the witch is not a permeation.
sent1: if a permeation sentimentalises befoulment then it is not a kind of a paddle. sent2: if either something is not an imperial or it is a paddle or both it is not an imperial. sent3: there is something such that it does sentimentalise pip-squeak. sent4: the witch is a kind of a Neolentinus if there is something such that it does sentimentalise pip-squeak and is a kind of an imperial. sent5: something is not a permeation if it is a Neolentinus and is a paddle. sent6: that the witch does rationalize veneer and does not dwell is not true. sent7: if something that is a paddle is a kind of a permeation then it does not sentimentalise befoulment. sent8: that the witch does sentimentalise befoulment and does paddle is not correct. sent9: the witch is not a pfennig if it is a Neolentinus that is a sacrifice. sent10: there exists something such that it sentimentalises pip-squeak and is an imperial. sent11: if the fact that the caftan is gloveless but it does not sentimentalise befoulment does not hold then it does sentimentalise befoulment. sent12: if the fact that the antimeson is not a Neolentinus is correct either it is non-imperial or it is a paddle or both. sent13: if something does stipulate and it is excitable that it is an imperial is not true. sent14: if that the antimeson is an imperial does not hold the witch is a permeation and it does sentimentalise pip-squeak. sent15: if the antimeson is not an imperial then that the witch does not sentimentalise pip-squeak and is not a kind of a permeation is wrong. sent16: the fact that the Khmer is a kind of a permeation hold. sent17: the fact that the witch does sentimentalise befoulment but it is not a paddle does not hold. sent18: the incidence does nobble if something is a kind of a paddle that is a hanger. sent19: the witch does paddle if the fact that it sentimentalises befoulment and does not paddle is not true. sent20: there is something such that it is a permeation and it sentimentalises befoulment. sent21: if the fact that something does not sentimentalise pip-squeak and it is not a permeation is not true then the fact that it is a kind of a permeation hold. sent22: something is an imperial.
sent10 & sent4 -> int1: the witch is a Neolentinus.; sent19 & sent17 -> int2: the witch does paddle.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the witch is a kind of a Neolentinus that is a kind of a paddle.; sent5 -> int4: the witch is not a permeation if it is a Neolentinus and it does paddle.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;
the witch is not a kind of an imperial if it stipulates and is excitable.
sent13 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the witch is not a permeation. ; $context$ = sent1: if a permeation sentimentalises befoulment then it is not a kind of a paddle. sent2: if either something is not an imperial or it is a paddle or both it is not an imperial. sent3: there is something such that it does sentimentalise pip-squeak. sent4: the witch is a kind of a Neolentinus if there is something such that it does sentimentalise pip-squeak and is a kind of an imperial. sent5: something is not a permeation if it is a Neolentinus and is a paddle. sent6: that the witch does rationalize veneer and does not dwell is not true. sent7: if something that is a paddle is a kind of a permeation then it does not sentimentalise befoulment. sent8: that the witch does sentimentalise befoulment and does paddle is not correct. sent9: the witch is not a pfennig if it is a Neolentinus that is a sacrifice. sent10: there exists something such that it sentimentalises pip-squeak and is an imperial. sent11: if the fact that the caftan is gloveless but it does not sentimentalise befoulment does not hold then it does sentimentalise befoulment. sent12: if the fact that the antimeson is not a Neolentinus is correct either it is non-imperial or it is a paddle or both. sent13: if something does stipulate and it is excitable that it is an imperial is not true. sent14: if that the antimeson is an imperial does not hold the witch is a permeation and it does sentimentalise pip-squeak. sent15: if the antimeson is not an imperial then that the witch does not sentimentalise pip-squeak and is not a kind of a permeation is wrong. sent16: the fact that the Khmer is a kind of a permeation hold. sent17: the fact that the witch does sentimentalise befoulment but it is not a paddle does not hold. sent18: the incidence does nobble if something is a kind of a paddle that is a hanger. sent19: the witch does paddle if the fact that it sentimentalises befoulment and does not paddle is not true. sent20: there is something such that it is a permeation and it sentimentalises befoulment. sent21: if the fact that something does not sentimentalise pip-squeak and it is not a permeation is not true then the fact that it is a kind of a permeation hold. sent22: something is an imperial. ; $proof$ = 
sent10 & sent4 -> int1: the witch is a Neolentinus.; sent19 & sent17 -> int2: the witch does paddle.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the witch is a kind of a Neolentinus that is a kind of a paddle.; sent5 -> int4: the witch is not a permeation if it is a Neolentinus and it does paddle.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__