the marang is non-penicillin-resistant thing that ribs bumper.
sent1: if the fact that the diabetic idealizes and/or immortalizes demonization is not true then the 1-dodecanol does ruffle. sent2: the assessor is sensorineural. sent3: if the chlorination does rib bumper then the marang is non-penicillin-resistant and does rib bumper. sent4: either the chlorination is a beachcomber or it is not a kind of a Macon or both if the bumper is a barndoor. sent5: if the assessor is a Fechner then the bumper is a barndoor. sent6: the assessor does not rib bumper but it is a Fechner if the marang is a Fechner. sent7: if the fact that the 1-dodecanol is sensorineural hold the assessor does not ruffle. sent8: the diabetic idealizes. sent9: something does rib bumper if it is not a Macon. sent10: if the dick is not phrenic then that the diabetic does not idealize and/or does immortalize demonization is false. sent11: something ribs bumper if it is a kind of a beachcomber and/or it is not a kind of a Macon. sent12: the chlorination does rib bumper if it is not a Macon. sent13: if the 1-dodecanol ruffles then the assessor is sensorineural but it is not a kind of a wheedler. sent14: the marang is phrenic. sent15: something is not an attire but it ruffles if it is phrenic. sent16: if something is not sensorineural then that it does not ruffle and it is not a wheedler is incorrect. sent17: the dick is not phrenic. sent18: the chlorination is a beachcomber or it is a kind of a Macon or both if the bumper is a barndoor. sent19: something is a kind of a Fechner if it is sensorineural and is not a wheedler. sent20: either the chlorination is a beachcomber or it is a Macon or both. sent21: if the chlorination ribs bumper that the marang ribs bumper is not false. sent22: if that the diabetic does not idealize or it immortalizes demonization or both is not correct the 1-dodecanol does ruffle.
sent10 & sent17 -> int1: that either the diabetic does not idealize or it does immortalize demonization or both is false.; int1 & sent22 -> int2: the 1-dodecanol ruffles.; int2 & sent13 -> int3: the assessor is sensorineural but it is not a wheedler.; sent19 -> int4: the assessor is a Fechner if it is sensorineural and it is not a wheedler.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the assessor is a Fechner.; int5 & sent5 -> int6: the bumper is a barndoor.; int6 & sent4 -> int7: the chlorination is a kind of a beachcomber or it is not a Macon or both.; sent11 -> int8: the chlorination does rib bumper if it is a beachcomber and/or it is not a Macon.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the chlorination does rib bumper.; int9 & sent3 -> hypothesis;
that the marang is not penicillin-resistant and does rib bumper is not correct.
sent16 -> int10: if the 1-dodecanol is not sensorineural the fact that it does not ruffle and it is not a kind of a wheedler is not right.;
$hypothesis$ = the marang is non-penicillin-resistant thing that ribs bumper. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the diabetic idealizes and/or immortalizes demonization is not true then the 1-dodecanol does ruffle. sent2: the assessor is sensorineural. sent3: if the chlorination does rib bumper then the marang is non-penicillin-resistant and does rib bumper. sent4: either the chlorination is a beachcomber or it is not a kind of a Macon or both if the bumper is a barndoor. sent5: if the assessor is a Fechner then the bumper is a barndoor. sent6: the assessor does not rib bumper but it is a Fechner if the marang is a Fechner. sent7: if the fact that the 1-dodecanol is sensorineural hold the assessor does not ruffle. sent8: the diabetic idealizes. sent9: something does rib bumper if it is not a Macon. sent10: if the dick is not phrenic then that the diabetic does not idealize and/or does immortalize demonization is false. sent11: something ribs bumper if it is a kind of a beachcomber and/or it is not a kind of a Macon. sent12: the chlorination does rib bumper if it is not a Macon. sent13: if the 1-dodecanol ruffles then the assessor is sensorineural but it is not a kind of a wheedler. sent14: the marang is phrenic. sent15: something is not an attire but it ruffles if it is phrenic. sent16: if something is not sensorineural then that it does not ruffle and it is not a wheedler is incorrect. sent17: the dick is not phrenic. sent18: the chlorination is a beachcomber or it is a kind of a Macon or both if the bumper is a barndoor. sent19: something is a kind of a Fechner if it is sensorineural and is not a wheedler. sent20: either the chlorination is a beachcomber or it is a Macon or both. sent21: if the chlorination ribs bumper that the marang ribs bumper is not false. sent22: if that the diabetic does not idealize or it immortalizes demonization or both is not correct the 1-dodecanol does ruffle. ; $proof$ = 
sent10 & sent17 -> int1: that either the diabetic does not idealize or it does immortalize demonization or both is false.; int1 & sent22 -> int2: the 1-dodecanol ruffles.; int2 & sent13 -> int3: the assessor is sensorineural but it is not a wheedler.; sent19 -> int4: the assessor is a Fechner if it is sensorineural and it is not a wheedler.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the assessor is a Fechner.; int5 & sent5 -> int6: the bumper is a barndoor.; int6 & sent4 -> int7: the chlorination is a kind of a beachcomber or it is not a Macon or both.; sent11 -> int8: the chlorination does rib bumper if it is a beachcomber and/or it is not a Macon.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the chlorination does rib bumper.; int9 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__