the Chilean does not deactivate hedonist and it is not open-source.
sent1: the Chilean is not open-source if there is something such that it is inedible and it is not a Listera. sent2: the fact that the Chilean is gastrointestinal but it is not apophyseal is not true if it is an obstructionism. sent3: the medication does not deactivate fathom. sent4: if the medication does cascade attack it does not deactivate fathom. sent5: the Chilean is an obstructionism if there exists something such that the fact that it is not an obstructionism and it is fortunate does not hold. sent6: the medication does cascade attack. sent7: the fact that if something is not inedible then the fact that it is not gastrointestinal and is not an obstructionism is not correct is not incorrect. sent8: the sunbonnet is inedible and not a Listera. sent9: the sunbonnet is not gastrointestinal if the fact that the hedonist is not gastrointestinal and is not an obstructionism is wrong. sent10: there exists something such that the fact that it is both not an obstructionism and fortunate is not true. sent11: if the medication cascades attack then it is not a photometry and does not deactivate fathom. sent12: there exists something such that that it is Pacific thing that confederates Sus is wrong. sent13: there is something such that it is not an obstructionism and deactivates fathom. sent14: if something is not gastrointestinal it does not deactivate hedonist. sent15: something is not a Listera. sent16: the medication is a yodeller and is not a kind of a Manx. sent17: if the sunbonnet does cascade attack then the medication is open-source. sent18: the Chilean is not apophyseal if the medication is not a photometry and does not deactivate fathom. sent19: there is something such that it is not a kind of a glue. sent20: the sunbonnet does not process. sent21: if there is something such that it is an obstructionism then the Chilean is an obstructionism. sent22: if something that is not non-open-source is not an obstructionism the Chilean does not deactivate hedonist. sent23: the medication is not single-lane. sent24: The attack does cascade medication. sent25: the hedonist is not inedible. sent26: the fact that the sunbonnet is inedible is not false.
sent11 & sent6 -> int1: the medication is not a photometry and does not deactivate fathom.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the Chilean is not apophyseal.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Chilean is gastrointestinal.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the Chilean is gastrointestinal and is non-apophyseal.; sent10 & sent5 -> int4: the Chilean is an obstructionism.; sent2 & int4 -> int5: that the Chilean is a kind of gastrointestinal thing that is not apophyseal is not correct.; int3 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the Chilean is not gastrointestinal.; sent14 -> int8: the Chilean does not deactivate hedonist if it is not gastrointestinal.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the Chilean does not deactivate hedonist.; sent8 -> int10: there exists something such that it is inedible and it is not a Listera.; int10 & sent1 -> int11: the Chilean is not open-source.; int9 & int11 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the Chilean does not deactivate hedonist and it is not open-source is not true.
sent7 -> int12: that the fact that the hedonist is not gastrointestinal and not the obstructionism is wrong if the hedonist is not inedible hold.; int12 & sent25 -> int13: the fact that the hedonist is non-gastrointestinal thing that is not an obstructionism is not correct.; sent9 & int13 -> int14: the sunbonnet is not gastrointestinal.;
$hypothesis$ = the Chilean does not deactivate hedonist and it is not open-source. ; $context$ = sent1: the Chilean is not open-source if there is something such that it is inedible and it is not a Listera. sent2: the fact that the Chilean is gastrointestinal but it is not apophyseal is not true if it is an obstructionism. sent3: the medication does not deactivate fathom. sent4: if the medication does cascade attack it does not deactivate fathom. sent5: the Chilean is an obstructionism if there exists something such that the fact that it is not an obstructionism and it is fortunate does not hold. sent6: the medication does cascade attack. sent7: the fact that if something is not inedible then the fact that it is not gastrointestinal and is not an obstructionism is not correct is not incorrect. sent8: the sunbonnet is inedible and not a Listera. sent9: the sunbonnet is not gastrointestinal if the fact that the hedonist is not gastrointestinal and is not an obstructionism is wrong. sent10: there exists something such that the fact that it is both not an obstructionism and fortunate is not true. sent11: if the medication cascades attack then it is not a photometry and does not deactivate fathom. sent12: there exists something such that that it is Pacific thing that confederates Sus is wrong. sent13: there is something such that it is not an obstructionism and deactivates fathom. sent14: if something is not gastrointestinal it does not deactivate hedonist. sent15: something is not a Listera. sent16: the medication is a yodeller and is not a kind of a Manx. sent17: if the sunbonnet does cascade attack then the medication is open-source. sent18: the Chilean is not apophyseal if the medication is not a photometry and does not deactivate fathom. sent19: there is something such that it is not a kind of a glue. sent20: the sunbonnet does not process. sent21: if there is something such that it is an obstructionism then the Chilean is an obstructionism. sent22: if something that is not non-open-source is not an obstructionism the Chilean does not deactivate hedonist. sent23: the medication is not single-lane. sent24: The attack does cascade medication. sent25: the hedonist is not inedible. sent26: the fact that the sunbonnet is inedible is not false. ; $proof$ = 
sent11 & sent6 -> int1: the medication is not a photometry and does not deactivate fathom.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the Chilean is not apophyseal.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Chilean is gastrointestinal.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the Chilean is gastrointestinal and is non-apophyseal.; sent10 & sent5 -> int4: the Chilean is an obstructionism.; sent2 & int4 -> int5: that the Chilean is a kind of gastrointestinal thing that is not apophyseal is not correct.; int3 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the Chilean is not gastrointestinal.; sent14 -> int8: the Chilean does not deactivate hedonist if it is not gastrointestinal.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the Chilean does not deactivate hedonist.; sent8 -> int10: there exists something such that it is inedible and it is not a Listera.; int10 & sent1 -> int11: the Chilean is not open-source.; int9 & int11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__