the coldcream is not immunodeficient.
sent1: the apatite is not discriminatory. sent2: the arsonist either is a kind of a Sivapithecus or does deduce at or both. sent3: if the coldcream is immunodeficient but it does not skim fig-bird then it is not forceless. sent4: something is non-immunodeficient if it is not a faithful and it is not hospitable. sent5: if the coldcream is unfaithful but it is hospitable then it is non-immunodeficient. sent6: The at does deduce arsonist. sent7: if something deduces at and is forceless it is not acaulescent. sent8: the arsonist is forceless. sent9: if there is something such that it is not acaulescent the apatite does skim fig-bird and/or is a Sivapithecus. sent10: the arsonist does deduce at. sent11: the coldcream is unfaithful and inhospitable if the archpriest is unfaithful. sent12: something is not hospitable if that it is not acaulescent and it does skim fig-bird is not false. sent13: if something that does not unbar contextualism is not nondeductible that it is not a Mbundu is true. sent14: the archpriest is faithful if the apatite is a Sivapithecus. sent15: the fact that the coldcream is immunodeficient hold if the arsonist is immunodeficient. sent16: the coldcream is not hospitable. sent17: there exists something such that it is acaulescent. sent18: if the archpriest is acaulescent then the fact that the apatite does not deduce at and is not non-forceless does not hold. sent19: the arsonist skims fig-bird and/or is faithful if there exists something such that the fact that it is not acaulescent hold. sent20: the fact that the archpriest is a faithful is not wrong if the apatite skims fig-bird. sent21: the archpriest skims fig-bird if the apatite is a kind of a faithful. sent22: the apatite is a kind of a faithful.
sent10 & sent8 -> int1: the arsonist does deduce at and it is forceless.; sent7 -> int2: the arsonist is not acaulescent if it deduces at and is forceless.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the arsonist is not acaulescent.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that it is not acaulescent.; int4 & sent9 -> int5: the apatite skims fig-bird and/or is a kind of a Sivapithecus.; int5 & sent20 & sent14 -> int6: the fact that the archpriest is a faithful is not false.; int6 & sent11 -> int7: the coldcream is not a kind of a faithful and it is not hospitable.; sent4 -> int8: if the coldcream is both not faithful and not hospitable it is non-immunodeficient.; int7 & int8 -> hypothesis;
the coldcream is immunodeficient.
$hypothesis$ = the coldcream is not immunodeficient. ; $context$ = sent1: the apatite is not discriminatory. sent2: the arsonist either is a kind of a Sivapithecus or does deduce at or both. sent3: if the coldcream is immunodeficient but it does not skim fig-bird then it is not forceless. sent4: something is non-immunodeficient if it is not a faithful and it is not hospitable. sent5: if the coldcream is unfaithful but it is hospitable then it is non-immunodeficient. sent6: The at does deduce arsonist. sent7: if something deduces at and is forceless it is not acaulescent. sent8: the arsonist is forceless. sent9: if there is something such that it is not acaulescent the apatite does skim fig-bird and/or is a Sivapithecus. sent10: the arsonist does deduce at. sent11: the coldcream is unfaithful and inhospitable if the archpriest is unfaithful. sent12: something is not hospitable if that it is not acaulescent and it does skim fig-bird is not false. sent13: if something that does not unbar contextualism is not nondeductible that it is not a Mbundu is true. sent14: the archpriest is faithful if the apatite is a Sivapithecus. sent15: the fact that the coldcream is immunodeficient hold if the arsonist is immunodeficient. sent16: the coldcream is not hospitable. sent17: there exists something such that it is acaulescent. sent18: if the archpriest is acaulescent then the fact that the apatite does not deduce at and is not non-forceless does not hold. sent19: the arsonist skims fig-bird and/or is faithful if there exists something such that the fact that it is not acaulescent hold. sent20: the fact that the archpriest is a faithful is not wrong if the apatite skims fig-bird. sent21: the archpriest skims fig-bird if the apatite is a kind of a faithful. sent22: the apatite is a kind of a faithful. ; $proof$ = 
sent10 & sent8 -> int1: the arsonist does deduce at and it is forceless.; sent7 -> int2: the arsonist is not acaulescent if it deduces at and is forceless.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the arsonist is not acaulescent.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that it is not acaulescent.; int4 & sent9 -> int5: the apatite skims fig-bird and/or is a kind of a Sivapithecus.; int5 & sent20 & sent14 -> int6: the fact that the archpriest is a faithful is not false.; int6 & sent11 -> int7: the coldcream is not a kind of a faithful and it is not hospitable.; sent4 -> int8: if the coldcream is both not faithful and not hospitable it is non-immunodeficient.; int7 & int8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__