the fact that the guimpe does not cover burbot but it is pyroligneous is wrong.
sent1: something is not pyroligneous if the fact that it is basophilic and it is not a dawn is wrong. sent2: that the blizzard is an inventor is true. sent3: if something is not basophilic then it is not a macro. sent4: the blizzard is a dawn. sent5: if an inventor does dawn then the burbot is not basophilic. sent6: if the burbot is not a macro the fact that it does not dawn is right. sent7: the burbot does not cover burbot if it is not incongruent. sent8: if the burbot does not spit it does not cover burbot. sent9: the burbot either is not a spit or is congruent or both. sent10: if the burbot is not a macro then the fact that the guimpe does not cover burbot but it is pyroligneous is incorrect. sent11: that that something is basophilic and not a dawn is right is incorrect if it is a macro. sent12: if the fact that something is pyroligneous an inventor is wrong it is not pyroligneous.
sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the blizzard is an inventor and a dawn.; int1 -> int2: something is a kind of an inventor that is a dawn.; int2 & sent5 -> int3: the burbot is non-basophilic.; sent3 -> int4: the burbot is not a macro if it is not basophilic.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the burbot is not a kind of a macro is true.; int5 & sent10 -> hypothesis;
the separation is not pyroligneous.
sent12 -> int6: the separation is not pyroligneous if the fact that it is pyroligneous and is an inventor is not true.; sent1 -> int7: the blizzard is not pyroligneous if that it is not non-basophilic and it does not dawn is not right.; sent11 -> int8: if the blizzard is a macro that it is a kind of basophilic thing that does not dawn is not true.; sent9 & sent8 & sent7 -> int9: the burbot does not cover burbot.; int9 -> int10: there is something such that it does not cover burbot.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the guimpe does not cover burbot but it is pyroligneous is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not pyroligneous if the fact that it is basophilic and it is not a dawn is wrong. sent2: that the blizzard is an inventor is true. sent3: if something is not basophilic then it is not a macro. sent4: the blizzard is a dawn. sent5: if an inventor does dawn then the burbot is not basophilic. sent6: if the burbot is not a macro the fact that it does not dawn is right. sent7: the burbot does not cover burbot if it is not incongruent. sent8: if the burbot does not spit it does not cover burbot. sent9: the burbot either is not a spit or is congruent or both. sent10: if the burbot is not a macro then the fact that the guimpe does not cover burbot but it is pyroligneous is incorrect. sent11: that that something is basophilic and not a dawn is right is incorrect if it is a macro. sent12: if the fact that something is pyroligneous an inventor is wrong it is not pyroligneous. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the blizzard is an inventor and a dawn.; int1 -> int2: something is a kind of an inventor that is a dawn.; int2 & sent5 -> int3: the burbot is non-basophilic.; sent3 -> int4: the burbot is not a macro if it is not basophilic.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the burbot is not a kind of a macro is true.; int5 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__