the illuminant is not scurfy.
sent1: that the Mill is not bracteolate but it is a Gdansk is not true. sent2: that the bullshot is not a kind of a deterioration and is nonrepetitive is not true. sent3: everything does not deplore fireball and it does not bask exchange. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a Gdansk then the exchange is removable. sent5: the iodochlorhydroxyquin is not nonrepetitive. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is not non-scurfy and is not removable is false. sent7: something is not bracteolate and it is not a Gdansk. sent8: if either something is not removable or it does not impair eosinophilia or both then it is not non-scurfy. sent9: the fact that the Mill is not bracteolate and it is not a kind of a Gdansk is not correct. sent10: the exchange is nonrepetitive. sent11: the fact that the illuminant is a kind of non-scurfy thing that is a Gdansk is wrong. sent12: there exists something such that the fact that that it is non-bracteolate and it is a Gdansk is not wrong is not correct. sent13: if the exchange does not impair eosinophilia but it is removable that the illuminant is not scurfy is not incorrect. sent14: there is something such that it does not impair eosinophilia and is not nonrepetitive. sent15: there exists nothing such that it is not a deterioration and it is nonrepetitive. sent16: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not bracteolate and it is not a kind of a Gdansk is not true then the exchange is removable. sent17: the exchange does not impair eosinophilia if the bullshot is nonrepetitive. sent18: there is nothing such that it is not a deterioration and is not nonrepetitive. sent19: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a nick and it is a hushpuppy does not hold. sent20: the exchange does not impair eosinophilia if that the bullshot is not a deterioration and not nonrepetitive does not hold. sent21: that the bullshot is not nonrepetitive and is not scurfy is wrong. sent22: something is either a Gdansk or not scurfy or both if the fact that it is bracteolate is right. sent23: there exists something such that that it is bracteolate thing that is not a kind of a Gdansk is not right. sent24: if the exchange is a kind of a Gdansk the stabilizer does not impair eosinophilia.
sent18 -> int1: that the bullshot is not a deterioration and is not nonrepetitive does not hold.; int1 & sent20 -> int2: the exchange does not impair eosinophilia.; sent9 -> int3: there is something such that the fact that it is not bracteolate and it is not a Gdansk is not right.; int3 & sent16 -> int4: the exchange is removable.; int2 & int4 -> int5: that the exchange does not impair eosinophilia and is removable hold.; int5 & sent13 -> hypothesis;
the stabilizer is not removable and impairs limber.
sent22 -> int6: if the exchange is bracteolate then either it is a Gdansk or it is non-scurfy or both.; sent3 -> int7: the illuminant does not deplore fireball and it does not bask exchange.; int7 -> int8: something does not deplore fireball and does not bask exchange.;
$hypothesis$ = the illuminant is not scurfy. ; $context$ = sent1: that the Mill is not bracteolate but it is a Gdansk is not true. sent2: that the bullshot is not a kind of a deterioration and is nonrepetitive is not true. sent3: everything does not deplore fireball and it does not bask exchange. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a Gdansk then the exchange is removable. sent5: the iodochlorhydroxyquin is not nonrepetitive. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is not non-scurfy and is not removable is false. sent7: something is not bracteolate and it is not a Gdansk. sent8: if either something is not removable or it does not impair eosinophilia or both then it is not non-scurfy. sent9: the fact that the Mill is not bracteolate and it is not a kind of a Gdansk is not correct. sent10: the exchange is nonrepetitive. sent11: the fact that the illuminant is a kind of non-scurfy thing that is a Gdansk is wrong. sent12: there exists something such that the fact that that it is non-bracteolate and it is a Gdansk is not wrong is not correct. sent13: if the exchange does not impair eosinophilia but it is removable that the illuminant is not scurfy is not incorrect. sent14: there is something such that it does not impair eosinophilia and is not nonrepetitive. sent15: there exists nothing such that it is not a deterioration and it is nonrepetitive. sent16: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not bracteolate and it is not a kind of a Gdansk is not true then the exchange is removable. sent17: the exchange does not impair eosinophilia if the bullshot is nonrepetitive. sent18: there is nothing such that it is not a deterioration and is not nonrepetitive. sent19: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a nick and it is a hushpuppy does not hold. sent20: the exchange does not impair eosinophilia if that the bullshot is not a deterioration and not nonrepetitive does not hold. sent21: that the bullshot is not nonrepetitive and is not scurfy is wrong. sent22: something is either a Gdansk or not scurfy or both if the fact that it is bracteolate is right. sent23: there exists something such that that it is bracteolate thing that is not a kind of a Gdansk is not right. sent24: if the exchange is a kind of a Gdansk the stabilizer does not impair eosinophilia. ; $proof$ = 
sent18 -> int1: that the bullshot is not a deterioration and is not nonrepetitive does not hold.; int1 & sent20 -> int2: the exchange does not impair eosinophilia.; sent9 -> int3: there is something such that the fact that it is not bracteolate and it is not a Gdansk is not right.; int3 & sent16 -> int4: the exchange is removable.; int2 & int4 -> int5: that the exchange does not impair eosinophilia and is removable hold.; int5 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__