the laager is uneager.
sent1: the courtier blinds invaluableness. sent2: the fact that the upholsterer is not non-immunochemical and blinds courtier does not hold. sent3: that the laager is not a licenser and does blind courtier is not true. sent4: everything is ciliate and it is a kind of a snow. sent5: the courtier is not a kind of a separation if the upholsterer is a kind of a separation and does not blind invaluableness. sent6: the courtier leans Blighia and it is immunochemical. sent7: everything does blind invaluableness and it repots upholsterer. sent8: the fact that everything is both Dickensian and sentient is true. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it is immunochemical and blinds courtier is wrong. sent10: that the upholsterer is a kind of immunochemical thing that does not blind courtier is incorrect if the fact that it is not first hold. sent11: that the upholsterer is immunochemical and does blind courtier is incorrect if it is not first. sent12: the courtier is not a kind of a potage. sent13: there is something such that it is immunochemical thing that does not blind courtier. sent14: the upholsterer is a kind of a resemblance and it does repot upholsterer. sent15: the laager is not uneager if there is something such that it does blind courtier. sent16: the laager is a EST and it leans milliampere. sent17: the laager is not uneager if there is something such that that it is immunochemical and it does not blind courtier is incorrect. sent18: if the courtier blinds invaluableness and it does repot upholsterer the fact that the upholsterer is not first is correct. sent19: the courtier is not uneager. sent20: everything blinds invaluableness. sent21: the fact that if the fact that the laager is not the licenser and blinds courtier is not correct then the laager does not blinds courtier is not incorrect. sent22: that the laager is immunochemical but it is not uneager is false if it does not blind courtier.
sent7 -> int1: the courtier blinds invaluableness and does repot upholsterer.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the upholsterer is not a first.; int2 & sent10 -> int3: that the upholsterer is immunochemical but it does not blind courtier is not correct.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that the fact that it is immunochemical thing that does not blind courtier is incorrect.; int4 & sent17 -> hypothesis;
the courtier is not a separation.
sent21 & sent3 -> int5: the laager does not blind courtier.;
$hypothesis$ = the laager is uneager. ; $context$ = sent1: the courtier blinds invaluableness. sent2: the fact that the upholsterer is not non-immunochemical and blinds courtier does not hold. sent3: that the laager is not a licenser and does blind courtier is not true. sent4: everything is ciliate and it is a kind of a snow. sent5: the courtier is not a kind of a separation if the upholsterer is a kind of a separation and does not blind invaluableness. sent6: the courtier leans Blighia and it is immunochemical. sent7: everything does blind invaluableness and it repots upholsterer. sent8: the fact that everything is both Dickensian and sentient is true. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it is immunochemical and blinds courtier is wrong. sent10: that the upholsterer is a kind of immunochemical thing that does not blind courtier is incorrect if the fact that it is not first hold. sent11: that the upholsterer is immunochemical and does blind courtier is incorrect if it is not first. sent12: the courtier is not a kind of a potage. sent13: there is something such that it is immunochemical thing that does not blind courtier. sent14: the upholsterer is a kind of a resemblance and it does repot upholsterer. sent15: the laager is not uneager if there is something such that it does blind courtier. sent16: the laager is a EST and it leans milliampere. sent17: the laager is not uneager if there is something such that that it is immunochemical and it does not blind courtier is incorrect. sent18: if the courtier blinds invaluableness and it does repot upholsterer the fact that the upholsterer is not first is correct. sent19: the courtier is not uneager. sent20: everything blinds invaluableness. sent21: the fact that if the fact that the laager is not the licenser and blinds courtier is not correct then the laager does not blinds courtier is not incorrect. sent22: that the laager is immunochemical but it is not uneager is false if it does not blind courtier. ; $proof$ = 
sent7 -> int1: the courtier blinds invaluableness and does repot upholsterer.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the upholsterer is not a first.; int2 & sent10 -> int3: that the upholsterer is immunochemical but it does not blind courtier is not correct.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that the fact that it is immunochemical thing that does not blind courtier is incorrect.; int4 & sent17 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__