the voucher is not a schism but it is unemotional.
sent1: there is something such that the fact that it is a liquor and is not a kind of a schism is not correct. sent2: the voucher is not transpolar. sent3: the fact that the voucher is unemotional but it does not vanish is incorrect. sent4: the voucher is not a schism and is unemotional if the scrimshanker is not unquestionable. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is a liquor and it is not unemotional is not true. sent6: the fact that the shark does vanish but it is not a liquor is not correct. sent7: there exists nothing that does not vanish and is not a kind of a liquor. sent8: the scrimshanker is questionable if there is something such that it vanishes. sent9: that the scrimshanker is not unquestionable if there exists something such that that that it does not vanish and it is not a liquor hold does not hold is not wrong. sent10: there exists something such that that it is not a carouse and it is not a Trojan is wrong. sent11: if the fact that the voucher is not a liquor hold the shark does not vanish and is unemotional. sent12: if the blowfly is unquestionable and is not a schism the scrimshanker is a schism. sent13: there is something such that that it is not unemotional and does not vanish is false. sent14: there exists nothing such that it does vanish and it is not a liquor. sent15: if the fact that the bird is not motivational hold then it is a kind of a discrimination that coheres. sent16: the voucher is not a schism. sent17: if the scrimshanker is not unquestionable then the voucher is not a schism. sent18: the scrimshanker is not unemotional if there is something such that that it is not unquestionable and it is not a schism is not correct. sent19: the shark is questionable but it is a kind of a schism if the voucher is not a liquor. sent20: something does update vane and it is a committedness. sent21: there exists nothing such that it is a schism and it is not unemotional.
sent7 -> int1: the fact that the shark does not vanish and is not a kind of a liquor is not correct.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it does not vanish and is not a kind of a liquor does not hold.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the scrimshanker is not unquestionable.; sent4 & int3 -> hypothesis;
that the voucher is not a schism but it is unemotional does not hold.
$hypothesis$ = the voucher is not a schism but it is unemotional. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that the fact that it is a liquor and is not a kind of a schism is not correct. sent2: the voucher is not transpolar. sent3: the fact that the voucher is unemotional but it does not vanish is incorrect. sent4: the voucher is not a schism and is unemotional if the scrimshanker is not unquestionable. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is a liquor and it is not unemotional is not true. sent6: the fact that the shark does vanish but it is not a liquor is not correct. sent7: there exists nothing that does not vanish and is not a kind of a liquor. sent8: the scrimshanker is questionable if there is something such that it vanishes. sent9: that the scrimshanker is not unquestionable if there exists something such that that that it does not vanish and it is not a liquor hold does not hold is not wrong. sent10: there exists something such that that it is not a carouse and it is not a Trojan is wrong. sent11: if the fact that the voucher is not a liquor hold the shark does not vanish and is unemotional. sent12: if the blowfly is unquestionable and is not a schism the scrimshanker is a schism. sent13: there is something such that that it is not unemotional and does not vanish is false. sent14: there exists nothing such that it does vanish and it is not a liquor. sent15: if the fact that the bird is not motivational hold then it is a kind of a discrimination that coheres. sent16: the voucher is not a schism. sent17: if the scrimshanker is not unquestionable then the voucher is not a schism. sent18: the scrimshanker is not unemotional if there is something such that that it is not unquestionable and it is not a schism is not correct. sent19: the shark is questionable but it is a kind of a schism if the voucher is not a liquor. sent20: something does update vane and it is a committedness. sent21: there exists nothing such that it is a schism and it is not unemotional. ; $proof$ = 
sent7 -> int1: the fact that the shark does not vanish and is not a kind of a liquor is not correct.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it does not vanish and is not a kind of a liquor does not hold.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the scrimshanker is not unquestionable.; sent4 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__