the monocarp is not a consumptive but it is a kind of a NEC.
sent1: the fact that something is a cloak and it is phocine is not true if it does not rafter Malvaviscus. sent2: the monocarp is a struggle. sent3: the fact that the monocarp is not a consumptive hold. sent4: the fact that the twiddler does cloak and is phocine is incorrect. sent5: the twiddler is not a NEC. sent6: the monocarp is not consumptive if it is not meritocratic. sent7: that the fact that the seta is a kind of non-autotrophic a 1900s is correct is not right. sent8: the Rastafarian is not phocine. sent9: a subartesian thing that is a ISI does not squeegee composite. sent10: that the twiddler cloaks and it is phocine is incorrect if it does not rafter Malvaviscus. sent11: if that the monocarp is parliamentary and is a end-all is not wrong then it is not a NEC. sent12: if the twiddler is a cloak then the monocarp is not meritocratic. sent13: the fact that something is not a consumptive but it is a NEC does not hold if it is a end-all. sent14: the fact that the twiddler does not cloak but it is a NEC is incorrect. sent15: if something is frail and diamagnetic the fact that it does not reform is not false. sent16: something that is both a end-all and parliamentary does not rafter Malvaviscus. sent17: that the fact that the twiddler is not unconstitutional but it is a kind of a facial is correct is not true. sent18: if something does not rafter Malvaviscus then the fact that it is not a cloak and is phocine is incorrect. sent19: if that the twiddler is not a cloak but phocine is wrong the monocarp is not meritocratic. sent20: the twiddler is a end-all. sent21: something is not a kind of a consumptive if it is not meritocratic. sent22: the twiddler is parliamentary. sent23: that that the monocarp is non-parliamentary and is meritocratic is false is right if it does not rafter Malvaviscus. sent24: if the monocarp does not outlive it is not harmonic and occurs. sent25: the twiddler is not a kind of a end-all if it is a kind of a consumptive and is phocine. sent26: a non-meritocratic thing is a kind of non-consumptive thing that is a NEC.
sent20 & sent22 -> int1: the twiddler is a end-all and parliamentary.; sent16 -> int2: the twiddler does not rafter Malvaviscus if it is a end-all and it is parliamentary.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the twiddler does not rafter Malvaviscus.; sent18 -> int4: the fact that the twiddler is not a cloak but phocine is false if it does not rafter Malvaviscus.; int3 & int4 -> int5: that the twiddler is not a kind of a cloak and is phocine is wrong.; int5 & sent19 -> int6: the monocarp is not meritocratic.; sent26 -> int7: if the monocarp is not meritocratic then it is a kind of non-consumptive a NEC.; int6 & int7 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the monocarp is not a consumptive and is a kind of a NEC does not hold.
sent13 -> int8: that the monocarp is not a consumptive but it is a NEC is false if it is a end-all.;
$hypothesis$ = the monocarp is not a consumptive but it is a kind of a NEC. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is a cloak and it is phocine is not true if it does not rafter Malvaviscus. sent2: the monocarp is a struggle. sent3: the fact that the monocarp is not a consumptive hold. sent4: the fact that the twiddler does cloak and is phocine is incorrect. sent5: the twiddler is not a NEC. sent6: the monocarp is not consumptive if it is not meritocratic. sent7: that the fact that the seta is a kind of non-autotrophic a 1900s is correct is not right. sent8: the Rastafarian is not phocine. sent9: a subartesian thing that is a ISI does not squeegee composite. sent10: that the twiddler cloaks and it is phocine is incorrect if it does not rafter Malvaviscus. sent11: if that the monocarp is parliamentary and is a end-all is not wrong then it is not a NEC. sent12: if the twiddler is a cloak then the monocarp is not meritocratic. sent13: the fact that something is not a consumptive but it is a NEC does not hold if it is a end-all. sent14: the fact that the twiddler does not cloak but it is a NEC is incorrect. sent15: if something is frail and diamagnetic the fact that it does not reform is not false. sent16: something that is both a end-all and parliamentary does not rafter Malvaviscus. sent17: that the fact that the twiddler is not unconstitutional but it is a kind of a facial is correct is not true. sent18: if something does not rafter Malvaviscus then the fact that it is not a cloak and is phocine is incorrect. sent19: if that the twiddler is not a cloak but phocine is wrong the monocarp is not meritocratic. sent20: the twiddler is a end-all. sent21: something is not a kind of a consumptive if it is not meritocratic. sent22: the twiddler is parliamentary. sent23: that that the monocarp is non-parliamentary and is meritocratic is false is right if it does not rafter Malvaviscus. sent24: if the monocarp does not outlive it is not harmonic and occurs. sent25: the twiddler is not a kind of a end-all if it is a kind of a consumptive and is phocine. sent26: a non-meritocratic thing is a kind of non-consumptive thing that is a NEC. ; $proof$ = 
sent20 & sent22 -> int1: the twiddler is a end-all and parliamentary.; sent16 -> int2: the twiddler does not rafter Malvaviscus if it is a end-all and it is parliamentary.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the twiddler does not rafter Malvaviscus.; sent18 -> int4: the fact that the twiddler is not a cloak but phocine is false if it does not rafter Malvaviscus.; int3 & int4 -> int5: that the twiddler is not a kind of a cloak and is phocine is wrong.; int5 & sent19 -> int6: the monocarp is not meritocratic.; sent26 -> int7: if the monocarp is not meritocratic then it is a kind of non-consumptive a NEC.; int6 & int7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__