that the saltshaker is not polymeric is not wrong.
sent1: there exists nothing such that it is a kind of a Pepto-bismal and it is specialistic. sent2: if the liqueur is a snakewood then the fact that the saltshaker is patellar and is not nonassociative is not right. sent3: the fact that the mullion is a snakewood but it is not nonassociative is not correct. sent4: the fact that the immune is both a Pepto-bismal and specialistic is incorrect. sent5: something is not patellar if that it is patellar and it is not nonassociative is false. sent6: there exists nothing that is not a Pepto-bismal but specialistic. sent7: the liqueur is patellar if there is something such that the fact that it is not a Pepto-bismal and it is specialistic is false. sent8: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a Pepto-bismal then the liqueur is patellar. sent9: something is polymeric if it is not patellar. sent10: the fact that the mullion is both not a snakewood and nonassociative is wrong. sent11: the saltshaker is not polymeric if the liqueur is not a snakewood but it is patellar. sent12: if that that the mullion is both not a snakewood and not nonassociative is not wrong is not right the liqueur is not a snakewood. sent13: something is a snakewood if it is regimental.
sent6 -> int1: that the immune is not a Pepto-bismal but it is specialistic is false.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Pepto-bismal and it is specialistic does not hold.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the liqueur is patellar.;
the saltshaker is polymeric.
sent9 -> int4: if the saltshaker is not patellar then it is polymeric.; sent5 -> int5: the saltshaker is not patellar if the fact that it is patellar and is not nonassociative does not hold.; sent13 -> int6: the fact that if the fact that the liqueur is regimental is correct the liqueur is a snakewood is correct.;
$hypothesis$ = that the saltshaker is not polymeric is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists nothing such that it is a kind of a Pepto-bismal and it is specialistic. sent2: if the liqueur is a snakewood then the fact that the saltshaker is patellar and is not nonassociative is not right. sent3: the fact that the mullion is a snakewood but it is not nonassociative is not correct. sent4: the fact that the immune is both a Pepto-bismal and specialistic is incorrect. sent5: something is not patellar if that it is patellar and it is not nonassociative is false. sent6: there exists nothing that is not a Pepto-bismal but specialistic. sent7: the liqueur is patellar if there is something such that the fact that it is not a Pepto-bismal and it is specialistic is false. sent8: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a Pepto-bismal then the liqueur is patellar. sent9: something is polymeric if it is not patellar. sent10: the fact that the mullion is both not a snakewood and nonassociative is wrong. sent11: the saltshaker is not polymeric if the liqueur is not a snakewood but it is patellar. sent12: if that that the mullion is both not a snakewood and not nonassociative is not wrong is not right the liqueur is not a snakewood. sent13: something is a snakewood if it is regimental. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 -> int1: that the immune is not a Pepto-bismal but it is specialistic is false.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Pepto-bismal and it is specialistic does not hold.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the liqueur is patellar.; __UNKNOWN__