the plainclothesman is not a stinginess.
sent1: if something subdivides syphilitic that it interprets enchantment and it is not a Manilkara is not right. sent2: if there exists something such that that that it does not interpret enchantment and it is not a Williamstown is true does not hold then the fact that the coxswain does not ligate is not wrong. sent3: the monosaccharide is egoistic and/or it is shut if the kinin is not a kind of a flattop. sent4: The Kwajalein duns kinin. sent5: the pacemaker is a flattop. sent6: the plainclothesman is not a kind of a stinginess if the kinin is a flattop and it is egoistic. sent7: if there is something such that that it is not a roentgenium and it does not ligate is not true then the kinin is a flattop. sent8: that the squeaker is not a roentgenium and does not ligate is false. sent9: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a Williamstown that the novobiocin does not interpret enchantment and is not a Manilkara is not correct. sent10: if there is something such that it ligates the kinin is a flattop. sent11: there is something such that it is not a Williamstown. sent12: if the kinin duns Kwajalein that it is shut and it is not egoistic is incorrect. sent13: the kinin is not a flattop if it is not a roentgenium. sent14: the kinin duns Kwajalein. sent15: if the fact that the monosaccharide subdivides syphilitic hold the kinin is shut. sent16: if something is a Williamstown then it is a stinginess. sent17: the monosaccharide subdivides syphilitic if the fact that the novobiocin does not interpret enchantment and it is not a kind of a Manilkara is not right.
sent11 & sent9 -> int1: that the fact that the novobiocin does not interpret enchantment and it is not a Manilkara does not hold is not wrong.; int1 & sent17 -> int2: the monosaccharide does subdivide syphilitic.; int2 & sent15 -> int3: the kinin is not non-shut.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the kinin is not egoistic.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: the kinin is a kind of shut thing that is not egoistic.; sent12 & sent14 -> int5: that the kinin is shut but it is not egoistic is wrong.; int4 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the kinin is egoistic.; sent8 -> int8: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a roentgenium and it does not ligate does not hold.; int8 & sent7 -> int9: the kinin is a kind of a flattop.; int7 & int9 -> int10: the kinin is both a flattop and egoistic.; int10 & sent6 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the coxswain does not ligate is true.
$hypothesis$ = the plainclothesman is not a stinginess. ; $context$ = sent1: if something subdivides syphilitic that it interprets enchantment and it is not a Manilkara is not right. sent2: if there exists something such that that that it does not interpret enchantment and it is not a Williamstown is true does not hold then the fact that the coxswain does not ligate is not wrong. sent3: the monosaccharide is egoistic and/or it is shut if the kinin is not a kind of a flattop. sent4: The Kwajalein duns kinin. sent5: the pacemaker is a flattop. sent6: the plainclothesman is not a kind of a stinginess if the kinin is a flattop and it is egoistic. sent7: if there is something such that that it is not a roentgenium and it does not ligate is not true then the kinin is a flattop. sent8: that the squeaker is not a roentgenium and does not ligate is false. sent9: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a Williamstown that the novobiocin does not interpret enchantment and is not a Manilkara is not correct. sent10: if there is something such that it ligates the kinin is a flattop. sent11: there is something such that it is not a Williamstown. sent12: if the kinin duns Kwajalein that it is shut and it is not egoistic is incorrect. sent13: the kinin is not a flattop if it is not a roentgenium. sent14: the kinin duns Kwajalein. sent15: if the fact that the monosaccharide subdivides syphilitic hold the kinin is shut. sent16: if something is a Williamstown then it is a stinginess. sent17: the monosaccharide subdivides syphilitic if the fact that the novobiocin does not interpret enchantment and it is not a kind of a Manilkara is not right. ; $proof$ = 
sent11 & sent9 -> int1: that the fact that the novobiocin does not interpret enchantment and it is not a Manilkara does not hold is not wrong.; int1 & sent17 -> int2: the monosaccharide does subdivide syphilitic.; int2 & sent15 -> int3: the kinin is not non-shut.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the kinin is not egoistic.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: the kinin is a kind of shut thing that is not egoistic.; sent12 & sent14 -> int5: that the kinin is shut but it is not egoistic is wrong.; int4 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the kinin is egoistic.; sent8 -> int8: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a roentgenium and it does not ligate does not hold.; int8 & sent7 -> int9: the kinin is a kind of a flattop.; int7 & int9 -> int10: the kinin is both a flattop and egoistic.; int10 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__