the protectionist is not a crowbar.
sent1: the monoplane does wake vicar. sent2: the fact that the batten is not a rupture but it is journalistic is not correct if it is not a tailgate. sent3: the sandstone is not a kind of a thrashing and it is not a stupid. sent4: the protectionist is not a kind of a rupture if that the batten is not a rupture but it is journalistic is incorrect. sent5: if the fact that the monoplane is vice-presidential but not a cyclist does not hold then it does wake protectionist. sent6: The vicar does wake monoplane. sent7: the protectionist is not a IW if something that wakes protectionist does wake vicar. sent8: if the sandstone does not thrash but it is a kind of a stupid then the batten is not a tailgate. sent9: if the monoplane is a IW the protectionist does not wake vicar and it does not wake protectionist. sent10: the fact that the monoplane is a kind of vice-presidential thing that is not a cyclist does not hold. sent11: if something does not wake vicar and it does not wake protectionist it is a kind of a crowbar. sent12: something does wake vicar. sent13: if the sandstone is not a kind of a thrashing and is not a stupid then the batten is not a tailgate.
sent5 & sent10 -> int1: the monoplane does wake protectionist.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the monoplane does wake protectionist and does wake vicar.; int2 -> int3: there is something such that it does wake protectionist and it wakes vicar.; int3 & sent7 -> int4: the protectionist is not a IW.; sent13 & sent3 -> int5: the batten is not a tailgate.; sent2 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the batten is not a rupture but it is journalistic does not hold.; sent4 & int6 -> int7: the protectionist is not a rupture.; int4 & int7 -> int8: the protectionist is not a IW and not a rupture.;
the protectionist is a kind of a crowbar.
sent11 -> int9: the protectionist is a crowbar if it does not wake vicar and it does not wake protectionist.;
$hypothesis$ = the protectionist is not a crowbar. ; $context$ = sent1: the monoplane does wake vicar. sent2: the fact that the batten is not a rupture but it is journalistic is not correct if it is not a tailgate. sent3: the sandstone is not a kind of a thrashing and it is not a stupid. sent4: the protectionist is not a kind of a rupture if that the batten is not a rupture but it is journalistic is incorrect. sent5: if the fact that the monoplane is vice-presidential but not a cyclist does not hold then it does wake protectionist. sent6: The vicar does wake monoplane. sent7: the protectionist is not a IW if something that wakes protectionist does wake vicar. sent8: if the sandstone does not thrash but it is a kind of a stupid then the batten is not a tailgate. sent9: if the monoplane is a IW the protectionist does not wake vicar and it does not wake protectionist. sent10: the fact that the monoplane is a kind of vice-presidential thing that is not a cyclist does not hold. sent11: if something does not wake vicar and it does not wake protectionist it is a kind of a crowbar. sent12: something does wake vicar. sent13: if the sandstone is not a kind of a thrashing and is not a stupid then the batten is not a tailgate. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 & sent10 -> int1: the monoplane does wake protectionist.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the monoplane does wake protectionist and does wake vicar.; int2 -> int3: there is something such that it does wake protectionist and it wakes vicar.; int3 & sent7 -> int4: the protectionist is not a IW.; sent13 & sent3 -> int5: the batten is not a tailgate.; sent2 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the batten is not a rupture but it is journalistic does not hold.; sent4 & int6 -> int7: the protectionist is not a rupture.; int4 & int7 -> int8: the protectionist is not a IW and not a rupture.; __UNKNOWN__