the bachelor does not antisepticize Mensa and is granulocytic.
sent1: the fact that the automat is a kind of Hindu thing that corresponds anarthria does not hold if the mayoress is a kind of a night. sent2: there exists something such that it does not correspond anarthria. sent3: something is imitative but it is not granulocytic. sent4: if there are non-clonal things then that the spandrel is imitative but it is not noncaloric does not hold. sent5: the mayoress is a night if there exists something such that the fact that it is imitative thing that is not noncaloric is not true. sent6: if the bachelor is not clonal then the fact that it does not antisepticize Mensa and is not non-granulocytic is not true. sent7: the fact that the automat is a kind of a Hindu that does not correspond anarthria is not true if the mayoress is a night. sent8: if something is not a night the fact that it is imitative and is noncaloric does not hold. sent9: the spallation is not granulocytic if that the automat is a kind of a Hindu that does not correspond anarthria is not right. sent10: the automat is a kind of a dessiatine. sent11: if there is something such that it is noncaloric the mayoress is a kind of a night. sent12: the mayoress is not a kind of a night if there exists something such that it corresponds anarthria. sent13: the spallation is not a Hindu and is sedimentary if it is not exuvial. sent14: the bachelor does not antisepticize Mensa. sent15: the bachelor does not antisepticize Mensa and is not non-granulocytic if the spallation is not non-granulocytic. sent16: the spallation is not exuvial. sent17: there is something such that it is not clonal. sent18: the fact that the spandrel is noncaloric and does not correspond anarthria is false. sent19: the fact that the fact that the bachelor does not antisepticize Mensa and is granulocytic hold is wrong if the spandrel is clonal. sent20: if the automat does not antisepticize Mensa then the bachelor does not correspond anarthria and antisepticize Mensa. sent21: the spallation is not granulocytic if that the automat does correspond anarthria is correct. sent22: if something is not noncaloric that it is not imitative and it is clonal is wrong. sent23: the bachelor is clonal.
sent17 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the spandrel is both imitative and not noncaloric does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it is imitative and it is not noncaloric is not right.; int2 & sent5 -> int3: the mayoress is a night.; sent7 & int3 -> int4: that the automat is a Hindu that does not correspond anarthria is false.; sent9 & int4 -> int5: the spallation is not granulocytic.; sent15 & int5 -> hypothesis;
that the bachelor does not antisepticize Mensa and is granulocytic is false.
sent8 -> int6: if the mayoress is not a night then that it is imitative and it is noncaloric is incorrect.; sent13 & sent16 -> int7: the spallation is not Hindu and not non-sedimentary.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that it is non-Hindu and it is sedimentary.;
$hypothesis$ = the bachelor does not antisepticize Mensa and is granulocytic. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the automat is a kind of Hindu thing that corresponds anarthria does not hold if the mayoress is a kind of a night. sent2: there exists something such that it does not correspond anarthria. sent3: something is imitative but it is not granulocytic. sent4: if there are non-clonal things then that the spandrel is imitative but it is not noncaloric does not hold. sent5: the mayoress is a night if there exists something such that the fact that it is imitative thing that is not noncaloric is not true. sent6: if the bachelor is not clonal then the fact that it does not antisepticize Mensa and is not non-granulocytic is not true. sent7: the fact that the automat is a kind of a Hindu that does not correspond anarthria is not true if the mayoress is a night. sent8: if something is not a night the fact that it is imitative and is noncaloric does not hold. sent9: the spallation is not granulocytic if that the automat is a kind of a Hindu that does not correspond anarthria is not right. sent10: the automat is a kind of a dessiatine. sent11: if there is something such that it is noncaloric the mayoress is a kind of a night. sent12: the mayoress is not a kind of a night if there exists something such that it corresponds anarthria. sent13: the spallation is not a Hindu and is sedimentary if it is not exuvial. sent14: the bachelor does not antisepticize Mensa. sent15: the bachelor does not antisepticize Mensa and is not non-granulocytic if the spallation is not non-granulocytic. sent16: the spallation is not exuvial. sent17: there is something such that it is not clonal. sent18: the fact that the spandrel is noncaloric and does not correspond anarthria is false. sent19: the fact that the fact that the bachelor does not antisepticize Mensa and is granulocytic hold is wrong if the spandrel is clonal. sent20: if the automat does not antisepticize Mensa then the bachelor does not correspond anarthria and antisepticize Mensa. sent21: the spallation is not granulocytic if that the automat does correspond anarthria is correct. sent22: if something is not noncaloric that it is not imitative and it is clonal is wrong. sent23: the bachelor is clonal. ; $proof$ = 
sent17 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the spandrel is both imitative and not noncaloric does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it is imitative and it is not noncaloric is not right.; int2 & sent5 -> int3: the mayoress is a night.; sent7 & int3 -> int4: that the automat is a Hindu that does not correspond anarthria is false.; sent9 & int4 -> int5: the spallation is not granulocytic.; sent15 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__