the rue does strain lambert.
sent1: if that something is a poisoning and not a pad does not hold then it is not a neglect. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not a seesaw the upholsterer is a kind of a reasoner. sent3: if something is not a neglect then that the tutu is a seesaw and is not a grinder is incorrect. sent4: the fact that the rue does not offer antidepressant and seesaws is not correct if the tutu does offer antidepressant. sent5: the rue is not a Iberian. sent6: if something offers antidepressant then it strains lambert. sent7: that the tutu does not strain lambert and offers antidepressant is not right. sent8: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Hoth that is not a trademarked does not hold then the tutu offers antidepressant. sent9: that the tutu does offer antidepressant and is a seesaw is false. sent10: if the fact that the fact that the rue does not offer antidepressant and is a seesaw is not right is right it does not strain lambert. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Hoth and it does not trademark is not true. sent12: there is nothing such that it does poison and it is not a pad.
sent11 & sent8 -> int1: the tutu does offer antidepressant.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the rue does not offer antidepressant but it is a seesaw does not hold.; int2 & sent10 -> hypothesis;
the rue does strain lambert.
sent6 -> int3: if the rue does offer antidepressant it strains lambert.; sent12 -> int4: the fact that the sap is a poisoning but it is not a kind of a pad does not hold.; sent1 -> int5: if that the sap poisons but it does not pad is not correct it is not a kind of a neglect.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the sap is not a kind of a neglect.; int6 -> int7: everything does not neglect.; int7 -> int8: the link is not a kind of a neglect.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that it does not neglect.; int9 & sent3 -> int10: that the tutu is a kind of a seesaw that is not a grinder does not hold.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a seesaw and it is not a kind of a grinder is not right.;
$hypothesis$ = the rue does strain lambert. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is a poisoning and not a pad does not hold then it is not a neglect. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not a seesaw the upholsterer is a kind of a reasoner. sent3: if something is not a neglect then that the tutu is a seesaw and is not a grinder is incorrect. sent4: the fact that the rue does not offer antidepressant and seesaws is not correct if the tutu does offer antidepressant. sent5: the rue is not a Iberian. sent6: if something offers antidepressant then it strains lambert. sent7: that the tutu does not strain lambert and offers antidepressant is not right. sent8: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Hoth that is not a trademarked does not hold then the tutu offers antidepressant. sent9: that the tutu does offer antidepressant and is a seesaw is false. sent10: if the fact that the fact that the rue does not offer antidepressant and is a seesaw is not right is right it does not strain lambert. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Hoth and it does not trademark is not true. sent12: there is nothing such that it does poison and it is not a pad. ; $proof$ = 
sent11 & sent8 -> int1: the tutu does offer antidepressant.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the rue does not offer antidepressant but it is a seesaw does not hold.; int2 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__