the swallow is homozygous and it is an impatience.
sent1: the swallow is a kind of a clashing. sent2: that the semblance is employable thing that is a Steatornithidae is not correct. sent3: if there is something such that that it is not an impatience and is a kind of a flow is not right then the swallow is an impatience. sent4: something is not an impatience but it is a Steatornithidae. sent5: the spoilsport is not expedient if the fact that the semblance is not unemployable but a Steatornithidae is wrong. sent6: the swallow is not a kind of a Steatornithidae. sent7: the fact that the swallow is not unemployable but it is an impatience does not hold. sent8: the fact that that the larvacide is not a flush and is subclavian is not correct hold if the antinomian does not flush. sent9: the swallow is non-subclavian. sent10: if there exists something such that it is homozygous the fact that the larvacide is homozygous hold. sent11: if that the larvacide is both not a flush and subclavian is not true the triose is a Poitiers. sent12: if the triose is a kind of a Poitiers the fact that the swallow is homozygous hold. sent13: if something is a kind of a Carcharhinidae then the antinomian does not flush. sent14: there is something such that it is a Carcharhinidae. sent15: the fact that the spoilsport is subclavian and it is expedient is wrong. sent16: that the swallow is not an impatience and is a Steatornithidae is false. sent17: if the spoilsport is not expedient then that it is not an impatience and it does flow is wrong. sent18: the fact that the semblance is homozygous and unemployable does not hold if it is not a kind of an impatience. sent19: the fact that something is not an expedient but it is a kind of a itraconazole does not hold if that it is a kind of a Carcharhinidae is not correct.
sent14 & sent13 -> int1: the fact that the antinomian is not a flush is not false.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the fact that the larvacide does not flush and is subclavian does not hold.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: the triose is a Poitiers.; int3 & sent12 -> int4: the fact that the swallow is homozygous hold.; sent5 & sent2 -> int5: the spoilsport is not an expedient.; sent17 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the spoilsport is not an impatience but it flows does not hold.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that that it is both not an impatience and a flow does not hold.; int7 & sent3 -> int8: the swallow is a kind of an impatience.; int4 & int8 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the antinomian is not a kind of an expedient but it is a itraconazole does not hold.
sent19 -> int9: the fact that the antinomian is non-expedient thing that is a itraconazole does not hold if it is not a Carcharhinidae.;
$hypothesis$ = the swallow is homozygous and it is an impatience. ; $context$ = sent1: the swallow is a kind of a clashing. sent2: that the semblance is employable thing that is a Steatornithidae is not correct. sent3: if there is something such that that it is not an impatience and is a kind of a flow is not right then the swallow is an impatience. sent4: something is not an impatience but it is a Steatornithidae. sent5: the spoilsport is not expedient if the fact that the semblance is not unemployable but a Steatornithidae is wrong. sent6: the swallow is not a kind of a Steatornithidae. sent7: the fact that the swallow is not unemployable but it is an impatience does not hold. sent8: the fact that that the larvacide is not a flush and is subclavian is not correct hold if the antinomian does not flush. sent9: the swallow is non-subclavian. sent10: if there exists something such that it is homozygous the fact that the larvacide is homozygous hold. sent11: if that the larvacide is both not a flush and subclavian is not true the triose is a Poitiers. sent12: if the triose is a kind of a Poitiers the fact that the swallow is homozygous hold. sent13: if something is a kind of a Carcharhinidae then the antinomian does not flush. sent14: there is something such that it is a Carcharhinidae. sent15: the fact that the spoilsport is subclavian and it is expedient is wrong. sent16: that the swallow is not an impatience and is a Steatornithidae is false. sent17: if the spoilsport is not expedient then that it is not an impatience and it does flow is wrong. sent18: the fact that the semblance is homozygous and unemployable does not hold if it is not a kind of an impatience. sent19: the fact that something is not an expedient but it is a kind of a itraconazole does not hold if that it is a kind of a Carcharhinidae is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent14 & sent13 -> int1: the fact that the antinomian is not a flush is not false.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the fact that the larvacide does not flush and is subclavian does not hold.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: the triose is a Poitiers.; int3 & sent12 -> int4: the fact that the swallow is homozygous hold.; sent5 & sent2 -> int5: the spoilsport is not an expedient.; sent17 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the spoilsport is not an impatience but it flows does not hold.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that that it is both not an impatience and a flow does not hold.; int7 & sent3 -> int8: the swallow is a kind of an impatience.; int4 & int8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__