there is something such that either it restores or it spiels or both.
sent1: the fact that the shim is a R-2 and is not a kind of a piccolo does not hold if it is not phonogramic. sent2: if the ranter is not a peeler then the fact that the fact that the puppy is not a peeler and it does not steel sobriety is right is false. sent3: the ranter is not a peeler if that that the hoopskirt is not grammatical is not incorrect does not hold. sent4: the hoopskirt is grammatical. sent5: if that the hoopskirt is not a bioclimatology but it is exacta does not hold then the shim is not phonogramic. sent6: if the fact that the shim does restore and it is a kind of a peeler does not hold it is not a peeler. sent7: if the fact that the puppy is not a peeler and does not steel sobriety is not true it restores. sent8: if something does not spiel then the fact that it restores and it is a peeler is not correct. sent9: if the fact that something is a R-2 but it is not a kind of a piccolo does not hold it is not a spiel.
sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the ranter is not a kind of a peeler.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: that the puppy is not a kind of a peeler and it does not steel sobriety is not right.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the puppy restores.; int3 -> int4: the puppy either does restore or is a kind of a spiel or both.; int4 -> hypothesis;
the shim does steel sobriety.
sent8 -> int5: if the shim does not spiel then that it restores and it is a kind of a peeler is incorrect.; sent9 -> int6: the shim is not a spiel if that it is both a R-2 and not a piccolo does not hold.;
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that either it restores or it spiels or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the shim is a R-2 and is not a kind of a piccolo does not hold if it is not phonogramic. sent2: if the ranter is not a peeler then the fact that the fact that the puppy is not a peeler and it does not steel sobriety is right is false. sent3: the ranter is not a peeler if that that the hoopskirt is not grammatical is not incorrect does not hold. sent4: the hoopskirt is grammatical. sent5: if that the hoopskirt is not a bioclimatology but it is exacta does not hold then the shim is not phonogramic. sent6: if the fact that the shim does restore and it is a kind of a peeler does not hold it is not a peeler. sent7: if the fact that the puppy is not a peeler and does not steel sobriety is not true it restores. sent8: if something does not spiel then the fact that it restores and it is a peeler is not correct. sent9: if the fact that something is a R-2 but it is not a kind of a piccolo does not hold it is not a spiel. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the ranter is not a kind of a peeler.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: that the puppy is not a kind of a peeler and it does not steel sobriety is not right.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the puppy restores.; int3 -> int4: the puppy either does restore or is a kind of a spiel or both.; int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__