that there is something such that if that it is not a blinded and it does drive does not hold it does not syllogize usage is not false.
sent1: the fact that there exists something such that if it blinds then it does not syllogize usage is correct. sent2: there is something such that if that it is not a kind of a blinded and it is a driving is wrong then it syllogizes usage. sent3: the anchorite does not syllogize usage if it does not blind and it drives. sent4: if that the anchorite is not a bufflehead but it does blind is not correct then it does not syllogize blackjack. sent5: something is not a tenoroon if the fact that it is not psycholinguistic and it is a horsewhipping is false. sent6: the anchorite does not syllogize usage if that it is a kind of non-blinded thing that does drive is not right. sent7: if the fact that the anchorite is not a blinded and does drive is not true it syllogizes usage. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it is blinded thing that is a driving is not true then it does not syllogize usage. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not a driving then it does not syllogize usage. sent10: if the anchorite does blind it does not syllogize usage. sent11: there exists something such that if it is both not blinded and a driving it does not syllogize usage.
sent6 -> hypothesis;
there is something such that if that it is not psycholinguistic and it is a horsewhipping is false the fact that it is not a kind of a tenoroon hold.
sent5 -> int1: the blackjack is not a tenoroon if that it is non-psycholinguistic thing that horsewhips is not correct.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if that it is not a blinded and it does drive does not hold it does not syllogize usage is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that there exists something such that if it blinds then it does not syllogize usage is correct. sent2: there is something such that if that it is not a kind of a blinded and it is a driving is wrong then it syllogizes usage. sent3: the anchorite does not syllogize usage if it does not blind and it drives. sent4: if that the anchorite is not a bufflehead but it does blind is not correct then it does not syllogize blackjack. sent5: something is not a tenoroon if the fact that it is not psycholinguistic and it is a horsewhipping is false. sent6: the anchorite does not syllogize usage if that it is a kind of non-blinded thing that does drive is not right. sent7: if the fact that the anchorite is not a blinded and does drive is not true it syllogizes usage. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it is blinded thing that is a driving is not true then it does not syllogize usage. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not a driving then it does not syllogize usage. sent10: if the anchorite does blind it does not syllogize usage. sent11: there exists something such that if it is both not blinded and a driving it does not syllogize usage. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__