the sidecar is a haggle.
sent1: the brother-in-law is a kind of an assurance. sent2: there is something such that it is a scaffold. sent3: if the herbivore is not an assurance that it is a kind of a scaffold that is a Amelanchier does not hold. sent4: the brother-in-law is a Amelanchier if it does shore. sent5: if the sidecar is granulomatous it is a kind of a haggle. sent6: if the herbivore is a pedesis then it is not a kind of a Characinidae. sent7: if there is something such that it does scaffold and is an assurance the herbivore is a kind of a rotifer. sent8: the sidecar is a haggle if it does not unveil verger or it is granulomatous or both. sent9: the brother-in-law shores. sent10: the sidecar does not unveil verger and/or it is granulomatous if the herbivore is not a kind of a Characinidae. sent11: the groundsel does unveil verger if there exists something such that the fact that it does not unveil verger and it is not a kind of a Amelanchier does not hold. sent12: the fact that the brother-in-law does not unveil verger and it is not a Amelanchier is incorrect if something does shore. sent13: there is something such that it is an assurance. sent14: the herbivore is not a Characinidae if it is a pedesis and/or it is a rotifer.
sent4 & sent9 -> int1: the brother-in-law is a Amelanchier.;
the fact that the sidecar is not a haggle is not false.
$hypothesis$ = the sidecar is a haggle. ; $context$ = sent1: the brother-in-law is a kind of an assurance. sent2: there is something such that it is a scaffold. sent3: if the herbivore is not an assurance that it is a kind of a scaffold that is a Amelanchier does not hold. sent4: the brother-in-law is a Amelanchier if it does shore. sent5: if the sidecar is granulomatous it is a kind of a haggle. sent6: if the herbivore is a pedesis then it is not a kind of a Characinidae. sent7: if there is something such that it does scaffold and is an assurance the herbivore is a kind of a rotifer. sent8: the sidecar is a haggle if it does not unveil verger or it is granulomatous or both. sent9: the brother-in-law shores. sent10: the sidecar does not unveil verger and/or it is granulomatous if the herbivore is not a kind of a Characinidae. sent11: the groundsel does unveil verger if there exists something such that the fact that it does not unveil verger and it is not a kind of a Amelanchier does not hold. sent12: the fact that the brother-in-law does not unveil verger and it is not a Amelanchier is incorrect if something does shore. sent13: there is something such that it is an assurance. sent14: the herbivore is not a Characinidae if it is a pedesis and/or it is a rotifer. ; $proof$ = 
sent4 & sent9 -> int1: the brother-in-law is a Amelanchier.; __UNKNOWN__