the groupie is a kind of a barley if the yellowbird convulses.
sent1: the formulation is not a Rosa if the groupie bespangles Oreortyx and is axonal. sent2: the formulation does bespangle Oreortyx. sent3: the formulation is a acquisitiveness if it is a barley. sent4: the groupie is a Rosa. sent5: the groupie is a kind of a Rosa if it is a kind of a Siouan. sent6: The Oreortyx does bespangle formulation. sent7: the groupie scalds CIO. sent8: the yellowbird does not convulse if the groupie is a kind of axonal thing that scalds CIO. sent9: The CIO scalds groupie. sent10: something is not a acquisitiveness and is a Rosa if it is a kind of a Siouan. sent11: an independent thing is a kind of a doctrine. sent12: if the formulation does bespangle Oreortyx the fact that the groupie is Siouan is true. sent13: something is a barley if it is not a Rosa. sent14: the yellowbird convulses if the groupie is axonal and it scalds CIO.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the groupie is axonal.; assump2 & sent7 -> int1: the groupie is axonal and it does scald CIO.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the yellowbird does not convulse.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the yellowbird does convulse.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the groupie is not axonal.; sent10 -> int5: the groupie is not a kind of a acquisitiveness but it is a Rosa if it is a kind of a Siouan.; sent12 & sent2 -> int6: the groupie is a Siouan.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the groupie is not a acquisitiveness but a Rosa.; int7 -> int8: the groupie is not a acquisitiveness.; int4 & int8 -> int9: that the groupie is both non-axonal and not a acquisitiveness is not incorrect.;
the yellowbird is axonal.
sent13 -> int10: that the formulation is a kind of a barley hold if it is not a Rosa.;
$hypothesis$ = the groupie is a kind of a barley if the yellowbird convulses. ; $context$ = sent1: the formulation is not a Rosa if the groupie bespangles Oreortyx and is axonal. sent2: the formulation does bespangle Oreortyx. sent3: the formulation is a acquisitiveness if it is a barley. sent4: the groupie is a Rosa. sent5: the groupie is a kind of a Rosa if it is a kind of a Siouan. sent6: The Oreortyx does bespangle formulation. sent7: the groupie scalds CIO. sent8: the yellowbird does not convulse if the groupie is a kind of axonal thing that scalds CIO. sent9: The CIO scalds groupie. sent10: something is not a acquisitiveness and is a Rosa if it is a kind of a Siouan. sent11: an independent thing is a kind of a doctrine. sent12: if the formulation does bespangle Oreortyx the fact that the groupie is Siouan is true. sent13: something is a barley if it is not a Rosa. sent14: the yellowbird convulses if the groupie is axonal and it scalds CIO. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the groupie is axonal.; assump2 & sent7 -> int1: the groupie is axonal and it does scald CIO.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the yellowbird does not convulse.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the yellowbird does convulse.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the groupie is not axonal.; sent10 -> int5: the groupie is not a kind of a acquisitiveness but it is a Rosa if it is a kind of a Siouan.; sent12 & sent2 -> int6: the groupie is a Siouan.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the groupie is not a acquisitiveness but a Rosa.; int7 -> int8: the groupie is not a acquisitiveness.; int4 & int8 -> int9: that the groupie is both non-axonal and not a acquisitiveness is not incorrect.; __UNKNOWN__