the stump unveils plaice.
sent1: the antiaircraft is a kind of a silique if it is not a formula. sent2: the nitrofuran does unveil servitor. sent3: if the fact that the wherry does unveil plaice but it is not stomatous is not right then it unveils servitor. sent4: the stump does unveil plaice if the hyperope chafes. sent5: if the Egyptologist is not a kind of an interview then the fact that the wherry is a leach and stomatous does not hold. sent6: if that the hyperope does not unveil Albion and/or is a formula is false the antiaircraft does not interview. sent7: the fact that the wherry is both a leach and a formula is wrong if that it is not an interview is not incorrect. sent8: if that the antiaircraft is a kind of stomatous thing that does not unveil Albion is not true it chafes. sent9: something does not unveil plaice if it does not unveil Albion and/or it does not unveil plaice. sent10: the fact that the stump does leach and unveils plaice does not hold. sent11: the fact that the hyperope is not non-stomatous is incorrect. sent12: the antiaircraft does not unveil Albion if that the wherry does leach and it is stomatous is not correct. sent13: the Egyptologist is not an interview. sent14: something does unveil servitor if that it is a formula and it does not unveil plaice is not right. sent15: if that the Egyptologist is a kind of a formula that is not an interview is false then it is a leach. sent16: the wherry does not unveil plaice if the fact that the Egyptologist does unveil plaice and it is a kind of an interview is incorrect. sent17: that the hyperope does not unveil Albion and/or is a kind of a formula is not true if it unveils servitor. sent18: if the fact that something is a formula and does not unveil servitor does not hold then it is a silique. sent19: the hyperope is a kind of a chafing if the antiaircraft is a silique. sent20: if the Egyptologist does not interview the fact that the antiaircraft is a leach that unveils servitor is wrong. sent21: the stump is not a leach. sent22: something is stomatous if it is a silique. sent23: if something does not unveil Albion then the fact that it is a formula that does not unveil servitor does not hold. sent24: the antiaircraft does not unveil plaice.
sent5 & sent13 -> int1: that the fact that the wherry is a leach and is stomatous is false hold.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the antiaircraft does not unveil Albion.; sent23 -> int3: that the antiaircraft is a formula and does not unveil servitor is not correct if that it does not unveil Albion is true.; int2 & int3 -> int4: that the antiaircraft is a formula but it does not unveil servitor does not hold.; sent18 -> int5: the antiaircraft is a kind of a silique if the fact that it is a formula and does not unveil servitor is false.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the antiaircraft is a silique.; int6 & sent19 -> int7: the hyperope is a chafing.; int7 & sent4 -> hypothesis;
the wherry does not unveil plaice.
$hypothesis$ = the stump unveils plaice. ; $context$ = sent1: the antiaircraft is a kind of a silique if it is not a formula. sent2: the nitrofuran does unveil servitor. sent3: if the fact that the wherry does unveil plaice but it is not stomatous is not right then it unveils servitor. sent4: the stump does unveil plaice if the hyperope chafes. sent5: if the Egyptologist is not a kind of an interview then the fact that the wherry is a leach and stomatous does not hold. sent6: if that the hyperope does not unveil Albion and/or is a formula is false the antiaircraft does not interview. sent7: the fact that the wherry is both a leach and a formula is wrong if that it is not an interview is not incorrect. sent8: if that the antiaircraft is a kind of stomatous thing that does not unveil Albion is not true it chafes. sent9: something does not unveil plaice if it does not unveil Albion and/or it does not unveil plaice. sent10: the fact that the stump does leach and unveils plaice does not hold. sent11: the fact that the hyperope is not non-stomatous is incorrect. sent12: the antiaircraft does not unveil Albion if that the wherry does leach and it is stomatous is not correct. sent13: the Egyptologist is not an interview. sent14: something does unveil servitor if that it is a formula and it does not unveil plaice is not right. sent15: if that the Egyptologist is a kind of a formula that is not an interview is false then it is a leach. sent16: the wherry does not unveil plaice if the fact that the Egyptologist does unveil plaice and it is a kind of an interview is incorrect. sent17: that the hyperope does not unveil Albion and/or is a kind of a formula is not true if it unveils servitor. sent18: if the fact that something is a formula and does not unveil servitor does not hold then it is a silique. sent19: the hyperope is a kind of a chafing if the antiaircraft is a silique. sent20: if the Egyptologist does not interview the fact that the antiaircraft is a leach that unveils servitor is wrong. sent21: the stump is not a leach. sent22: something is stomatous if it is a silique. sent23: if something does not unveil Albion then the fact that it is a formula that does not unveil servitor does not hold. sent24: the antiaircraft does not unveil plaice. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 & sent13 -> int1: that the fact that the wherry is a leach and is stomatous is false hold.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the antiaircraft does not unveil Albion.; sent23 -> int3: that the antiaircraft is a formula and does not unveil servitor is not correct if that it does not unveil Albion is true.; int2 & int3 -> int4: that the antiaircraft is a formula but it does not unveil servitor does not hold.; sent18 -> int5: the antiaircraft is a kind of a silique if the fact that it is a formula and does not unveil servitor is false.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the antiaircraft is a silique.; int6 & sent19 -> int7: the hyperope is a chafing.; int7 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__