the fact that the spendthrift does resist blush but it is non-ectopic is not true.
sent1: the angiologist does resist spendthrift. sent2: the angiologist does resist blush if the spendthrift does not strangulate chasm. sent3: the fact that the potion strangulates chasm and is not a kind of a broadcaster is not correct if that the angiologist does resist spendthrift is not incorrect. sent4: the potion is a coach. sent5: the spendthrift does resist spendthrift. sent6: if the ribose is not a coach then the potion does resist spendthrift and is incommutable. sent7: the spendthrift is persistent. sent8: the angiologist is persistent. sent9: the angiologist is ectopic. sent10: there is nothing that does not strangulate chasm and is not a coach. sent11: the angiologist is a broadcaster and it does strangulate chasm. sent12: the potion is persistent. sent13: if the potion is incommutable that the spendthrift does resist blush but it is not ectopic is not correct. sent14: that the animist resists spendthrift and does not deserve LH does not hold. sent15: the potion does resist spendthrift. sent16: the ribose is not a coach if the angiologist is a kind of a broadcaster that is persistent. sent17: the potion is a kind of an adaptability. sent18: something strangulates chasm if the fact that it does not strangulates chasm and does not coach is not right. sent19: the spendthrift is both abstract and satisfactory. sent20: that the potion is a kind of a coach that does resist spendthrift hold. sent21: the ribose does strangulate chasm.
sent11 -> int1: the angiologist is a broadcaster.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the angiologist is a broadcaster and it is persistent.; int2 & sent16 -> int3: the ribose is not a coach.; int3 & sent6 -> int4: the potion does resist spendthrift and it is incommutable.; int4 -> int5: the potion is incommutable.; int5 & sent13 -> hypothesis;
the spendthrift resists blush but it is not ectopic.
sent18 -> int6: the angiologist strangulates chasm if the fact that it does not strangulates chasm and is not a kind of a coach does not hold.; sent10 -> int7: that the angiologist does not strangulate chasm and it does not coach is not true.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the angiologist strangulates chasm.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that it strangulates chasm.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the spendthrift does resist blush but it is non-ectopic is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the angiologist does resist spendthrift. sent2: the angiologist does resist blush if the spendthrift does not strangulate chasm. sent3: the fact that the potion strangulates chasm and is not a kind of a broadcaster is not correct if that the angiologist does resist spendthrift is not incorrect. sent4: the potion is a coach. sent5: the spendthrift does resist spendthrift. sent6: if the ribose is not a coach then the potion does resist spendthrift and is incommutable. sent7: the spendthrift is persistent. sent8: the angiologist is persistent. sent9: the angiologist is ectopic. sent10: there is nothing that does not strangulate chasm and is not a coach. sent11: the angiologist is a broadcaster and it does strangulate chasm. sent12: the potion is persistent. sent13: if the potion is incommutable that the spendthrift does resist blush but it is not ectopic is not correct. sent14: that the animist resists spendthrift and does not deserve LH does not hold. sent15: the potion does resist spendthrift. sent16: the ribose is not a coach if the angiologist is a kind of a broadcaster that is persistent. sent17: the potion is a kind of an adaptability. sent18: something strangulates chasm if the fact that it does not strangulates chasm and does not coach is not right. sent19: the spendthrift is both abstract and satisfactory. sent20: that the potion is a kind of a coach that does resist spendthrift hold. sent21: the ribose does strangulate chasm. ; $proof$ = 
sent11 -> int1: the angiologist is a broadcaster.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the angiologist is a broadcaster and it is persistent.; int2 & sent16 -> int3: the ribose is not a coach.; int3 & sent6 -> int4: the potion does resist spendthrift and it is incommutable.; int4 -> int5: the potion is incommutable.; int5 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__