the fact that the conspecific is branchy and is not an intellectual is incorrect.
sent1: there is nothing that is a kind of a chinaware that does batch trusteeship. sent2: that the quarterstaff is not a disorientation if that the conspecific is not a kind of an intellectual but it is a disorientation does not hold is correct. sent3: that that the conspecific is branchy thing that is intellectual is right is not right if the quarterstaff is not authorial. sent4: that that something is not a kind of an intellectual but it is a disorientation hold is wrong if it is not authorial. sent5: the quarterstaff is not authorial if the ascot does not batch trusteeship. sent6: that the pumpernickel is a disorientation that is branchy is not correct if something is not a kind of a disorientation. sent7: something is not a rho if it is a case. sent8: the quarterstaff is not authorial if the fact that the ascot is a kind of a chinaware and it batches trusteeship is not true. sent9: if that something does bar Cromwell or it is non-lowborn or both is false then it is not authorial. sent10: that that something does bar Cromwell or it is non-lowborn or both is right is not true if the fact that it is not a kind of a rho is not incorrect. sent11: the kremlin is not a rho. sent12: the conspecific is arthralgic and is a case. sent13: the fact that the conspecific is branchy hold if there is something such that that it does bar Cromwell or is not authorial or both is false. sent14: if the fact that the quarterstaff is not authorial is not false the fact that the conspecific is branchy and is not intellectual is incorrect. sent15: the fact that the fact that the conspecific is branchy and it is an intellectual is not incorrect is incorrect.
sent1 -> int1: that the ascot is a chinaware and does batch trusteeship does not hold.; sent8 & int1 -> int2: that the quarterstaff is not authorial hold.; sent14 & int2 -> hypothesis;
the conspecific is both branchy and not intellectual.
sent11 -> int3: there is something such that it is not a rho.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the conspecific is branchy and is not an intellectual is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there is nothing that is a kind of a chinaware that does batch trusteeship. sent2: that the quarterstaff is not a disorientation if that the conspecific is not a kind of an intellectual but it is a disorientation does not hold is correct. sent3: that that the conspecific is branchy thing that is intellectual is right is not right if the quarterstaff is not authorial. sent4: that that something is not a kind of an intellectual but it is a disorientation hold is wrong if it is not authorial. sent5: the quarterstaff is not authorial if the ascot does not batch trusteeship. sent6: that the pumpernickel is a disorientation that is branchy is not correct if something is not a kind of a disorientation. sent7: something is not a rho if it is a case. sent8: the quarterstaff is not authorial if the fact that the ascot is a kind of a chinaware and it batches trusteeship is not true. sent9: if that something does bar Cromwell or it is non-lowborn or both is false then it is not authorial. sent10: that that something does bar Cromwell or it is non-lowborn or both is right is not true if the fact that it is not a kind of a rho is not incorrect. sent11: the kremlin is not a rho. sent12: the conspecific is arthralgic and is a case. sent13: the fact that the conspecific is branchy hold if there is something such that that it does bar Cromwell or is not authorial or both is false. sent14: if the fact that the quarterstaff is not authorial is not false the fact that the conspecific is branchy and is not intellectual is incorrect. sent15: the fact that the fact that the conspecific is branchy and it is an intellectual is not incorrect is incorrect. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 -> int1: that the ascot is a chinaware and does batch trusteeship does not hold.; sent8 & int1 -> int2: that the quarterstaff is not authorial hold.; sent14 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__