the allergist is a self-awareness and a saute.
sent1: the fact that the reticle is nascent is true if the aculeus is not papal. sent2: if the allergist is a kind of a tusker then the fact that it does saute is true. sent3: if the reticle is nascent the casino is both tuneless and not a Paphiopedilum. sent4: the phalsa does overwhelm caribou if it is bibliographic. sent5: the fact that the phalsa does not overwhelm caribou and is non-paralytic does not hold. sent6: something is not a Assam if that it is a Assam and it is inadvisable does not hold. sent7: if there exists something such that it does not discard Louisville then the aculeus is nascent or not papal or both. sent8: if that the windowsill is not a Nebraskan is not incorrect then the fact that the fact that the phalsa is a kind of a Assam and it is inadvisable is not false is not true. sent9: the whalebone is not a kind of a tusker and is not a games-master if there is something such that it is not a kind of a Ephemeridae. sent10: the bridge is not a Ephemeridae if something is both tuneless and not a Paphiopedilum. sent11: the reticle is nascent if the aculeus is nascent. sent12: the fact that the phalsa is both not inadvisable and not a Nebraskan does not hold. sent13: there is something such that it is a Assam. sent14: if that the fact that the phalsa is not inadvisable and it is not a kind of a Nebraskan is not wrong is not correct it is a Assam. sent15: if there exists something such that it is a Assam and it overwhelms caribou the allergist is a kind of a self-awareness. sent16: if the phalsa is inadvisable it is a Assam. sent17: if that the phalsa is not inadvisable and not bibliographic is not true then it is a kind of a self-awareness. sent18: the hydrocolloid is a kind of a Nebraskan. sent19: the fact that the allergist is a self-awareness and it is a saute is not right if the hydrocolloid is not a paralytic. sent20: there exists something such that it does not discard Louisville. sent21: if the hydrocolloid is a paralytic then the phalsa is bibliographic. sent22: the allergist is a tusker. sent23: the fact that the phalsa is inadvisable but it is not a Nebraskan is not correct. sent24: if the allergist is a Assam then the phalsa does saute. sent25: the hydrocolloid is a kind of a paralytic. sent26: either something is not bibliographic or it overwhelms caribou or both if it is not a Assam.
sent21 & sent25 -> int1: the phalsa is bibliographic.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the phalsa does overwhelm caribou.; sent14 & sent12 -> int3: the phalsa is a Assam.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the phalsa is a Assam and does overwhelm caribou.; int4 -> int5: something is a Assam and overwhelms caribou.; int5 & sent15 -> int6: the allergist is a self-awareness.; sent2 & sent22 -> int7: the allergist is a saute.; int6 & int7 -> hypothesis;
that the fact that the allergist is a self-awareness and does saute is correct is false.
sent26 -> int8: the phalsa is not bibliographic or overwhelms caribou or both if it is not a Assam.; sent6 -> int9: the phalsa is not a kind of a Assam if the fact that it is a Assam and it is inadvisable is false.; sent20 & sent7 -> int10: the aculeus either is nascent or is not papal or both.; int10 & sent11 & sent1 -> int11: the reticle is nascent.; sent3 & int11 -> int12: the casino is tuneless and is not a kind of a Paphiopedilum.; int12 -> int13: there is something such that it is a kind of tuneless thing that is not a kind of a Paphiopedilum.; int13 & sent10 -> int14: the bridge is not a kind of a Ephemeridae.; int14 -> int15: something is not a Ephemeridae.; int15 & sent9 -> int16: the whalebone is not a tusker and it is not a games-master.; int16 -> int17: there exists something such that it is not a tusker and it is not a games-master.;
$hypothesis$ = the allergist is a self-awareness and a saute. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the reticle is nascent is true if the aculeus is not papal. sent2: if the allergist is a kind of a tusker then the fact that it does saute is true. sent3: if the reticle is nascent the casino is both tuneless and not a Paphiopedilum. sent4: the phalsa does overwhelm caribou if it is bibliographic. sent5: the fact that the phalsa does not overwhelm caribou and is non-paralytic does not hold. sent6: something is not a Assam if that it is a Assam and it is inadvisable does not hold. sent7: if there exists something such that it does not discard Louisville then the aculeus is nascent or not papal or both. sent8: if that the windowsill is not a Nebraskan is not incorrect then the fact that the fact that the phalsa is a kind of a Assam and it is inadvisable is not false is not true. sent9: the whalebone is not a kind of a tusker and is not a games-master if there is something such that it is not a kind of a Ephemeridae. sent10: the bridge is not a Ephemeridae if something is both tuneless and not a Paphiopedilum. sent11: the reticle is nascent if the aculeus is nascent. sent12: the fact that the phalsa is both not inadvisable and not a Nebraskan does not hold. sent13: there is something such that it is a Assam. sent14: if that the fact that the phalsa is not inadvisable and it is not a kind of a Nebraskan is not wrong is not correct it is a Assam. sent15: if there exists something such that it is a Assam and it overwhelms caribou the allergist is a kind of a self-awareness. sent16: if the phalsa is inadvisable it is a Assam. sent17: if that the phalsa is not inadvisable and not bibliographic is not true then it is a kind of a self-awareness. sent18: the hydrocolloid is a kind of a Nebraskan. sent19: the fact that the allergist is a self-awareness and it is a saute is not right if the hydrocolloid is not a paralytic. sent20: there exists something such that it does not discard Louisville. sent21: if the hydrocolloid is a paralytic then the phalsa is bibliographic. sent22: the allergist is a tusker. sent23: the fact that the phalsa is inadvisable but it is not a Nebraskan is not correct. sent24: if the allergist is a Assam then the phalsa does saute. sent25: the hydrocolloid is a kind of a paralytic. sent26: either something is not bibliographic or it overwhelms caribou or both if it is not a Assam. ; $proof$ = 
sent21 & sent25 -> int1: the phalsa is bibliographic.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the phalsa does overwhelm caribou.; sent14 & sent12 -> int3: the phalsa is a Assam.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the phalsa is a Assam and does overwhelm caribou.; int4 -> int5: something is a Assam and overwhelms caribou.; int5 & sent15 -> int6: the allergist is a self-awareness.; sent2 & sent22 -> int7: the allergist is a saute.; int6 & int7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__