the thunderer is apocynaceous and it is diamantine.
sent1: the rationalization is not apocynaceous if that the Tucker is not apocynaceous and/or is not a faint does not hold. sent2: the potholer is a kind of a politeness. sent3: if the anther is not a politeness and not an unwillingness the potholer is an unwillingness. sent4: the crucifer is aerodynamic and it is Maoist. sent5: the phenomenon is not an unwillingness. sent6: if that the anther is not an unwillingness is true the fact that it is not a love and/or it is not Maoist is wrong. sent7: something is diamantine if that it draws Rioja and/or it does not reflectorize Nazi is not right. sent8: something is not apocynaceous if it is both psychotherapeutic and a politeness. sent9: the fact that the Tucker is not apocynaceous or is not a faint or both does not hold. sent10: the potholer is not apocynaceous if it does love and it is a Maoist. sent11: if the rationalization is psychotherapeutic the fact that the thunderer is psychotherapeutic is not incorrect. sent12: the thunderer is a kind of apocynaceous thing that is diamantine if the potholer is not apocynaceous. sent13: the anther is not an unwillingness. sent14: the potholer is psychotherapeutic if the fact that the anther is not a love and/or it is not a Maoist is incorrect. sent15: if a non-apocynaceous thing is diamantine it is psychotherapeutic. sent16: if the thunderer is psychotherapeutic then the anther is not a politeness and is not an unwillingness. sent17: if the fact that something is not a kind of an unwillingness and is not a politeness is not right it is an unwillingness.
sent6 & sent13 -> int1: the fact that the anther does not love and/or it is not a Maoist does not hold.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the potholer is psychotherapeutic.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: the potholer is psychotherapeutic thing that is a kind of a politeness.; sent8 -> int4: if the potholer is psychotherapeutic and it is a kind of a politeness then it is not apocynaceous.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the potholer is not apocynaceous.; int5 & sent12 -> hypothesis;
the potholer is an unwillingness.
sent15 -> int6: if the rationalization is a kind of non-apocynaceous thing that is diamantine then it is not non-psychotherapeutic.; sent1 & sent9 -> int7: the rationalization is not apocynaceous.; sent7 -> int8: if that the rationalization draws Rioja and/or does not reflectorize Nazi is wrong the fact that it is non-diamantine is false.;
$hypothesis$ = the thunderer is apocynaceous and it is diamantine. ; $context$ = sent1: the rationalization is not apocynaceous if that the Tucker is not apocynaceous and/or is not a faint does not hold. sent2: the potholer is a kind of a politeness. sent3: if the anther is not a politeness and not an unwillingness the potholer is an unwillingness. sent4: the crucifer is aerodynamic and it is Maoist. sent5: the phenomenon is not an unwillingness. sent6: if that the anther is not an unwillingness is true the fact that it is not a love and/or it is not Maoist is wrong. sent7: something is diamantine if that it draws Rioja and/or it does not reflectorize Nazi is not right. sent8: something is not apocynaceous if it is both psychotherapeutic and a politeness. sent9: the fact that the Tucker is not apocynaceous or is not a faint or both does not hold. sent10: the potholer is not apocynaceous if it does love and it is a Maoist. sent11: if the rationalization is psychotherapeutic the fact that the thunderer is psychotherapeutic is not incorrect. sent12: the thunderer is a kind of apocynaceous thing that is diamantine if the potholer is not apocynaceous. sent13: the anther is not an unwillingness. sent14: the potholer is psychotherapeutic if the fact that the anther is not a love and/or it is not a Maoist is incorrect. sent15: if a non-apocynaceous thing is diamantine it is psychotherapeutic. sent16: if the thunderer is psychotherapeutic then the anther is not a politeness and is not an unwillingness. sent17: if the fact that something is not a kind of an unwillingness and is not a politeness is not right it is an unwillingness. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 & sent13 -> int1: the fact that the anther does not love and/or it is not a Maoist does not hold.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the potholer is psychotherapeutic.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: the potholer is psychotherapeutic thing that is a kind of a politeness.; sent8 -> int4: if the potholer is psychotherapeutic and it is a kind of a politeness then it is not apocynaceous.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the potholer is not apocynaceous.; int5 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__