding does not hold. sent18: something is a paca or offers highbinder or both if it does not offer infiltration.
sent9 -> int1: the culvert is an acuity.; sent14 -> int2: the fact that the culvert does not elapse and convoys pounding is incorrect if it is an acuity.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the culvert does not elapse and convoys pounding is false.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that that it does not elapse and does convoy pounding does not hold.; int4 & sent16 -> int5: the fact that the polemics does not offer infiltration is correct.; sent18 -> int6: if the polemics does not offer infiltration then either it is a paca or it offers highbinder or both.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the polemics is a kind of a paca and/or it does offer highbinder.; int7 & sent10 & sent7 -> int8: the dietary is a polydactyly.; sent13 -> int9: the dietary is forward.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the dietary is a polydactyly and it is forward.; sent1 -> int11: if the dietary is a polydactyly and is a forward then the fact that it does not convoy megathere is not incorrect.; int10 & int11 -> hypothesis;
the dietary does convoy megathere.
$hypothesis$ = the dietary does convoy megathere. ; $context$ = sent1: if something that is a polydactyly does forward that it does not convoy megathere is true. sent2: if something does decamp the fact that it is non-monovalent and it is a kind of a propanediol is not correct. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it offers infiltration and is summery is not true. sent4: the mademoiselle does offer infiltration but it does not convoy pounding if it does not offer highbinder. sent5: the fact that the culvert does elapse and does convoy pounding is wrong. sent6: the mademoiselle does not offer highbinder if it is not a kind of a polydactyly and it is not a kind of a paca. sent7: if the polemics offers highbinder the dietary is a polydactyly. sent8: if the culvert elapses and is summery it does not convoy pounding. sent9: everything is an acuity. sent10: if the polemics is a paca the dietary is a kind of a polydactyly. sent11: if the polemics convoys megathere the dietary convoys megathere. sent12: if there exists something such that it does elapse the polemics does not offer infiltration. sent13: the dietary is both summery and forward. sent14: the fact that something does not elapse and does convoy pounding does not hold if it is an acuity. sent15: the mademoiselle is not a polydactyly. sent16: if there exists something such that that it does not elapse and it does convoy pounding is not right then the polemics does not offer infiltration. sent17: if the culvert is an acuity the fact that it does elapse and does convoy pounding does not hold. sent18: something is a paca or offers highbinder or both if it does not offer infiltration. ; $proof$ = 
sent9 -> int1: the culvert is an acuity.; sent14 -> int2: the fact that the culvert does not elapse and convoys pounding is incorrect if it is an acuity.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the culvert does not elapse and convoys pounding is false.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that that it does not elapse and does convoy pounding does not hold.; int4 & sent16 -> int5: the fact that the polemics does not offer infiltration is correct.; sent18 -> int6: if the polemics does not offer infiltration then either it is a paca or it offers highbinder or both.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the polemics is a kind of a paca and/or it does offer highbinder.; int7 & sent10 & sent7 -> int8: the dietary is a polydactyly.; sent13 -> int9: the dietary is forward.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the dietary is a polydactyly and it is forward.; sent1 -> int11: if the dietary is a polydactyly and is a forward then the fact that it does not convoy megathere is not incorrect.; int10 & int11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__