if the fact that the Sir is not spousal does not hold then that it does not homestead hobbledehoy and is not dolomitic is not correct.
sent1: if that something is not collarless but it is a doughboy does not hold it does not quieten encephalography. sent2: if something does not quieten encephalography then it is a kind of a snipe and it does blister. sent3: the Sir does not homestead hobbledehoy and is not dolomitic if it is spousal. sent4: if something does not homestead hobbledehoy but it is dolomitic then it is not spousal. sent5: something that does not homestead hobbledehoy and is non-dolomitic is not spousal. sent6: if that the Sir is spousal is right then that it homesteads hobbledehoy and it is not dolomitic is incorrect. sent7: the Sir is not dolomitic. sent8: something that does not homestead hobbledehoy and is not dolomitic is not spousal. sent9: if the olive is both not a bandtail and not a grounds it does not administer response. sent10: there is nothing that is a kind of non-collarless thing that is a doughboy. sent11: that if that the nincompoop is not synergistic hold then the fact that the pung is not spousal but it is an anemone is not right is correct. sent12: that the Sir does not homestead hobbledehoy but it is dolomitic does not hold. sent13: if the Sir does not homestead hobbledehoy and it is not dolomitic then it is spousal. sent14: the birthwort does not homestead hobbledehoy. sent15: if the Sir is spousal then that it does not homestead hobbledehoy and it is dolomitic is not correct. sent16: the nincompoop is not synergistic if there is something such that the fact that it snipes is true. sent17: the Sir is not spousal if it homesteads hobbledehoy and it is not dolomitic. sent18: if something does homestead hobbledehoy but it is not dolomitic it is not spousal. sent19: that the Sir is not spousal is not incorrect if it does not homestead hobbledehoy and it is dolomitic.
sent5 -> int1: if the Sir does not homestead hobbledehoy and is not dolomitic then it is not spousal.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Sir does not homestead hobbledehoy and it is not dolomitic.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the Sir is not spousal.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the Sir is not non-spousal.; int2 & assump2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the Sir does not homestead hobbledehoy and is not dolomitic is incorrect.; [assump2] & int4 -> hypothesis;
the gadolinite is dolomitic.
sent1 -> int5: the workbench does not quieten encephalography if that it is non-collarless thing that is a kind of a doughboy is not right.; sent10 -> int6: the fact that the workbench is a kind of non-collarless a doughboy is not correct.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the workbench does not quieten encephalography.; sent2 -> int8: if the workbench does not quieten encephalography then it snipes and it is a blister.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the workbench does snipe and it is a blister.; int9 -> int10: everything does snipe and it does blister.; int10 -> int11: the emery is a snipe and a blister.; int11 -> int12: the emery is a snipe.; int12 -> int13: something is a snipe.; sent16 & int13 -> int14: the nincompoop is not synergistic.; sent11 & int14 -> int15: that the pung is not spousal but it is an anemone is false.;
$hypothesis$ = if the fact that the Sir is not spousal does not hold then that it does not homestead hobbledehoy and is not dolomitic is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is not collarless but it is a doughboy does not hold it does not quieten encephalography. sent2: if something does not quieten encephalography then it is a kind of a snipe and it does blister. sent3: the Sir does not homestead hobbledehoy and is not dolomitic if it is spousal. sent4: if something does not homestead hobbledehoy but it is dolomitic then it is not spousal. sent5: something that does not homestead hobbledehoy and is non-dolomitic is not spousal. sent6: if that the Sir is spousal is right then that it homesteads hobbledehoy and it is not dolomitic is incorrect. sent7: the Sir is not dolomitic. sent8: something that does not homestead hobbledehoy and is not dolomitic is not spousal. sent9: if the olive is both not a bandtail and not a grounds it does not administer response. sent10: there is nothing that is a kind of non-collarless thing that is a doughboy. sent11: that if that the nincompoop is not synergistic hold then the fact that the pung is not spousal but it is an anemone is not right is correct. sent12: that the Sir does not homestead hobbledehoy but it is dolomitic does not hold. sent13: if the Sir does not homestead hobbledehoy and it is not dolomitic then it is spousal. sent14: the birthwort does not homestead hobbledehoy. sent15: if the Sir is spousal then that it does not homestead hobbledehoy and it is dolomitic is not correct. sent16: the nincompoop is not synergistic if there is something such that the fact that it snipes is true. sent17: the Sir is not spousal if it homesteads hobbledehoy and it is not dolomitic. sent18: if something does homestead hobbledehoy but it is not dolomitic it is not spousal. sent19: that the Sir is not spousal is not incorrect if it does not homestead hobbledehoy and it is dolomitic. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 -> int1: if the Sir does not homestead hobbledehoy and is not dolomitic then it is not spousal.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Sir does not homestead hobbledehoy and it is not dolomitic.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the Sir is not spousal.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the Sir is not non-spousal.; int2 & assump2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the Sir does not homestead hobbledehoy and is not dolomitic is incorrect.; [assump2] & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__