the nebule does not sicken lithography but it is paleolithic.
sent1: the nebule does not sicken lithography and is paleolithic if the HIV enthuses. sent2: the criminal does not suborn fling and does sicken lithography. sent3: that the nebule suborns fling and does sicken lithography is false. sent4: that the right is a peck is true. sent5: if the right pecks then that the criminal does not suborn fling but it is a kind of a nonconformist is not true. sent6: if the criminal is nonconformist the fact that the nebule does suborn fling and it is paleolithic is not true. sent7: there exists something such that that it does not gather topsoil and is a cayenne does not hold. sent8: the fact that the nebule sickens lithography and it does enthuse is wrong if the HIV is paleolithic. sent9: the criminal does enthuse. sent10: the criminal is not rh-negative if there exists something such that the fact that it does not gather topsoil and is a kind of a cayenne is false. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it does suborn fling and it is a nonconformist is not correct. sent12: a non-rh-negative thing is a kind of repetitive thing that does not gather desperate. sent13: the nebule is paleolithic. sent14: if there exists something such that that it does not suborn fling and it is a kind of a nonconformist does not hold then the HIV enthuses. sent15: if the nebule pecks then the fact that the right is a kind of non-paleolithic thing that does sicken lithography does not hold. sent16: the fact that something does not sicken lithography but it is paleolithic does not hold if it is not a kind of a peck. sent17: that the pitchman does not sicken lithography does not hold. sent18: the fact that the criminal is not a peck but it is a kind of a nonconformist is wrong. sent19: if there exists something such that it is repetitive then the fact that the right does sicken optometrist and it enthuses is wrong. sent20: if there is something such that it suborns fling then the fact that the criminal is a kind of a peck is not false. sent21: the fact that the nebule is not Leonardesque but it is a colonic is true.
sent5 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the criminal does not suborn fling but it is a nonconformist is incorrect.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it does not suborn fling and is nonconformist is wrong.; int2 & sent14 -> int3: the fact that the HIV enthuses hold.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis;
that the nebule does not sicken lithography but it is paleolithic is not true.
sent16 -> int4: if the nebule does not peck then the fact that it does not sicken lithography and is paleolithic is not correct.; sent12 -> int5: the criminal is repetitive but it does not gather desperate if it is not rh-negative.; sent7 & sent10 -> int6: the criminal is not rh-negative.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the criminal is repetitive and does not gather desperate.; int7 -> int8: the fact that the criminal is repetitive hold.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that it is repetitive.; int9 & sent19 -> int10: the fact that the right sickens optometrist and does enthuse is wrong.; int10 -> int11: there is something such that the fact that it does sicken optometrist and it does enthuse is incorrect.;
$hypothesis$ = the nebule does not sicken lithography but it is paleolithic. ; $context$ = sent1: the nebule does not sicken lithography and is paleolithic if the HIV enthuses. sent2: the criminal does not suborn fling and does sicken lithography. sent3: that the nebule suborns fling and does sicken lithography is false. sent4: that the right is a peck is true. sent5: if the right pecks then that the criminal does not suborn fling but it is a kind of a nonconformist is not true. sent6: if the criminal is nonconformist the fact that the nebule does suborn fling and it is paleolithic is not true. sent7: there exists something such that that it does not gather topsoil and is a cayenne does not hold. sent8: the fact that the nebule sickens lithography and it does enthuse is wrong if the HIV is paleolithic. sent9: the criminal does enthuse. sent10: the criminal is not rh-negative if there exists something such that the fact that it does not gather topsoil and is a kind of a cayenne is false. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it does suborn fling and it is a nonconformist is not correct. sent12: a non-rh-negative thing is a kind of repetitive thing that does not gather desperate. sent13: the nebule is paleolithic. sent14: if there exists something such that that it does not suborn fling and it is a kind of a nonconformist does not hold then the HIV enthuses. sent15: if the nebule pecks then the fact that the right is a kind of non-paleolithic thing that does sicken lithography does not hold. sent16: the fact that something does not sicken lithography but it is paleolithic does not hold if it is not a kind of a peck. sent17: that the pitchman does not sicken lithography does not hold. sent18: the fact that the criminal is not a peck but it is a kind of a nonconformist is wrong. sent19: if there exists something such that it is repetitive then the fact that the right does sicken optometrist and it enthuses is wrong. sent20: if there is something such that it suborns fling then the fact that the criminal is a kind of a peck is not false. sent21: the fact that the nebule is not Leonardesque but it is a colonic is true. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the criminal does not suborn fling but it is a nonconformist is incorrect.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it does not suborn fling and is nonconformist is wrong.; int2 & sent14 -> int3: the fact that the HIV enthuses hold.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__