there exists something such that that it accords cracking and it stokes is incorrect.
sent1: that the pouch is not a trap is wrong. sent2: the ilang-ilang flurries. sent3: that something is homonymic and it is a flurry is not right if it is not a trap. sent4: the ilang-ilang does not accuse if it is a kind of a flurry that does not trap. sent5: the beadle is a flurry. sent6: the beadle is not homonymic and it does not accuse if the ilang-ilang stokes. sent7: the beadle is not infelicitous if either the pouch is not homonymic or it is not a D-layer or both. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a D-layer and it is infelicitous is wrong. sent9: the pouch does flurry and does not oppose wind if the fact that the ilang-ilang does accuse is true. sent10: the fact that something is homonymic and it accords cracking is false if it does not accuse. sent11: that something accords cracking and does stoke does not hold if it is not infelicitous. sent12: if the beadle is homonymic the pion does trap and does not accord cracking. sent13: either the ilang-ilang is not morphophonemic or it does not accuse or both. sent14: the fact that the ilang-ilang is not a Lithocarpus is true. sent15: if the fireman opposes wind but it does not accuse it is not a Lithocarpus. sent16: if the fireman is a Lithocarpus the pion is not a trap and is not appendicular. sent17: the pion is infelicitous. sent18: the fact that if the fireman is both not a flurry and homonymic the pouch is a kind of a Lithocarpus is not incorrect. sent19: the pion is not diatonic. sent20: the cocotte does not oppose wind. sent21: the fireman is a Lithocarpus. sent22: the fact that the beadle stokes and it is a D-layer is wrong. sent23: if something does flurry but it does not oppose wind it is not homonymic. sent24: the pouch is a Lithocarpus and does not oppose wind. sent25: if the pion is not a trap and it is not appendicular then the ilang-ilang accuses.
sent16 & sent21 -> int1: the pion is not a kind of a trap and is not appendicular.; int1 & sent25 -> int2: the ilang-ilang does accuse.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the fact that the pouch is a flurry but it does not oppose wind is true.; sent23 -> int4: if the pouch is a flurry but it does not oppose wind then the fact that it is not homonymic hold.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the pouch is not homonymic.; int5 -> int6: the pouch is not homonymic or is not a D-layer or both.; int6 & sent7 -> int7: the beadle is not infelicitous.; sent11 -> int8: if the beadle is not infelicitous then the fact that it accords cracking and it stokes is wrong.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the fact that the beadle accords cracking and it does stoke is incorrect.; int9 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that that it accords cracking and it stokes is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the pouch is not a trap is wrong. sent2: the ilang-ilang flurries. sent3: that something is homonymic and it is a flurry is not right if it is not a trap. sent4: the ilang-ilang does not accuse if it is a kind of a flurry that does not trap. sent5: the beadle is a flurry. sent6: the beadle is not homonymic and it does not accuse if the ilang-ilang stokes. sent7: the beadle is not infelicitous if either the pouch is not homonymic or it is not a D-layer or both. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a D-layer and it is infelicitous is wrong. sent9: the pouch does flurry and does not oppose wind if the fact that the ilang-ilang does accuse is true. sent10: the fact that something is homonymic and it accords cracking is false if it does not accuse. sent11: that something accords cracking and does stoke does not hold if it is not infelicitous. sent12: if the beadle is homonymic the pion does trap and does not accord cracking. sent13: either the ilang-ilang is not morphophonemic or it does not accuse or both. sent14: the fact that the ilang-ilang is not a Lithocarpus is true. sent15: if the fireman opposes wind but it does not accuse it is not a Lithocarpus. sent16: if the fireman is a Lithocarpus the pion is not a trap and is not appendicular. sent17: the pion is infelicitous. sent18: the fact that if the fireman is both not a flurry and homonymic the pouch is a kind of a Lithocarpus is not incorrect. sent19: the pion is not diatonic. sent20: the cocotte does not oppose wind. sent21: the fireman is a Lithocarpus. sent22: the fact that the beadle stokes and it is a D-layer is wrong. sent23: if something does flurry but it does not oppose wind it is not homonymic. sent24: the pouch is a Lithocarpus and does not oppose wind. sent25: if the pion is not a trap and it is not appendicular then the ilang-ilang accuses. ; $proof$ = 
sent16 & sent21 -> int1: the pion is not a kind of a trap and is not appendicular.; int1 & sent25 -> int2: the ilang-ilang does accuse.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the fact that the pouch is a flurry but it does not oppose wind is true.; sent23 -> int4: if the pouch is a flurry but it does not oppose wind then the fact that it is not homonymic hold.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the pouch is not homonymic.; int5 -> int6: the pouch is not homonymic or is not a D-layer or both.; int6 & sent7 -> int7: the beadle is not infelicitous.; sent11 -> int8: if the beadle is not infelicitous then the fact that it accords cracking and it stokes is wrong.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the fact that the beadle accords cracking and it does stoke is incorrect.; int9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__