the hunter is not conjugal.
sent1: if the prince's-plume is frivolous then the hunter is a Anobiidae. sent2: if the hunter is not congestive it is not conjugal. sent3: if that the retreatant is a kind of non-congestive thing that is a Perdix is false then the fact that the scofflaw is not a Perdix hold. sent4: the luffa is not a kind of a by-and-by if the hunter is conjugal. sent5: the retreatant is not a by-and-by. sent6: the hunter is a kind of non-consumptive thing that is non-congestive if it is a Anobiidae. sent7: the retreatant is both a Alnus and not a handkerchief. sent8: if something does not restart anestrus the fact that it is reasonable and it does not include depiction does not hold. sent9: the fact that the lashing is not a Perdix hold. sent10: if something is not a kind of a Perdix it is consumptive and does not blind pullover. sent11: the luffa is not a by-and-by. sent12: everything does not restart anestrus. sent13: if something is not congestive then it is not conjugal. sent14: something is not mithraic if the fact that that it includes retreatant and is a kind of a Pakistani is not wrong is incorrect. sent15: if the fact that something is congestive and it is consumptive is not correct it is not conjugal. sent16: if that the luffa is not a consumptive is right that the hunter is congestive and consumptive is not true. sent17: the hunter is not a by-and-by. sent18: something is conjugal if it is a Anobiidae. sent19: if the fact that the luffa is not a kind of a by-and-by is not incorrect then that the retreatant is non-congestive a Perdix is not correct. sent20: if the fact that the luffa is both a consumptive and conjugal is not correct then it is not congestive. sent21: if the retreatant is a Perdix but not a by-and-by then the fact that the luffa is not consumptive is not wrong. sent22: the retreatant is a kind of a Perdix.
sent22 & sent5 -> int1: the retreatant is a Perdix but it is not a by-and-by.; int1 & sent21 -> int2: the luffa is not a kind of a consumptive.; int2 & sent16 -> int3: that the hunter is both congestive and a consumptive is not correct.; sent15 -> int4: if the fact that the hunter is both congestive and a consumptive is wrong it is not conjugal.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;
the hunter is conjugal.
$hypothesis$ = the hunter is not conjugal. ; $context$ = sent1: if the prince's-plume is frivolous then the hunter is a Anobiidae. sent2: if the hunter is not congestive it is not conjugal. sent3: if that the retreatant is a kind of non-congestive thing that is a Perdix is false then the fact that the scofflaw is not a Perdix hold. sent4: the luffa is not a kind of a by-and-by if the hunter is conjugal. sent5: the retreatant is not a by-and-by. sent6: the hunter is a kind of non-consumptive thing that is non-congestive if it is a Anobiidae. sent7: the retreatant is both a Alnus and not a handkerchief. sent8: if something does not restart anestrus the fact that it is reasonable and it does not include depiction does not hold. sent9: the fact that the lashing is not a Perdix hold. sent10: if something is not a kind of a Perdix it is consumptive and does not blind pullover. sent11: the luffa is not a by-and-by. sent12: everything does not restart anestrus. sent13: if something is not congestive then it is not conjugal. sent14: something is not mithraic if the fact that that it includes retreatant and is a kind of a Pakistani is not wrong is incorrect. sent15: if the fact that something is congestive and it is consumptive is not correct it is not conjugal. sent16: if that the luffa is not a consumptive is right that the hunter is congestive and consumptive is not true. sent17: the hunter is not a by-and-by. sent18: something is conjugal if it is a Anobiidae. sent19: if the fact that the luffa is not a kind of a by-and-by is not incorrect then that the retreatant is non-congestive a Perdix is not correct. sent20: if the fact that the luffa is both a consumptive and conjugal is not correct then it is not congestive. sent21: if the retreatant is a Perdix but not a by-and-by then the fact that the luffa is not consumptive is not wrong. sent22: the retreatant is a kind of a Perdix. ; $proof$ = 
sent22 & sent5 -> int1: the retreatant is a Perdix but it is not a by-and-by.; int1 & sent21 -> int2: the luffa is not a kind of a consumptive.; int2 & sent16 -> int3: that the hunter is both congestive and a consumptive is not correct.; sent15 -> int4: if the fact that the hunter is both congestive and a consumptive is wrong it is not conjugal.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__