the snuffer is a barracuda.
sent1: the psittacosaur is a cynodont. sent2: if the psittacosaur is a cynodont it is technological. sent3: the snuffer weans unvariedness and is femoral if there exists something such that it is a stotinka. sent4: that something is funerary and a cochin does not hold if it is not unintrusive. sent5: if the psittacosaur does not revenge but it is technological the gully does not revenge. sent6: if something that does infiltrate is not a kind of a Boswellia then that it is non-marly is not false. sent7: if the gully is a kind of a cochin then the sandlot is unintrusive. sent8: the cabbageworm is impermeable. sent9: the psittacosaur does not revenge. sent10: if something weans unvariedness it infiltrates and is not a kind of a Boswellia. sent11: if there is something such that it is not a microcyte that the portfolio is a stotinka is correct. sent12: the snuffer is not a barracuda if the fact that that the cabbageworm is a barracuda that is impermeable hold is wrong. sent13: if something is not marly either it is not non-funerary or it weans compunction or both. sent14: that something is a kind of a microcyte that does wean curtailment is not correct if it does not revenge. sent15: if that something is not unintrusive hold then that it is funerary and it is not a cochin is incorrect. sent16: the cabbageworm is both not permeable and intrusive if something is a kind of a cochin. sent17: if that the cabbageworm is funerary but it is not a kind of a cochin is not true then the snuffer is a barracuda. sent18: the proliferation does not thrombose cabbageworm if it is impermeable. sent19: if that the gully is a microcyte and it weans curtailment is false then the sandlot is not a microcyte. sent20: if something weans compunction then it is a cochin. sent21: the cabbageworm is not unintrusive if it is impermeable. sent22: if something that is impermeable is not unintrusive it is a barracuda. sent23: if the cabbageworm is not unintrusive then that it is funerary and a cochin does not hold.
sent21 & sent8 -> int1: that the cabbageworm is unintrusive does not hold.; sent15 -> int2: if the cabbageworm is not unintrusive that it is funerary and it is not a kind of a cochin is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the cabbageworm is a kind of funerary thing that is not a cochin does not hold.; int3 & sent17 -> hypothesis;
the cabbageworm is a barracuda.
sent22 -> int4: the cabbageworm is a barracuda if it is impermeable and it is not unintrusive.; sent13 -> int5: either the snuffer is funerary or it does wean compunction or both if that it is not marly is not false.; sent6 -> int6: the snuffer is not marly if it infiltrates and it is not a Boswellia.; sent10 -> int7: the snuffer does infiltrate and is not a kind of a Boswellia if it does wean unvariedness.; sent14 -> int8: the fact that the gully is a microcyte and it weans curtailment does not hold if it does not revenge.; sent2 & sent1 -> int9: the psittacosaur is technological.; sent9 & int9 -> int10: the psittacosaur does not revenge and is technological.; sent5 & int10 -> int11: the fact that the gully does not revenge is correct.; int8 & int11 -> int12: the fact that the fact that the gully is a microcyte and it weans curtailment is not true is correct.; sent19 & int12 -> int13: the sandlot is not a kind of a microcyte.; int13 -> int14: something is not a kind of a microcyte.; int14 & sent11 -> int15: the portfolio is a stotinka.; int15 -> int16: something is a stotinka.; int16 & sent3 -> int17: the snuffer does wean unvariedness and is femoral.; int17 -> int18: the snuffer weans unvariedness.; int7 & int18 -> int19: the snuffer does infiltrate but it is not a Boswellia.; int6 & int19 -> int20: the snuffer is not marly.; int5 & int20 -> int21: the snuffer either is funerary or weans compunction or both.; sent20 -> int22: if the snuffer does wean compunction it is a cochin.;
$hypothesis$ = the snuffer is a barracuda. ; $context$ = sent1: the psittacosaur is a cynodont. sent2: if the psittacosaur is a cynodont it is technological. sent3: the snuffer weans unvariedness and is femoral if there exists something such that it is a stotinka. sent4: that something is funerary and a cochin does not hold if it is not unintrusive. sent5: if the psittacosaur does not revenge but it is technological the gully does not revenge. sent6: if something that does infiltrate is not a kind of a Boswellia then that it is non-marly is not false. sent7: if the gully is a kind of a cochin then the sandlot is unintrusive. sent8: the cabbageworm is impermeable. sent9: the psittacosaur does not revenge. sent10: if something weans unvariedness it infiltrates and is not a kind of a Boswellia. sent11: if there is something such that it is not a microcyte that the portfolio is a stotinka is correct. sent12: the snuffer is not a barracuda if the fact that that the cabbageworm is a barracuda that is impermeable hold is wrong. sent13: if something is not marly either it is not non-funerary or it weans compunction or both. sent14: that something is a kind of a microcyte that does wean curtailment is not correct if it does not revenge. sent15: if that something is not unintrusive hold then that it is funerary and it is not a cochin is incorrect. sent16: the cabbageworm is both not permeable and intrusive if something is a kind of a cochin. sent17: if that the cabbageworm is funerary but it is not a kind of a cochin is not true then the snuffer is a barracuda. sent18: the proliferation does not thrombose cabbageworm if it is impermeable. sent19: if that the gully is a microcyte and it weans curtailment is false then the sandlot is not a microcyte. sent20: if something weans compunction then it is a cochin. sent21: the cabbageworm is not unintrusive if it is impermeable. sent22: if something that is impermeable is not unintrusive it is a barracuda. sent23: if the cabbageworm is not unintrusive then that it is funerary and a cochin does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
sent21 & sent8 -> int1: that the cabbageworm is unintrusive does not hold.; sent15 -> int2: if the cabbageworm is not unintrusive that it is funerary and it is not a kind of a cochin is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the cabbageworm is a kind of funerary thing that is not a cochin does not hold.; int3 & sent17 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__