that the fact that the northwester is an efferent and it does interlock virulence is incorrect hold.
sent1: the saccule is an affair. sent2: if something is mecopterous and it personifies righteousness that it is not a kind of an efferent hold. sent3: that the northwester is an efferent and it does interlock virulence is wrong if the Sheetrock is not an efferent. sent4: the northwester is a kind of an efferent if it is calendric. sent5: there exists nothing such that it is a kind of an affair and it interlocks virulence. sent6: that if there is something such that it does not personify bag then the fact that the farmland personify bag and it is telephonic does not hold is correct. sent7: the fact that the Sheetrock does not personify bag is not wrong if there exists something such that it does personify Eschrichtius. sent8: if the saccule is an affair the Sheetrock is mecopterous. sent9: if the fact that the nogging is an affair and it does interlock virulence is wrong then the fact that the grocer is not an affair hold. sent10: the farmland does not personify Eschrichtius if there is something such that the fact that it does not personify bag and it is a kind of a Bassia is not correct. sent11: there is something such that that it does not personify bag and it is a Bassia is false. sent12: something personifies Eschrichtius and it personifies righteousness if it is not calendric. sent13: if there exists something such that that it is both non-efferent and not mecopterous is not right then the northwester is not calendric. sent14: the Sheetrock is calendric and personifies righteousness if the farmland does not personify Eschrichtius. sent15: that the saccule is not an efferent and not mecopterous is wrong if the grocer is not an affair.
sent11 & sent10 -> int1: the farmland does not personify Eschrichtius.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the Sheetrock is calendric and it personifies righteousness.; int2 -> int3: the Sheetrock personifies righteousness.; sent8 & sent1 -> int4: the Sheetrock is mecopterous.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the Sheetrock is mecopterous and it does personify righteousness.; sent2 -> int6: the Sheetrock is non-efferent if it is a kind of mecopterous thing that personifies righteousness.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the Sheetrock is not an efferent is not incorrect.; int7 & sent3 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the farmland personifies bag and it is telephonic is incorrect.
sent12 -> int8: that if the northwester is not calendric the northwester personifies Eschrichtius and it personifies righteousness is not wrong.; sent5 -> int9: that the nogging is an affair and does interlock virulence is wrong.; sent9 & int9 -> int10: the grocer is not an affair.; sent15 & int10 -> int11: the fact that the saccule is both not efferent and not mecopterous is false.; int11 -> int12: there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of an efferent and is not mecopterous does not hold.; int12 & sent13 -> int13: the northwester is not calendric.; int8 & int13 -> int14: the northwester personifies Eschrichtius and it personifies righteousness.; int14 -> int15: the northwester personifies Eschrichtius.; int15 -> int16: there exists something such that it does personify Eschrichtius.; int16 & sent7 -> int17: that the Sheetrock does not personify bag is not false.; int17 -> int18: something does not personify bag.; int18 & sent6 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that the fact that the northwester is an efferent and it does interlock virulence is incorrect hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the saccule is an affair. sent2: if something is mecopterous and it personifies righteousness that it is not a kind of an efferent hold. sent3: that the northwester is an efferent and it does interlock virulence is wrong if the Sheetrock is not an efferent. sent4: the northwester is a kind of an efferent if it is calendric. sent5: there exists nothing such that it is a kind of an affair and it interlocks virulence. sent6: that if there is something such that it does not personify bag then the fact that the farmland personify bag and it is telephonic does not hold is correct. sent7: the fact that the Sheetrock does not personify bag is not wrong if there exists something such that it does personify Eschrichtius. sent8: if the saccule is an affair the Sheetrock is mecopterous. sent9: if the fact that the nogging is an affair and it does interlock virulence is wrong then the fact that the grocer is not an affair hold. sent10: the farmland does not personify Eschrichtius if there is something such that the fact that it does not personify bag and it is a kind of a Bassia is not correct. sent11: there is something such that that it does not personify bag and it is a Bassia is false. sent12: something personifies Eschrichtius and it personifies righteousness if it is not calendric. sent13: if there exists something such that that it is both non-efferent and not mecopterous is not right then the northwester is not calendric. sent14: the Sheetrock is calendric and personifies righteousness if the farmland does not personify Eschrichtius. sent15: that the saccule is not an efferent and not mecopterous is wrong if the grocer is not an affair. ; $proof$ = 
sent11 & sent10 -> int1: the farmland does not personify Eschrichtius.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the Sheetrock is calendric and it personifies righteousness.; int2 -> int3: the Sheetrock personifies righteousness.; sent8 & sent1 -> int4: the Sheetrock is mecopterous.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the Sheetrock is mecopterous and it does personify righteousness.; sent2 -> int6: the Sheetrock is non-efferent if it is a kind of mecopterous thing that personifies righteousness.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the Sheetrock is not an efferent is not incorrect.; int7 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__