the Cotswolds is a kind of a carmaker.
sent1: the tobacco is not bacillar if the opopanax is not bacillar. sent2: if the Cotswolds is a ICU it is incongruent. sent3: the Guru is conscientious. sent4: if an open is not a critic then it is not a carmaker. sent5: if something is a kind of a Jude it is dactylic. sent6: if the Cotswolds is conscientious then it does not open. sent7: the tobacco is not non-dactylic. sent8: that something is a kind of a bacteriochlorophyll is not false if it is revolutionary. sent9: the Guru is a Jude and/or conscientious if there exists something such that it does not heap solarization. sent10: the Cotswolds is a carmaker if it is conscientious. sent11: the Cotswolds is conscientious if the Guru is not a critic. sent12: if the Guru is dactylic the Cotswolds is a kind of an open but it is not a kind of a critic. sent13: the tobacco does not heap solarization if the fact that it is a wallet and it heap solarization is false. sent14: the tobacco is not bacillar if the opopanax does not criticize Lamarck. sent15: if the sandblast is not osmotic the opopanax is not osmotic. sent16: the Guru is an open if it is a kind of a Riksmal. sent17: if the fact that something is non-open but it is a Jude is not true then it is not dactylic. sent18: that the tobacco opens and is a kind of a Jude is wrong. sent19: that if something is a bacteriochlorophyll then it is not osmotic hold. sent20: the fact that something is a kind of a wallet that heaps solarization does not hold if the fact that it is not bacillar hold. sent21: if the fact that the Guru is not a kind of a biquadratic and it is not a Riksmal is not true it is an open. sent22: the sandblast is revolutionary. sent23: something is not dactylic if it does open. sent24: if the Guru opens the fact that the tobacco is not opens and is a Jude is incorrect. sent25: if that the fact that the Guru is not a kind of a critic is not correct is not incorrect then that it is not a kind of a biquadratic and it is not a Riksmal is wrong. sent26: if something is not osmotic then it does not criticize Lamarck and/or is not bacillar.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Guru is a critic.; sent25 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the Guru is both not a biquadratic and not a Riksmal does not hold.; int1 & sent21 -> int2: the Guru opens.; int2 & sent24 -> int3: that the tobacco is not a kind of an open but it is a Jude does not hold.; sent17 -> int4: if the fact that the tobacco is not open and is a Jude is not right the fact that it is not dactylic is not incorrect.; int3 & int4 -> int5: that the tobacco is dactylic is incorrect.; int5 & sent7 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the Guru is not a kind of a critic.; int7 & sent11 -> int8: the Cotswolds is conscientious.; int8 & sent10 -> hypothesis;
the Cotswolds is not a carmaker.
sent4 -> int9: if the Cotswolds is an open but it is not a critic it is not a carmaker.; sent20 -> int10: the fact that the tobacco is a wallet and heaps solarization does not hold if it is not bacillar.; sent26 -> int11: if the opopanax is not osmotic then it does not criticize Lamarck or it is not bacillar or both.; sent19 -> int12: the fact that the sandblast is not osmotic if the sandblast is a kind of a bacteriochlorophyll is right.; sent8 -> int13: if the sandblast is revolutionary it is a bacteriochlorophyll.; int13 & sent22 -> int14: the sandblast is a bacteriochlorophyll.; int12 & int14 -> int15: the sandblast is not osmotic.; sent15 & int15 -> int16: the opopanax is not osmotic.; int11 & int16 -> int17: the opopanax does not criticize Lamarck or is not bacillar or both.; int17 & sent14 & sent1 -> int18: the tobacco is not bacillar.; int10 & int18 -> int19: that the tobacco is a wallet and it heaps solarization is wrong.; sent13 & int19 -> int20: the tobacco does not heap solarization.; int20 -> int21: there is something such that it does not heap solarization.; int21 & sent9 -> int22: the Guru is either a Jude or conscientious or both.; sent5 -> int23: the fact that the Guru is dactylic hold if it is a kind of a Jude.;
$hypothesis$ = the Cotswolds is a kind of a carmaker. ; $context$ = sent1: the tobacco is not bacillar if the opopanax is not bacillar. sent2: if the Cotswolds is a ICU it is incongruent. sent3: the Guru is conscientious. sent4: if an open is not a critic then it is not a carmaker. sent5: if something is a kind of a Jude it is dactylic. sent6: if the Cotswolds is conscientious then it does not open. sent7: the tobacco is not non-dactylic. sent8: that something is a kind of a bacteriochlorophyll is not false if it is revolutionary. sent9: the Guru is a Jude and/or conscientious if there exists something such that it does not heap solarization. sent10: the Cotswolds is a carmaker if it is conscientious. sent11: the Cotswolds is conscientious if the Guru is not a critic. sent12: if the Guru is dactylic the Cotswolds is a kind of an open but it is not a kind of a critic. sent13: the tobacco does not heap solarization if the fact that it is a wallet and it heap solarization is false. sent14: the tobacco is not bacillar if the opopanax does not criticize Lamarck. sent15: if the sandblast is not osmotic the opopanax is not osmotic. sent16: the Guru is an open if it is a kind of a Riksmal. sent17: if the fact that something is non-open but it is a Jude is not true then it is not dactylic. sent18: that the tobacco opens and is a kind of a Jude is wrong. sent19: that if something is a bacteriochlorophyll then it is not osmotic hold. sent20: the fact that something is a kind of a wallet that heaps solarization does not hold if the fact that it is not bacillar hold. sent21: if the fact that the Guru is not a kind of a biquadratic and it is not a Riksmal is not true it is an open. sent22: the sandblast is revolutionary. sent23: something is not dactylic if it does open. sent24: if the Guru opens the fact that the tobacco is not opens and is a Jude is incorrect. sent25: if that the fact that the Guru is not a kind of a critic is not correct is not incorrect then that it is not a kind of a biquadratic and it is not a Riksmal is wrong. sent26: if something is not osmotic then it does not criticize Lamarck and/or is not bacillar. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Guru is a critic.; sent25 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the Guru is both not a biquadratic and not a Riksmal does not hold.; int1 & sent21 -> int2: the Guru opens.; int2 & sent24 -> int3: that the tobacco is not a kind of an open but it is a Jude does not hold.; sent17 -> int4: if the fact that the tobacco is not open and is a Jude is not right the fact that it is not dactylic is not incorrect.; int3 & int4 -> int5: that the tobacco is dactylic is incorrect.; int5 & sent7 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the Guru is not a kind of a critic.; int7 & sent11 -> int8: the Cotswolds is conscientious.; int8 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__