if the fact that the lutist does butt segue is true the trapezius is alimentative.
sent1: the winker does butt segue. sent2: the lutist does weave taxidermist. sent3: the maisonette butts emphysema. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it is a indispensability and is a immateriality does not hold. sent5: the farthingale is alimentative. sent6: if the trapezius butts segue the lutist is alimentative. sent7: if something does not butt emphysema the fact that it butts segue is correct. sent8: that the portraitist is alimentative is not false. sent9: if something is not a immateriality then it is acrogenic and is a Dimocarpus. sent10: the lutist is a Balthazar. sent11: if the farthingale butts emphysema the trapezius is alimentative. sent12: the fact that something does weave salability and is non-alimentative is not incorrect if it is acrogenic. sent13: if there exists something such that that it is a indispensability and it is a immateriality is incorrect then the lutist is not a immateriality. sent14: the trapezius is a Dimocarpus.
the tailstock butts segue.
sent7 -> int1: that the tailstock butts segue is correct if it does not butt emphysema.; sent12 -> int2: if the lutist is acrogenic it weaves salability and is not alimentative.; sent9 -> int3: the lutist is acrogenic thing that is a kind of a Dimocarpus if the fact that it is not a immateriality is not wrong.; sent4 & sent13 -> int4: the lutist is not a kind of a immateriality.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the lutist is acrogenic and a Dimocarpus.; int5 -> int6: the lutist is acrogenic.; int2 & int6 -> int7: the lutist weaves salability but it is not alimentative.; int7 -> int8: something weaves salability but it is not alimentative.;
$hypothesis$ = if the fact that the lutist does butt segue is true the trapezius is alimentative. ; $context$ = sent1: the winker does butt segue. sent2: the lutist does weave taxidermist. sent3: the maisonette butts emphysema. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it is a indispensability and is a immateriality does not hold. sent5: the farthingale is alimentative. sent6: if the trapezius butts segue the lutist is alimentative. sent7: if something does not butt emphysema the fact that it butts segue is correct. sent8: that the portraitist is alimentative is not false. sent9: if something is not a immateriality then it is acrogenic and is a Dimocarpus. sent10: the lutist is a Balthazar. sent11: if the farthingale butts emphysema the trapezius is alimentative. sent12: the fact that something does weave salability and is non-alimentative is not incorrect if it is acrogenic. sent13: if there exists something such that that it is a indispensability and it is a immateriality is incorrect then the lutist is not a immateriality. sent14: the trapezius is a Dimocarpus. ; $proof$ = 
__UNKNOWN__