the fact that the murine does not misconstrue antimetabolite but it is isotropic is not right.
sent1: the fact that the longitude is not a kind of a Juvenal and does wet does not hold. sent2: the fact that the nothosaur does not misconstrue antimetabolite if there is something such that the fact that it is non-isotropic and it does sophisticate is wrong is not false. sent3: the fact that the murine does not misconstrue antimetabolite and is isotropic does not hold if the nothosaur is not a kind of a sophisticate. sent4: if the nothosaur misconstrues antimetabolite and is not a sophisticate then the erica is not a sophisticate. sent5: the nothosaur is not a kind of a sophisticate if there exists something such that that it is not a Juvenal but wetting is incorrect. sent6: something does not misconstrue antimetabolite and is isotropic if that it is a sophisticate is correct. sent7: the fact that the fact that the nothosaur is a sophisticate and it is a Juvenal is incorrect is not wrong. sent8: that the nothosaur does not sophisticate hold if there are non-wetting things. sent9: the fact that the nothosaur is non-isotropic but it sophisticates is false. sent10: if something is not a sophisticate that it does not deduce beaded and wets is incorrect. sent11: that the longitude sophisticates and is a Juvenal is not correct. sent12: something is not a sophisticate but it is wetting. sent13: the fact that that the murine does misconstrue antimetabolite and it is isotropic hold does not hold if the nothosaur is not a sophisticate. sent14: the fact that the abductor is not isotropic but inglorious is incorrect. sent15: there exists something such that it is not an aptitude and does survive.
sent1 -> int1: there is something such that the fact that it is not a Juvenal and does wet does not hold.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the nothosaur does not sophisticate.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the erica does not deduce beaded and wets does not hold.
sent10 -> int3: if the erica does not sophisticate then that it does not deduce beaded and it does wet is wrong.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the murine does not misconstrue antimetabolite but it is isotropic is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the longitude is not a kind of a Juvenal and does wet does not hold. sent2: the fact that the nothosaur does not misconstrue antimetabolite if there is something such that the fact that it is non-isotropic and it does sophisticate is wrong is not false. sent3: the fact that the murine does not misconstrue antimetabolite and is isotropic does not hold if the nothosaur is not a kind of a sophisticate. sent4: if the nothosaur misconstrues antimetabolite and is not a sophisticate then the erica is not a sophisticate. sent5: the nothosaur is not a kind of a sophisticate if there exists something such that that it is not a Juvenal but wetting is incorrect. sent6: something does not misconstrue antimetabolite and is isotropic if that it is a sophisticate is correct. sent7: the fact that the fact that the nothosaur is a sophisticate and it is a Juvenal is incorrect is not wrong. sent8: that the nothosaur does not sophisticate hold if there are non-wetting things. sent9: the fact that the nothosaur is non-isotropic but it sophisticates is false. sent10: if something is not a sophisticate that it does not deduce beaded and wets is incorrect. sent11: that the longitude sophisticates and is a Juvenal is not correct. sent12: something is not a sophisticate but it is wetting. sent13: the fact that that the murine does misconstrue antimetabolite and it is isotropic hold does not hold if the nothosaur is not a sophisticate. sent14: the fact that the abductor is not isotropic but inglorious is incorrect. sent15: there exists something such that it is not an aptitude and does survive. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 -> int1: there is something such that the fact that it is not a Juvenal and does wet does not hold.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the nothosaur does not sophisticate.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__