the fact that the mesoderm does not network caffeinism and it is not an invariant is false.
sent1: the fact that the MEDLINE does not teach meed but it is a dacite is not correct. sent2: the filature is not a dashboard or non-methodological or both if it is an anthrax. sent3: an antipodal thing does not network caffeinism and is not a kind of an invariant. sent4: that the lama does not teach meed hold if that the filature is not an antipodal and not a hoot is not true. sent5: if the rejection is a Frau and is a kind of a Strongylodon the grindstone is a oscheocele. sent6: the rejection is not a hoot. sent7: the filature is not a dashboard if the lama is not a kind of a dashboard and is not methodological. sent8: if the fact that something is not an invariant is not wrong that it is a hoot and it teaches meed does not hold. sent9: the rejection is not a Frau. sent10: the mesoderm is an antipodal if the rejection is not antipodal but it is not a oscheocele. sent11: if the lama does not teach meed then the fact that the mesoderm does network caffeinism but it is not a kind of an invariant is false. sent12: that the mesoderm does network caffeinism but it is not an invariant is false. sent13: if the mesoderm is not antipodal then the fact that the fact that the filature is not a kind of an invariant but it is a hoot is true is not right. sent14: the filature is an anthrax. sent15: if that the grindstone is a hoot and it teaches meed is not true the rejection is not a kind of a oscheocele. sent16: the fact that the filature is an antipodal and not a hoot is not right if the grindstone is a oscheocele. sent17: if the rejection is not an invariant that the mesoderm is not a kind of a Frau and it does not network caffeinism is not correct. sent18: the rejection is not a kind of a Frau but it is a Strongylodon. sent19: if the lama does not teach meed that the mesoderm does not network caffeinism and is not an invariant is not right. sent20: if the rejection is both not a Frau and a Strongylodon then the grindstone is a oscheocele. sent21: if the lama is not an anthrax then it is not a dashboard and is not methodological. sent22: either the grindstone does not teach meed or it is not a hoot or both if the filature is not a dashboard. sent23: the fact that if the grindstone is a oscheocele that the filature is non-antipodal and it does not hoot does not hold is right. sent24: that the filature is antipodal but it is not a kind of a hoot is not correct.
sent20 & sent18 -> int1: the grindstone is a oscheocele.; int1 & sent23 -> int2: that the filature is not an antipodal and it is not a hoot is not correct.; int2 & sent4 -> int3: the lama does not teach meed.; int3 & sent19 -> hypothesis;
the rejection networks caffeinism.
sent8 -> int4: if the fact that the grindstone is not an invariant is correct then the fact that the fact that it is a kind of a hoot that does teach meed is true is wrong.; sent2 & sent14 -> int5: the filature is not a dashboard or is not methodological or both.; int5 -> int6: something is not a dashboard and/or is not methodological.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the mesoderm does not network caffeinism and it is not an invariant is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the MEDLINE does not teach meed but it is a dacite is not correct. sent2: the filature is not a dashboard or non-methodological or both if it is an anthrax. sent3: an antipodal thing does not network caffeinism and is not a kind of an invariant. sent4: that the lama does not teach meed hold if that the filature is not an antipodal and not a hoot is not true. sent5: if the rejection is a Frau and is a kind of a Strongylodon the grindstone is a oscheocele. sent6: the rejection is not a hoot. sent7: the filature is not a dashboard if the lama is not a kind of a dashboard and is not methodological. sent8: if the fact that something is not an invariant is not wrong that it is a hoot and it teaches meed does not hold. sent9: the rejection is not a Frau. sent10: the mesoderm is an antipodal if the rejection is not antipodal but it is not a oscheocele. sent11: if the lama does not teach meed then the fact that the mesoderm does network caffeinism but it is not a kind of an invariant is false. sent12: that the mesoderm does network caffeinism but it is not an invariant is false. sent13: if the mesoderm is not antipodal then the fact that the fact that the filature is not a kind of an invariant but it is a hoot is true is not right. sent14: the filature is an anthrax. sent15: if that the grindstone is a hoot and it teaches meed is not true the rejection is not a kind of a oscheocele. sent16: the fact that the filature is an antipodal and not a hoot is not right if the grindstone is a oscheocele. sent17: if the rejection is not an invariant that the mesoderm is not a kind of a Frau and it does not network caffeinism is not correct. sent18: the rejection is not a kind of a Frau but it is a Strongylodon. sent19: if the lama does not teach meed that the mesoderm does not network caffeinism and is not an invariant is not right. sent20: if the rejection is both not a Frau and a Strongylodon then the grindstone is a oscheocele. sent21: if the lama is not an anthrax then it is not a dashboard and is not methodological. sent22: either the grindstone does not teach meed or it is not a hoot or both if the filature is not a dashboard. sent23: the fact that if the grindstone is a oscheocele that the filature is non-antipodal and it does not hoot does not hold is right. sent24: that the filature is antipodal but it is not a kind of a hoot is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent20 & sent18 -> int1: the grindstone is a oscheocele.; int1 & sent23 -> int2: that the filature is not an antipodal and it is not a hoot is not correct.; int2 & sent4 -> int3: the lama does not teach meed.; int3 & sent19 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__