the aminophylline does not scrabble.
sent1: if that the silks is not causative but it is unpublishable is not correct the bitter does not pole selfsameness. sent2: if the bitter is not capillary then it is a stint and it is orthoptics. sent3: the widgeon is capillary if the fact that the protohippus does not stint and is not orthoptics does not hold. sent4: that that the protohippus does stint but it is not orthoptics does not hold is not false if the bitter is not a stint. sent5: that the protohippus is not appealable but it is a stint is not right. sent6: the bitter is not appealable if it is not causative. sent7: that the protohippus is a polygyny is true. sent8: the fact that the silks is causative and unpublishable is not correct. sent9: that the silks is not causative and is not publishable is not true if it is not a kind of a polygyny. sent10: if the bitter is not a stint then that the protohippus is not a stint but it is orthoptics is not correct. sent11: the silks is not a polygyny. sent12: the Unitarian is not a capillary. sent13: that the protohippus is a stint that is not orthoptics is not right. sent14: the silks is not a kind of a variable. sent15: if the silks is not a kind of a polygyny then that it is causative and it is unpublishable does not hold. sent16: the aminophylline scrabbles if the silks scrabbles and is not a polygyny. sent17: the aminophylline does not scrabble if it does not pole alveolus. sent18: if the bitter is not a kind of a stint then that the protohippus is not a stint and not orthoptics is not true. sent19: the fact that the bitter does not pole selfsameness but it stints is false if it is appealable. sent20: the bitter does not pole selfsameness if the silks is causative. sent21: the bitter is appealable. sent22: that the protohippus is not a stint and is orthoptics is not correct. sent23: the silks does not pole selfsameness.
sent9 & sent11 -> int1: that the silks is both not causative and unpublishable does not hold.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the bitter does not pole selfsameness.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bitter is a stint.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the bitter does not pole selfsameness and stints.; sent19 & sent21 -> int4: that the bitter does not pole selfsameness but it does stint does not hold.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the bitter is not a stint.; int6 & sent18 -> int7: the fact that the protohippus is not a kind of a stint and it is not orthoptics is not correct.; int7 & sent3 -> int8: the widgeon is a kind of a capillary.;
that the aminophylline scrabbles hold.
$hypothesis$ = the aminophylline does not scrabble. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the silks is not causative but it is unpublishable is not correct the bitter does not pole selfsameness. sent2: if the bitter is not capillary then it is a stint and it is orthoptics. sent3: the widgeon is capillary if the fact that the protohippus does not stint and is not orthoptics does not hold. sent4: that that the protohippus does stint but it is not orthoptics does not hold is not false if the bitter is not a stint. sent5: that the protohippus is not appealable but it is a stint is not right. sent6: the bitter is not appealable if it is not causative. sent7: that the protohippus is a polygyny is true. sent8: the fact that the silks is causative and unpublishable is not correct. sent9: that the silks is not causative and is not publishable is not true if it is not a kind of a polygyny. sent10: if the bitter is not a stint then that the protohippus is not a stint but it is orthoptics is not correct. sent11: the silks is not a polygyny. sent12: the Unitarian is not a capillary. sent13: that the protohippus is a stint that is not orthoptics is not right. sent14: the silks is not a kind of a variable. sent15: if the silks is not a kind of a polygyny then that it is causative and it is unpublishable does not hold. sent16: the aminophylline scrabbles if the silks scrabbles and is not a polygyny. sent17: the aminophylline does not scrabble if it does not pole alveolus. sent18: if the bitter is not a kind of a stint then that the protohippus is not a stint and not orthoptics is not true. sent19: the fact that the bitter does not pole selfsameness but it stints is false if it is appealable. sent20: the bitter does not pole selfsameness if the silks is causative. sent21: the bitter is appealable. sent22: that the protohippus is not a stint and is orthoptics is not correct. sent23: the silks does not pole selfsameness. ; $proof$ = 
sent9 & sent11 -> int1: that the silks is both not causative and unpublishable does not hold.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the bitter does not pole selfsameness.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bitter is a stint.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the bitter does not pole selfsameness and stints.; sent19 & sent21 -> int4: that the bitter does not pole selfsameness but it does stint does not hold.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the bitter is not a stint.; int6 & sent18 -> int7: the fact that the protohippus is not a kind of a stint and it is not orthoptics is not correct.; int7 & sent3 -> int8: the widgeon is a kind of a capillary.; __UNKNOWN__