the oak is a kisser and it is not non-terpsichorean.
sent1: the Perm is nonindulgent thing that does not immortalize undependability. sent2: the pogonophoran oxidizes. sent3: the oak is terpsichorean if there exists something such that it ribs splasher. sent4: something is not megakaryocytic if the fact that it is a kind of a approachability and/or is prophetic is not true. sent5: the dark ribs gamesmanship and is nonindulgent. sent6: the shaggymane does not rib splasher. sent7: the oak is epiphyseal and is not nonindulgent if there is something such that it does coo pipeful. sent8: if the shaggymane does not rib splasher the fact that the pogonophoran is a approachability and/or prophetic is not right. sent9: if the fact that the Perm does not immortalize undependability and does not oxidize is not incorrect the oak is a kisser. sent10: the oak is not non-terpsichorean if it is epiphyseal and is not nonindulgent. sent11: The splasher does not rib shaggymane. sent12: the Perm is not epiphyseal and it does not immortalize undependability. sent13: there exists something such that it does coo pipeful. sent14: if that the sociopath does not immortalize undependability is true the Perm does not immortalize undependability and it does not oxidize. sent15: if something does not oxidize then the fact that it is a kind of megakaryocytic thing that immortalizes undependability does not hold. sent16: the fact that the fact that something is a kisser and terpsichorean is incorrect if it does not rib splasher is not incorrect. sent17: something does not rib splasher if the fact that it is megakaryocytic thing that immortalizes undependability is incorrect. sent18: that the sociopath either immortalizes undependability or is megakaryocytic or both does not hold if the pogonophoran is not epiphyseal. sent19: if the pogonophoran is not megakaryocytic then the sociopath does not immortalize undependability.
sent8 & sent6 -> int1: the fact that the fact that the pogonophoran is a approachability or it is prophetic or both is false hold.; sent4 -> int2: if that the pogonophoran is a approachability and/or prophetic is wrong it is not megakaryocytic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pogonophoran is not megakaryocytic.; int3 & sent19 -> int4: the fact that the sociopath does not immortalize undependability is right.; int4 & sent14 -> int5: the Perm does not immortalize undependability and it does not oxidize.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: the fact that the oak is a kisser is correct.; sent13 & sent7 -> int7: the oak is epiphyseal and indulgent.; sent10 & int7 -> int8: the oak is terpsichorean.; int6 & int8 -> hypothesis;
that the oak is a kisser and terpsichorean is not right.
sent16 -> int9: that that the oak is a kisser and it is terpsichorean is wrong hold if it does not rib splasher.; sent17 -> int10: the oak does not rib splasher if the fact that it is megakaryocytic thing that immortalizes undependability is incorrect.; sent15 -> int11: if the oak does not oxidize then that it is megakaryocytic and it immortalizes undependability is false.;
$hypothesis$ = the oak is a kisser and it is not non-terpsichorean. ; $context$ = sent1: the Perm is nonindulgent thing that does not immortalize undependability. sent2: the pogonophoran oxidizes. sent3: the oak is terpsichorean if there exists something such that it ribs splasher. sent4: something is not megakaryocytic if the fact that it is a kind of a approachability and/or is prophetic is not true. sent5: the dark ribs gamesmanship and is nonindulgent. sent6: the shaggymane does not rib splasher. sent7: the oak is epiphyseal and is not nonindulgent if there is something such that it does coo pipeful. sent8: if the shaggymane does not rib splasher the fact that the pogonophoran is a approachability and/or prophetic is not right. sent9: if the fact that the Perm does not immortalize undependability and does not oxidize is not incorrect the oak is a kisser. sent10: the oak is not non-terpsichorean if it is epiphyseal and is not nonindulgent. sent11: The splasher does not rib shaggymane. sent12: the Perm is not epiphyseal and it does not immortalize undependability. sent13: there exists something such that it does coo pipeful. sent14: if that the sociopath does not immortalize undependability is true the Perm does not immortalize undependability and it does not oxidize. sent15: if something does not oxidize then the fact that it is a kind of megakaryocytic thing that immortalizes undependability does not hold. sent16: the fact that the fact that something is a kisser and terpsichorean is incorrect if it does not rib splasher is not incorrect. sent17: something does not rib splasher if the fact that it is megakaryocytic thing that immortalizes undependability is incorrect. sent18: that the sociopath either immortalizes undependability or is megakaryocytic or both does not hold if the pogonophoran is not epiphyseal. sent19: if the pogonophoran is not megakaryocytic then the sociopath does not immortalize undependability. ; $proof$ = 
sent8 & sent6 -> int1: the fact that the fact that the pogonophoran is a approachability or it is prophetic or both is false hold.; sent4 -> int2: if that the pogonophoran is a approachability and/or prophetic is wrong it is not megakaryocytic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pogonophoran is not megakaryocytic.; int3 & sent19 -> int4: the fact that the sociopath does not immortalize undependability is right.; int4 & sent14 -> int5: the Perm does not immortalize undependability and it does not oxidize.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: the fact that the oak is a kisser is correct.; sent13 & sent7 -> int7: the oak is epiphyseal and indulgent.; sent10 & int7 -> int8: the oak is terpsichorean.; int6 & int8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__