the northerly does rehabilitate neoliberalism.
sent1: if that the paraphilia is not cenobitic and is classicistic is not true then the bay spends Naseby. sent2: the fact that the paraphilia is non-cenobitic thing that is classicistic is incorrect. sent3: that something is a Zephyr and is pituitary is not right if it does spend Naseby. sent4: if that the earmuff does not regurgitate is not true then the paraphilia does rehabilitate paraphilia or does not spend vault or both. sent5: that if the paraphilia does spend Naseby the fact that the paraphilia is not classicistic but it is a pituitary is not true is right. sent6: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Zephyr and spends Naseby is wrong then the bay is cenobitic. sent7: the fact that the fact that something is not a Zephyr and is a pituitary does not hold if the fact that it does spend Naseby hold is correct. sent8: the northerly is classicistic if the paraphilia does rehabilitate paraphilia or does not spend vault or both. sent9: if either something is bacchantic or it does not rehabilitate neoliberalism or both it is bacchantic. sent10: something is classicistic if it rehabilitates paraphilia. sent11: if there is something such that that it is not a Zephyr but cenobitic is wrong the paraphilia is classicistic. sent12: something that spends Naseby is bacchantic and/or does not rehabilitate neoliberalism. sent13: the northerly rehabilitates neoliberalism if there is something such that the fact that it is not a Zephyr and is a pituitary is not true. sent14: the earmuff regurgitates and rehabilitates Very-light. sent15: the fact that the bay is both not a Zephyr and classicistic is wrong. sent16: if the bay is classicistic the fact that it is not a kind of a pituitary and it spends Naseby is false.
sent7 -> int1: if the bay spends Naseby then the fact that it is not a Zephyr and it is a pituitary is false.; sent1 & sent2 -> int2: the bay does spend Naseby.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the bay is not a kind of a Zephyr but it is a kind of a pituitary is incorrect.; int3 -> int4: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a Zephyr and it is a pituitary does not hold.; int4 & sent13 -> hypothesis;
the northerly does not rehabilitate neoliberalism.
sent10 -> int5: the earmuff is classicistic if it rehabilitates paraphilia.;
$hypothesis$ = the northerly does rehabilitate neoliberalism. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the paraphilia is not cenobitic and is classicistic is not true then the bay spends Naseby. sent2: the fact that the paraphilia is non-cenobitic thing that is classicistic is incorrect. sent3: that something is a Zephyr and is pituitary is not right if it does spend Naseby. sent4: if that the earmuff does not regurgitate is not true then the paraphilia does rehabilitate paraphilia or does not spend vault or both. sent5: that if the paraphilia does spend Naseby the fact that the paraphilia is not classicistic but it is a pituitary is not true is right. sent6: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Zephyr and spends Naseby is wrong then the bay is cenobitic. sent7: the fact that the fact that something is not a Zephyr and is a pituitary does not hold if the fact that it does spend Naseby hold is correct. sent8: the northerly is classicistic if the paraphilia does rehabilitate paraphilia or does not spend vault or both. sent9: if either something is bacchantic or it does not rehabilitate neoliberalism or both it is bacchantic. sent10: something is classicistic if it rehabilitates paraphilia. sent11: if there is something such that that it is not a Zephyr but cenobitic is wrong the paraphilia is classicistic. sent12: something that spends Naseby is bacchantic and/or does not rehabilitate neoliberalism. sent13: the northerly rehabilitates neoliberalism if there is something such that the fact that it is not a Zephyr and is a pituitary is not true. sent14: the earmuff regurgitates and rehabilitates Very-light. sent15: the fact that the bay is both not a Zephyr and classicistic is wrong. sent16: if the bay is classicistic the fact that it is not a kind of a pituitary and it spends Naseby is false. ; $proof$ = 
sent7 -> int1: if the bay spends Naseby then the fact that it is not a Zephyr and it is a pituitary is false.; sent1 & sent2 -> int2: the bay does spend Naseby.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the bay is not a kind of a Zephyr but it is a kind of a pituitary is incorrect.; int3 -> int4: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a Zephyr and it is a pituitary does not hold.; int4 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__