the flour is not hymenopterous.
sent1: if the sawfly is not non-alkalotic the fact that the flour is lotic hold. sent2: if a lotic thing is hymenopterous then the fact that the German is not an accountant is not wrong. sent3: that the Coricidin does not ratchet Ludian and is not psychomotor is incorrect. sent4: something is not an accountant if it is not an accountant and/or it is not alluvial. sent5: the sawfly is not non-alkalotic if there is something such that the fact that it does not ratchet Ludian and it is not psychomotor is not right. sent6: if something is lotic and is non-alkalotic it is hymenopterous. sent7: if something is not an accountant then it is a kind of lotic thing that is not alkalotic. sent8: something either is not an accountant or is not alluvial or both if it is a shortbread. sent9: the fact that the German is not a shortbread is not wrong. sent10: something is both alluvial and an accountant if it is not a shortbread.
sent3 -> int1: there is something such that that it does not ratchet Ludian and is not psychomotor is not true.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the sawfly is alkalotic.; int2 & sent1 -> int3: the flour is lotic.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the flour is hymenopterous.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: the flour is both not non-lotic and hymenopterous.; int4 -> int5: something is lotic and is hymenopterous.; int5 & sent2 -> int6: the German is not an accountant.; sent10 -> int7: if the German is not a shortbread then it is alluvial thing that is an accountant.; int7 & sent9 -> int8: the German is alluvial and is a kind of an accountant.; int8 -> int9: the German is a kind of an accountant.; int6 & int9 -> int10: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int10 -> hypothesis;
the flour is hymenopterous.
sent6 -> int11: the flour is hymenopterous if it is a kind of lotic thing that is not alkalotic.; sent7 -> int12: the flour is lotic thing that is not alkalotic if it is not an accountant.; sent4 -> int13: the flour is not an accountant if either it is not a kind of an accountant or it is not alluvial or both.; sent8 -> int14: if the flour is a shortbread it is not an accountant or is not alluvial or both.;
$hypothesis$ = the flour is not hymenopterous. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sawfly is not non-alkalotic the fact that the flour is lotic hold. sent2: if a lotic thing is hymenopterous then the fact that the German is not an accountant is not wrong. sent3: that the Coricidin does not ratchet Ludian and is not psychomotor is incorrect. sent4: something is not an accountant if it is not an accountant and/or it is not alluvial. sent5: the sawfly is not non-alkalotic if there is something such that the fact that it does not ratchet Ludian and it is not psychomotor is not right. sent6: if something is lotic and is non-alkalotic it is hymenopterous. sent7: if something is not an accountant then it is a kind of lotic thing that is not alkalotic. sent8: something either is not an accountant or is not alluvial or both if it is a shortbread. sent9: the fact that the German is not a shortbread is not wrong. sent10: something is both alluvial and an accountant if it is not a shortbread. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 -> int1: there is something such that that it does not ratchet Ludian and is not psychomotor is not true.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the sawfly is alkalotic.; int2 & sent1 -> int3: the flour is lotic.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the flour is hymenopterous.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: the flour is both not non-lotic and hymenopterous.; int4 -> int5: something is lotic and is hymenopterous.; int5 & sent2 -> int6: the German is not an accountant.; sent10 -> int7: if the German is not a shortbread then it is alluvial thing that is an accountant.; int7 & sent9 -> int8: the German is alluvial and is a kind of an accountant.; int8 -> int9: the German is a kind of an accountant.; int6 & int9 -> int10: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__