the chimneysweeper does not heap nothingness.
sent1: the amnesic does reef. sent2: that the chimneysweeper criticizes Walpole is true if the operations does not lob recursion but it criticizes Walpole. sent3: the operations does not criticize Walpole if there is something such that it lobs uncial and does heap nothingness. sent4: something does not rice and interpolates. sent5: the chimneysweeper lobs uncial if the amnesic is a reef. sent6: something does heap nothingness if it is a reef. sent7: that the fact that the grandma does interpolate and reefs is not incorrect if there is something such that it does lob uncial is correct. sent8: the operations does not lob recursion and does criticize Walpole if the bologna is not a rice. sent9: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a rice and it does interpolate the operations does lob recursion. sent10: if the bologna does not heap Szechwan then that it is not a rice and it does criticize grandma is not false. sent11: if the fact that the amnesic does not criticize Walpole is not wrong then the chimneysweeper is a kind of a reef that does lob uncial. sent12: the fact that the amnesic does heap nothingness is right if the chimneysweeper criticizes Walpole.
sent5 & sent1 -> int1: the chimneysweeper lobs uncial.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the chimneysweeper does heap nothingness.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the chimneysweeper lobs uncial and heaps nothingness.; int2 -> int3: there exists something such that it lobs uncial and it does heap nothingness.; int3 & sent3 -> int4: the operations does not criticize Walpole.; sent4 & sent9 -> int5: the operations lobs recursion.;
the chimneysweeper heaps nothingness.
sent6 -> int6: if the chimneysweeper is a kind of a reef then it does heap nothingness.;
$hypothesis$ = the chimneysweeper does not heap nothingness. ; $context$ = sent1: the amnesic does reef. sent2: that the chimneysweeper criticizes Walpole is true if the operations does not lob recursion but it criticizes Walpole. sent3: the operations does not criticize Walpole if there is something such that it lobs uncial and does heap nothingness. sent4: something does not rice and interpolates. sent5: the chimneysweeper lobs uncial if the amnesic is a reef. sent6: something does heap nothingness if it is a reef. sent7: that the fact that the grandma does interpolate and reefs is not incorrect if there is something such that it does lob uncial is correct. sent8: the operations does not lob recursion and does criticize Walpole if the bologna is not a rice. sent9: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a rice and it does interpolate the operations does lob recursion. sent10: if the bologna does not heap Szechwan then that it is not a rice and it does criticize grandma is not false. sent11: if the fact that the amnesic does not criticize Walpole is not wrong then the chimneysweeper is a kind of a reef that does lob uncial. sent12: the fact that the amnesic does heap nothingness is right if the chimneysweeper criticizes Walpole. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 & sent1 -> int1: the chimneysweeper lobs uncial.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the chimneysweeper does heap nothingness.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the chimneysweeper lobs uncial and heaps nothingness.; int2 -> int3: there exists something such that it lobs uncial and it does heap nothingness.; int3 & sent3 -> int4: the operations does not criticize Walpole.; sent4 & sent9 -> int5: the operations lobs recursion.; __UNKNOWN__