the sandbur is a kind of a Sium.
sent1: the illumination is a kind of a Sium if there exists something such that the fact that it does not sparge Colbert and is a piloting is not true. sent2: if there is something such that it does sparge Colbert then the illumination is a kind of a Sium. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is Manichaean and it sparges venesection is false. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is not a restitution and it is a bluethroat is not correct then the illumination does sparge Colbert. sent5: the sandbur is not a Sium if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a piloting and it is a Sium is wrong. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a restitution and it is a bluethroat does not hold. sent7: there exists something such that that it is both not a underlip and deficient is incorrect. sent8: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a Sium and does sparge Colbert is false. sent9: there is something such that it is an isolationist and/or it does speak Iapetus. sent10: the illumination is a Sium if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a piloting and does sparge Colbert is incorrect. sent11: if something is a restitution the illumination does sparge Colbert. sent12: if there is something such that it is not a piloting the illumination is a kind of a Sium. sent13: the stumblebum is a kind of a Sium. sent14: there exists something such that that that it does not sparge Colbert and it is a Sium hold is false. sent15: that the chintz is a ELINT or a piloting or both is not wrong. sent16: the sandbur is a Sium if there is something such that it is a piloting. sent17: there exists something such that it does not sparge Colbert and is a Sium. sent18: if there exists something such that either it is a piloting or it sparges Colbert or both then that the sandbur is a Sium is true.
sent6 & sent4 -> int1: the illumination sparges Colbert.; int1 -> int2: that the illumination is a piloting and/or it does sparge Colbert is not wrong.; int2 -> int3: there exists something such that it is a piloting and/or it sparges Colbert.; int3 & sent18 -> hypothesis;
the sandbur is not a Sium.
$hypothesis$ = the sandbur is a kind of a Sium. ; $context$ = sent1: the illumination is a kind of a Sium if there exists something such that the fact that it does not sparge Colbert and is a piloting is not true. sent2: if there is something such that it does sparge Colbert then the illumination is a kind of a Sium. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is Manichaean and it sparges venesection is false. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is not a restitution and it is a bluethroat is not correct then the illumination does sparge Colbert. sent5: the sandbur is not a Sium if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a piloting and it is a Sium is wrong. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a restitution and it is a bluethroat does not hold. sent7: there exists something such that that it is both not a underlip and deficient is incorrect. sent8: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a Sium and does sparge Colbert is false. sent9: there is something such that it is an isolationist and/or it does speak Iapetus. sent10: the illumination is a Sium if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a piloting and does sparge Colbert is incorrect. sent11: if something is a restitution the illumination does sparge Colbert. sent12: if there is something such that it is not a piloting the illumination is a kind of a Sium. sent13: the stumblebum is a kind of a Sium. sent14: there exists something such that that that it does not sparge Colbert and it is a Sium hold is false. sent15: that the chintz is a ELINT or a piloting or both is not wrong. sent16: the sandbur is a Sium if there is something such that it is a piloting. sent17: there exists something such that it does not sparge Colbert and is a Sium. sent18: if there exists something such that either it is a piloting or it sparges Colbert or both then that the sandbur is a Sium is true. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 & sent4 -> int1: the illumination sparges Colbert.; int1 -> int2: that the illumination is a piloting and/or it does sparge Colbert is not wrong.; int2 -> int3: there exists something such that it is a piloting and/or it sparges Colbert.; int3 & sent18 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__