the barley does wilt.
sent1: the hydroxymethyl does not perplex barley. sent2: something that is either non-bipedal or a Buffalo or both derails neurolinguist. sent3: the lineation perplexes barley if that the barley is nonphotosynthetic but it does not perplexes barley is right. sent4: if something does not excise cymule and/or does derail neurolinguist then it is a wilt. sent5: the barley is a wilt if the lineation perplexes looting. sent6: the lineation is a wilt if it does perplex barley. sent7: the lineation perplexes looting if the hydroxymethyl does excise cymule. sent8: if the lineation does wilt the folio excises cymule but it does not perplex looting. sent9: if something does derail neurolinguist then it excises cymule. sent10: the hydroxymethyl is not bipedal or it is a Buffalo or both if it does not perplex barley. sent11: the lineation is a shallowness. sent12: the lineation is not a kind of a wilt. sent13: the hydroxymethyl wilts. sent14: if the barley is bipedal the fact that the hydroxymethyl is not a wilt is not correct. sent15: the barley does not derail neurolinguist. sent16: the barley is bipedal. sent17: The barley does not perplex hydroxymethyl. sent18: if the barley is a wilt it does excise cymule.
sent2 -> int1: if the hydroxymethyl is not bipedal and/or is a kind of a Buffalo the fact that it derails neurolinguist is true.; sent10 & sent1 -> int2: the hydroxymethyl is non-bipedal and/or it is a Buffalo.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the hydroxymethyl does derail neurolinguist.; sent9 -> int4: if the hydroxymethyl derails neurolinguist it does excise cymule.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the hydroxymethyl excises cymule.; int5 & sent7 -> int6: the lineation does perplex looting.; int6 & sent5 -> hypothesis;
the folio does derail neurolinguist.
$hypothesis$ = the barley does wilt. ; $context$ = sent1: the hydroxymethyl does not perplex barley. sent2: something that is either non-bipedal or a Buffalo or both derails neurolinguist. sent3: the lineation perplexes barley if that the barley is nonphotosynthetic but it does not perplexes barley is right. sent4: if something does not excise cymule and/or does derail neurolinguist then it is a wilt. sent5: the barley is a wilt if the lineation perplexes looting. sent6: the lineation is a wilt if it does perplex barley. sent7: the lineation perplexes looting if the hydroxymethyl does excise cymule. sent8: if the lineation does wilt the folio excises cymule but it does not perplex looting. sent9: if something does derail neurolinguist then it excises cymule. sent10: the hydroxymethyl is not bipedal or it is a Buffalo or both if it does not perplex barley. sent11: the lineation is a shallowness. sent12: the lineation is not a kind of a wilt. sent13: the hydroxymethyl wilts. sent14: if the barley is bipedal the fact that the hydroxymethyl is not a wilt is not correct. sent15: the barley does not derail neurolinguist. sent16: the barley is bipedal. sent17: The barley does not perplex hydroxymethyl. sent18: if the barley is a wilt it does excise cymule. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 -> int1: if the hydroxymethyl is not bipedal and/or is a kind of a Buffalo the fact that it derails neurolinguist is true.; sent10 & sent1 -> int2: the hydroxymethyl is non-bipedal and/or it is a Buffalo.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the hydroxymethyl does derail neurolinguist.; sent9 -> int4: if the hydroxymethyl derails neurolinguist it does excise cymule.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the hydroxymethyl excises cymule.; int5 & sent7 -> int6: the lineation does perplex looting.; int6 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__