the fact that the relation does not hatch relaxation and is not a constructivism is not correct.
sent1: that the fact that the relation does not hatch relaxation and it is not a constructivism is not incorrect does not hold if the candlepins is unidentifiable. sent2: something does sidle determiner and does preclude if that it does not clinch ally is right. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is electromotive and is not a landscapist is wrong then the candlepins is unidentifiable. sent4: something does not hatch relaxation and it is not a constructivism if it is not an intrusiveness. sent5: the scuffle is not an intrusiveness. sent6: that if the candlepins does sidle determiner then the cockhorse is proud and/or it is not unidentifiable is true. sent7: the fact that the fact that the cockhorse is electromotive but not a landscapist is correct is not correct if the scuffle is not an intrusiveness. sent8: if that the scuffle is not unidentifiable hold the relation is not an intrusiveness.
sent7 & sent5 -> int1: the fact that the cockhorse is electromotive but it is not a landscapist is incorrect.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it is both electromotive and not a landscapist is incorrect.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the candlepins is unidentifiable.; sent1 & int3 -> hypothesis;
that the relation does not hatch relaxation and it is not a kind of a constructivism is not incorrect.
sent4 -> int4: the relation does not hatch relaxation and it is not a kind of a constructivism if it is not a kind of an intrusiveness.; sent2 -> int5: the candlepins does sidle determiner and does preclude if it does not clinch ally.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the relation does not hatch relaxation and is not a constructivism is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: that the fact that the relation does not hatch relaxation and it is not a constructivism is not incorrect does not hold if the candlepins is unidentifiable. sent2: something does sidle determiner and does preclude if that it does not clinch ally is right. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is electromotive and is not a landscapist is wrong then the candlepins is unidentifiable. sent4: something does not hatch relaxation and it is not a constructivism if it is not an intrusiveness. sent5: the scuffle is not an intrusiveness. sent6: that if the candlepins does sidle determiner then the cockhorse is proud and/or it is not unidentifiable is true. sent7: the fact that the fact that the cockhorse is electromotive but not a landscapist is correct is not correct if the scuffle is not an intrusiveness. sent8: if that the scuffle is not unidentifiable hold the relation is not an intrusiveness. ; $proof$ = 
sent7 & sent5 -> int1: the fact that the cockhorse is electromotive but it is not a landscapist is incorrect.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it is both electromotive and not a landscapist is incorrect.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the candlepins is unidentifiable.; sent1 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__