the silicle is a kind of a blink.
sent1: if the silicle is not an ascension then it does not blink. sent2: something is not perceptible if it is ampullar and is an ascension. sent3: something is not ribless if that it is top-down and does not lob highwater does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that it is violable. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that it either is achlorhydric or does not suborn progressiveness or both is not correct. sent6: that the perch is ampullar is not incorrect. sent7: the silicle is violable. sent8: that the take-up is thermionics and it is Bayesian is wrong. sent9: there exists something such that that it applauds and/or is not violable does not hold. sent10: if something is perceptible it is ampullar. sent11: the carbamate is non-Libyan. sent12: if the fact that something does not fetter Keaton is not wrong then it is equivocal. sent13: if the fact that something is both non-oleophobic and non-ampullar is incorrect then that it is non-ampullar is not incorrect. sent14: that the silicle is equivocal thing that does not fetter Keaton does not hold if the carbamate is not perceptible. sent15: if the mower is ampullar then the fact that the silicle is an ascension and is not ampullar is incorrect. sent16: if the fact that something is an ascension and is not ampullar is incorrect it is not a blink. sent17: something does not blink if it is not a kind of an ascension. sent18: the fact that the Fabian is not equivocal hold. sent19: if the fact that something is equivocal and does not fetter Keaton is not right it is a blink. sent20: that the carbamate is both not oleophobic and not ampullar does not hold if the mower does not suborn progressiveness. sent21: something that does not lob supination lobs bargain. sent22: there is something such that it does applaud and/or it is not violable. sent23: if the fact that the fact that something is a hub-and-spoke and is not tubercular hold is false it is a kind of an ascension. sent24: the carbamate does not fetter Keaton if there is something such that the fact that it applauds and/or it is violable is wrong. sent25: if the carbamate is equivocal then the mower is perceptible. sent26: the carbamate does not fetter Keaton if there is something such that the fact that it does applaud and/or is inviolable is wrong. sent27: the scimitar does suborn sipper.
sent9 & sent26 -> int1: the fact that the carbamate does not fetter Keaton hold.; sent12 -> int2: if the carbamate does not fetter Keaton it is equivocal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the carbamate is equivocal.; int3 & sent25 -> int4: the mower is perceptible.; sent10 -> int5: the mower is not non-ampullar if it is perceptible.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the mower is ampullar.; int6 & sent15 -> int7: the fact that the silicle is an ascension but it is not ampullar does not hold.; sent16 -> int8: the silicle does not blink if that it is a kind of an ascension and is not ampullar does not hold.; int7 & int8 -> hypothesis;
the silicle is a blink.
sent19 -> int9: the silicle blinks if that it is equivocal and does not fetter Keaton is not true.; sent2 -> int10: the carbamate is not perceptible if it is ampullar and is an ascension.; sent13 -> int11: that the carbamate is ampullar hold if the fact that it is not oleophobic and is not ampullar is wrong.; sent8 -> int12: there is something such that the fact that it is thermionics and Bayesian does not hold.; sent23 -> int13: if that the carbamate is a hub-and-spoke but not tubercular is incorrect it is a kind of an ascension.; sent27 -> int14: there exists something such that it suborns sipper.;
$hypothesis$ = the silicle is a kind of a blink. ; $context$ = sent1: if the silicle is not an ascension then it does not blink. sent2: something is not perceptible if it is ampullar and is an ascension. sent3: something is not ribless if that it is top-down and does not lob highwater does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that it is violable. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that it either is achlorhydric or does not suborn progressiveness or both is not correct. sent6: that the perch is ampullar is not incorrect. sent7: the silicle is violable. sent8: that the take-up is thermionics and it is Bayesian is wrong. sent9: there exists something such that that it applauds and/or is not violable does not hold. sent10: if something is perceptible it is ampullar. sent11: the carbamate is non-Libyan. sent12: if the fact that something does not fetter Keaton is not wrong then it is equivocal. sent13: if the fact that something is both non-oleophobic and non-ampullar is incorrect then that it is non-ampullar is not incorrect. sent14: that the silicle is equivocal thing that does not fetter Keaton does not hold if the carbamate is not perceptible. sent15: if the mower is ampullar then the fact that the silicle is an ascension and is not ampullar is incorrect. sent16: if the fact that something is an ascension and is not ampullar is incorrect it is not a blink. sent17: something does not blink if it is not a kind of an ascension. sent18: the fact that the Fabian is not equivocal hold. sent19: if the fact that something is equivocal and does not fetter Keaton is not right it is a blink. sent20: that the carbamate is both not oleophobic and not ampullar does not hold if the mower does not suborn progressiveness. sent21: something that does not lob supination lobs bargain. sent22: there is something such that it does applaud and/or it is not violable. sent23: if the fact that the fact that something is a hub-and-spoke and is not tubercular hold is false it is a kind of an ascension. sent24: the carbamate does not fetter Keaton if there is something such that the fact that it applauds and/or it is violable is wrong. sent25: if the carbamate is equivocal then the mower is perceptible. sent26: the carbamate does not fetter Keaton if there is something such that the fact that it does applaud and/or is inviolable is wrong. sent27: the scimitar does suborn sipper. ; $proof$ = 
sent9 & sent26 -> int1: the fact that the carbamate does not fetter Keaton hold.; sent12 -> int2: if the carbamate does not fetter Keaton it is equivocal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the carbamate is equivocal.; int3 & sent25 -> int4: the mower is perceptible.; sent10 -> int5: the mower is not non-ampullar if it is perceptible.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the mower is ampullar.; int6 & sent15 -> int7: the fact that the silicle is an ascension but it is not ampullar does not hold.; sent16 -> int8: the silicle does not blink if that it is a kind of an ascension and is not ampullar does not hold.; int7 & int8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__