the demantoid is supernaturalist.
sent1: there is something such that the fact that it is non-dogmatic thing that is disorderly is wrong. sent2: if there is something such that it is dogmatic the tippler does not compromise socage. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of dogmatic thing that is not disorderly does not hold. sent4: the tippler does not compromise socage if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of non-dogmatic thing that is not disorderly is not true. sent5: something does not ambush epithelium if the fact that it is not resolute and is bignoniaceous is incorrect. sent6: something is a gastropod and/or dulls if it does not compromise socage. sent7: the demantoid is supernaturalist if the tippler is a gastropod. sent8: the demantoid is not dull if there is something such that that it is non-supernaturalist thing that does not compromise socage is not correct. sent9: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of non-invasive thing that is not ineradicable does not hold then the apogee is not a kind of a major-domo. sent10: everything is ungual. sent11: there are non-dogmatic and orderly things. sent12: if something is ungual it does not ambush wirehair. sent13: that the demantoid is supernaturalist is not false if the tippler does dull. sent14: there is something such that the fact that it is not dogmatic and it is not disorderly is false. sent15: the fact that something is not resolute but it is bignoniaceous does not hold if it is a lacer. sent16: if something does not ambush wirehair then it is a railroad and it is a lacer. sent17: the fence does not compromise socage if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a gastropod and it is not a headhunter does not hold. sent18: the fact that the epithelium is not a gastropod and not a headhunter is not true if there is something such that it does not ambush epithelium. sent19: the demantoid is not supernaturalist if the fact that the tippler is dull or it is supernaturalist or both is not true. sent20: either the demantoid compromises socage or it is supernaturalist or both.
sent14 & sent4 -> int1: the tippler does not compromise socage.; sent6 -> int2: if the tippler does not compromise socage then it is a kind of a gastropod or does dull or both.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the tippler is a gastropod and/or it does dull is not false.; int3 & sent7 & sent13 -> hypothesis;
the demantoid is not supernaturalist.
sent16 -> int4: the neurohormone railroads and it is a lacer if that it does not ambush wirehair is true.; sent12 -> int5: the neurohormone does not ambush wirehair if it is ungual.; sent10 -> int6: the neurohormone is ungual.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the neurohormone does not ambush wirehair is right.; int4 & int7 -> int8: the neurohormone is a kind of a railroad that is a lacer.; int8 -> int9: everything is a kind of a railroad and is a lacer.; int9 -> int10: the Jezebel railroads and is a kind of a lacer.; int10 -> int11: the Jezebel is a lacer.; sent15 -> int12: the fact that the Jezebel is non-resolute thing that is bignoniaceous is not right if it is a lacer.; int11 & int12 -> int13: that the Jezebel is not resolute but it is bignoniaceous is not correct.; sent5 -> int14: the Jezebel does not ambush epithelium if that it is not resolute and it is bignoniaceous is not right.; int13 & int14 -> int15: the Jezebel does not ambush epithelium.; int15 -> int16: there is something such that it does not ambush epithelium.; sent18 & int16 -> int17: the fact that the epithelium is not a gastropod and it is not a headhunter does not hold.; int17 -> int18: there is something such that the fact that it is not a gastropod and it is not a headhunter does not hold.; sent17 & int18 -> int19: that the fence does not compromise socage is right.;
$hypothesis$ = the demantoid is supernaturalist. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that the fact that it is non-dogmatic thing that is disorderly is wrong. sent2: if there is something such that it is dogmatic the tippler does not compromise socage. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of dogmatic thing that is not disorderly does not hold. sent4: the tippler does not compromise socage if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of non-dogmatic thing that is not disorderly is not true. sent5: something does not ambush epithelium if the fact that it is not resolute and is bignoniaceous is incorrect. sent6: something is a gastropod and/or dulls if it does not compromise socage. sent7: the demantoid is supernaturalist if the tippler is a gastropod. sent8: the demantoid is not dull if there is something such that that it is non-supernaturalist thing that does not compromise socage is not correct. sent9: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of non-invasive thing that is not ineradicable does not hold then the apogee is not a kind of a major-domo. sent10: everything is ungual. sent11: there are non-dogmatic and orderly things. sent12: if something is ungual it does not ambush wirehair. sent13: that the demantoid is supernaturalist is not false if the tippler does dull. sent14: there is something such that the fact that it is not dogmatic and it is not disorderly is false. sent15: the fact that something is not resolute but it is bignoniaceous does not hold if it is a lacer. sent16: if something does not ambush wirehair then it is a railroad and it is a lacer. sent17: the fence does not compromise socage if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a gastropod and it is not a headhunter does not hold. sent18: the fact that the epithelium is not a gastropod and not a headhunter is not true if there is something such that it does not ambush epithelium. sent19: the demantoid is not supernaturalist if the fact that the tippler is dull or it is supernaturalist or both is not true. sent20: either the demantoid compromises socage or it is supernaturalist or both. ; $proof$ = 
sent14 & sent4 -> int1: the tippler does not compromise socage.; sent6 -> int2: if the tippler does not compromise socage then it is a kind of a gastropod or does dull or both.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the tippler is a gastropod and/or it does dull is not false.; int3 & sent7 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__