the defense is Israeli and it is a kind of an incendiary.
sent1: the fact that something is not an incendiary and does not formalize Telescopium is not true if it is not a Israeli. sent2: the cellist is not a kind of an incendiary if that the sheet is incendiary thing that does not formalize Telescopium does not hold. sent3: something does riposte cloistered and is not bacchantic. sent4: the cellist does not riposte cloistered if the sheet is admissible. sent5: there is something such that it does not riposte cloistered. sent6: that the defense formalizes Telescopium is not false if it is not hydrocephalic. sent7: if the sheet is admissible then the cellist does not riposte cloistered and is not bacchantic. sent8: something does not riposte cloistered and is bacchantic. sent9: something that is admissible owns bead. sent10: there is something such that that it is a kind of nonpolitical a consort is not right. sent11: the defense is not hydrocephalic if that it is both not a consort and hydrocephalic is not true. sent12: the sheet is not a take-in. sent13: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a consort is true. sent14: that the defense does not consort but it is hydrocephalic is incorrect if there is something such that it consort. sent15: if something that does not riposte cloistered is not bacchantic then the defense is a kind of a frostbite. sent16: if that the person is not a consort hold then that the defense is both non-Israeli and not hydrocephalic is not right. sent17: there exists something such that it is not bacchantic. sent18: that the commutator is admissible hold. sent19: if something does not formalize Telescopium but it is a kind of a frostbite then it is not admissible. sent20: the defense formalizes Telescopium. sent21: the cellist does not riposte cloistered. sent22: the fact that something is a kind of a Israeli and it is an incendiary is not true if it is not admissible. sent23: the sheet is admissible. sent24: the defense is Israeli and formalizes Telescopium if it is not hydrocephalic. sent25: that the cumin is both non-bacchantic and not non-splenic is wrong. sent26: the sheet is not a kind of a Israeli if the fact that the defense is not a Israeli and is not hydrocephalic is wrong.
sent7 & sent23 -> int1: that the cellist does not riposte cloistered and it is not bacchantic is correct.; int1 -> int2: something does not riposte cloistered and it is not bacchantic.; int2 & sent15 -> int3: the defense is a frostbite.; sent13 & sent14 -> int4: that the defense is not a consort but it is hydrocephalic is not true.; sent11 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the defense is not hydrocephalic is right.; sent24 & int5 -> int6: the defense is a kind of a Israeli and does formalize Telescopium.; int6 -> int7: the defense is Israeli.;
the fact that the cellist owns bead is right.
sent9 -> int8: the cellist does own bead if it is admissible.; sent1 -> int9: if the sheet is not a Israeli that it is non-incendiary thing that does not formalize Telescopium is wrong.;
$hypothesis$ = the defense is Israeli and it is a kind of an incendiary. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is not an incendiary and does not formalize Telescopium is not true if it is not a Israeli. sent2: the cellist is not a kind of an incendiary if that the sheet is incendiary thing that does not formalize Telescopium does not hold. sent3: something does riposte cloistered and is not bacchantic. sent4: the cellist does not riposte cloistered if the sheet is admissible. sent5: there is something such that it does not riposte cloistered. sent6: that the defense formalizes Telescopium is not false if it is not hydrocephalic. sent7: if the sheet is admissible then the cellist does not riposte cloistered and is not bacchantic. sent8: something does not riposte cloistered and is bacchantic. sent9: something that is admissible owns bead. sent10: there is something such that that it is a kind of nonpolitical a consort is not right. sent11: the defense is not hydrocephalic if that it is both not a consort and hydrocephalic is not true. sent12: the sheet is not a take-in. sent13: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a consort is true. sent14: that the defense does not consort but it is hydrocephalic is incorrect if there is something such that it consort. sent15: if something that does not riposte cloistered is not bacchantic then the defense is a kind of a frostbite. sent16: if that the person is not a consort hold then that the defense is both non-Israeli and not hydrocephalic is not right. sent17: there exists something such that it is not bacchantic. sent18: that the commutator is admissible hold. sent19: if something does not formalize Telescopium but it is a kind of a frostbite then it is not admissible. sent20: the defense formalizes Telescopium. sent21: the cellist does not riposte cloistered. sent22: the fact that something is a kind of a Israeli and it is an incendiary is not true if it is not admissible. sent23: the sheet is admissible. sent24: the defense is Israeli and formalizes Telescopium if it is not hydrocephalic. sent25: that the cumin is both non-bacchantic and not non-splenic is wrong. sent26: the sheet is not a kind of a Israeli if the fact that the defense is not a Israeli and is not hydrocephalic is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
sent7 & sent23 -> int1: that the cellist does not riposte cloistered and it is not bacchantic is correct.; int1 -> int2: something does not riposte cloistered and it is not bacchantic.; int2 & sent15 -> int3: the defense is a frostbite.; sent13 & sent14 -> int4: that the defense is not a consort but it is hydrocephalic is not true.; sent11 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the defense is not hydrocephalic is right.; sent24 & int5 -> int6: the defense is a kind of a Israeli and does formalize Telescopium.; int6 -> int7: the defense is Israeli.; __UNKNOWN__