the door is a catapult that is subclinical.
sent1: the fact that something is a wencher but it is not a kind of a Huguenot is false if it does garter. sent2: the fact that the nucleoside is not a wencher but it is a Huguenot is not right if it is a kind of a garter. sent3: that the door is not a diary and it is not a catapult does not hold if it does refract. sent4: if the fact that the nucleoside is a kind of non-abolitionary thing that does not garter is false it does not catapult. sent5: if the Explorer is a kind of a diary then the door is subclinical. sent6: if the fact that the door does invigilate and is subclinical is wrong it is not subclinical. sent7: if something does garter then that it is both not a wencher and a Huguenot is wrong. sent8: the Explorer is a diary. sent9: that that something is both not a wencher and not a Huguenot is incorrect if it does garter is correct. sent10: if the pipsissewa does refract then the fact that it is either not Rooseveltian or a garter or both is not right. sent11: that the pipsissewa does not refract is not false. sent12: the fact that the nucleoside is not a wencher but it is a kind of a Huguenot does not hold. sent13: the nucleoside is a kind of a panorama. sent14: the pipsissewa does not squire Burgess and does not refract. sent15: if the pipsissewa does not squire Burgess and refracts then the nucleoside does not refracts. sent16: if the fact that something is not a wencher and it is not a Huguenot is not right it is non-Rooseveltian. sent17: the door does not refract but it does catapult if it is not subclinical. sent18: the nucleoside is abolitionary. sent19: the nucleoside is abolitionary if it does not invigilate. sent20: if the nucleoside does not refract and it does not garter then the fact that the door is a catapult is true. sent21: the nucleoside is a kind of a bin. sent22: the nucleoside does not invigilate. sent23: the nucleoside is not a kind of a catapult and it is not angelic. sent24: if the nucleoside does not invigilate then it is abolitionary and it is Rooseveltian. sent25: the pipsissewa is not Rooseveltian. sent26: the fact that the nucleoside is both a wencher and not a Huguenot is not correct. sent27: the nucleoside does not refract if that the pipsissewa does not squire Burgess and it does not refract is not wrong. sent28: that the nucleoside is a kind of a wencher but it is not a Huguenot is wrong if it is a garter.
sent9 -> int1: if the nucleoside is a kind of a garter then the fact that it is not a wencher and it is not a Huguenot does not hold.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the nucleoside does garter.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: that the nucleoside is not a wencher and not a Huguenot is not correct.; sent16 -> int3: if that the fact that the nucleoside is not a wencher and it is not a kind of a Huguenot is wrong is true it is not Rooseveltian.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the nucleoside is not Rooseveltian.; sent24 & sent22 -> int5: the nucleoside is both abolitionary and Rooseveltian.; int5 -> int6: the nucleoside is Rooseveltian.; int4 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the nucleoside does not garter.; sent27 & sent14 -> int9: the nucleoside does not refract.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the nucleoside does not refract and does not garter.; int10 & sent20 -> int11: the door is a catapult.; sent5 & sent8 -> int12: the door is subclinical.; int11 & int12 -> hypothesis;
the nucleoside does not squire Burgess.
$hypothesis$ = the door is a catapult that is subclinical. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is a wencher but it is not a kind of a Huguenot is false if it does garter. sent2: the fact that the nucleoside is not a wencher but it is a Huguenot is not right if it is a kind of a garter. sent3: that the door is not a diary and it is not a catapult does not hold if it does refract. sent4: if the fact that the nucleoside is a kind of non-abolitionary thing that does not garter is false it does not catapult. sent5: if the Explorer is a kind of a diary then the door is subclinical. sent6: if the fact that the door does invigilate and is subclinical is wrong it is not subclinical. sent7: if something does garter then that it is both not a wencher and a Huguenot is wrong. sent8: the Explorer is a diary. sent9: that that something is both not a wencher and not a Huguenot is incorrect if it does garter is correct. sent10: if the pipsissewa does refract then the fact that it is either not Rooseveltian or a garter or both is not right. sent11: that the pipsissewa does not refract is not false. sent12: the fact that the nucleoside is not a wencher but it is a kind of a Huguenot does not hold. sent13: the nucleoside is a kind of a panorama. sent14: the pipsissewa does not squire Burgess and does not refract. sent15: if the pipsissewa does not squire Burgess and refracts then the nucleoside does not refracts. sent16: if the fact that something is not a wencher and it is not a Huguenot is not right it is non-Rooseveltian. sent17: the door does not refract but it does catapult if it is not subclinical. sent18: the nucleoside is abolitionary. sent19: the nucleoside is abolitionary if it does not invigilate. sent20: if the nucleoside does not refract and it does not garter then the fact that the door is a catapult is true. sent21: the nucleoside is a kind of a bin. sent22: the nucleoside does not invigilate. sent23: the nucleoside is not a kind of a catapult and it is not angelic. sent24: if the nucleoside does not invigilate then it is abolitionary and it is Rooseveltian. sent25: the pipsissewa is not Rooseveltian. sent26: the fact that the nucleoside is both a wencher and not a Huguenot is not correct. sent27: the nucleoside does not refract if that the pipsissewa does not squire Burgess and it does not refract is not wrong. sent28: that the nucleoside is a kind of a wencher but it is not a Huguenot is wrong if it is a garter. ; $proof$ = 
sent9 -> int1: if the nucleoside is a kind of a garter then the fact that it is not a wencher and it is not a Huguenot does not hold.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the nucleoside does garter.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: that the nucleoside is not a wencher and not a Huguenot is not correct.; sent16 -> int3: if that the fact that the nucleoside is not a wencher and it is not a kind of a Huguenot is wrong is true it is not Rooseveltian.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the nucleoside is not Rooseveltian.; sent24 & sent22 -> int5: the nucleoside is both abolitionary and Rooseveltian.; int5 -> int6: the nucleoside is Rooseveltian.; int4 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the nucleoside does not garter.; sent27 & sent14 -> int9: the nucleoside does not refract.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the nucleoside does not refract and does not garter.; int10 & sent20 -> int11: the door is a catapult.; sent5 & sent8 -> int12: the door is subclinical.; int11 & int12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__