the bonduc does middle kolkhoz.
sent1: if something is a multivitamin then it middles kolkhoz. sent2: the bonduc middles kolkhoz if it is a multivitamin. sent3: if the bonduc is saccadic then the fact that it is not a multivitamin and it is a coho is wrong. sent4: the fact that that something is not a coho but it is a bladed is not incorrect is false if the fact that it does traffic absolutist is correct. sent5: the bonduc is saccadic. sent6: if that something is not a kind of a multivitamin but it is a coho is not true then it middles kolkhoz. sent7: that the fact that the bonduc is a kind of a multivitamin and it is a coho is incorrect is true.
sent6 -> int1: if the fact that the bonduc is not a multivitamin but a coho is not true it does middle kolkhoz.; sent3 & sent5 -> int2: the fact that the bonduc is not a kind of a multivitamin but it is a kind of a coho is not correct.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;
if the woodscrew does traffic absolutist that it is not a coho and is a bladed is not true.
sent4 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the bonduc does middle kolkhoz. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a multivitamin then it middles kolkhoz. sent2: the bonduc middles kolkhoz if it is a multivitamin. sent3: if the bonduc is saccadic then the fact that it is not a multivitamin and it is a coho is wrong. sent4: the fact that that something is not a coho but it is a bladed is not incorrect is false if the fact that it does traffic absolutist is correct. sent5: the bonduc is saccadic. sent6: if that something is not a kind of a multivitamin but it is a coho is not true then it middles kolkhoz. sent7: that the fact that the bonduc is a kind of a multivitamin and it is a coho is incorrect is true. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 -> int1: if the fact that the bonduc is not a multivitamin but a coho is not true it does middle kolkhoz.; sent3 & sent5 -> int2: the fact that the bonduc is not a kind of a multivitamin but it is a kind of a coho is not correct.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__