the chlordiazepoxide is billiards.
sent1: the premolar is both operculate and a homebuilder. sent2: the premolar is non-vitreous. sent3: something bows tread if it is vitreous. sent4: the premolar is a kind of a homebuilder. sent5: the fact that the scute is operculate is not wrong. sent6: the premolar is a Ionian if that it is not a stomachache and it is not vitreous is not incorrect. sent7: if the premolar is operculate and it is a homebuilder it is not a kind of a stomachache. sent8: if the chlordiazepoxide criticizes LISP then it is billiards. sent9: if the premolar is a Ionian then that the chlordiazepoxide does criticize LISP is true.
sent7 & sent1 -> int1: that the premolar is not a stomachache is correct.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the premolar is not a stomachache and it is not vitreous.; int2 & sent6 -> int3: the premolar is Ionian.; int3 & sent9 -> int4: the chlordiazepoxide criticizes LISP.; int4 & sent8 -> hypothesis;
the scute is operculate thing that bows tread.
sent3 -> int5: if the scute is vitreous it does bow tread.;
$hypothesis$ = the chlordiazepoxide is billiards. ; $context$ = sent1: the premolar is both operculate and a homebuilder. sent2: the premolar is non-vitreous. sent3: something bows tread if it is vitreous. sent4: the premolar is a kind of a homebuilder. sent5: the fact that the scute is operculate is not wrong. sent6: the premolar is a Ionian if that it is not a stomachache and it is not vitreous is not incorrect. sent7: if the premolar is operculate and it is a homebuilder it is not a kind of a stomachache. sent8: if the chlordiazepoxide criticizes LISP then it is billiards. sent9: if the premolar is a Ionian then that the chlordiazepoxide does criticize LISP is true. ; $proof$ = 
sent7 & sent1 -> int1: that the premolar is not a stomachache is correct.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the premolar is not a stomachache and it is not vitreous.; int2 & sent6 -> int3: the premolar is Ionian.; int3 & sent9 -> int4: the chlordiazepoxide criticizes LISP.; int4 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__