the internist evicts aleph.
sent1: the bettor is stative and it is a ben. sent2: the fact that the evaluator does evict shariah and is a rubel is not right if the bettor is not a rubel. sent3: the internist evicts aleph if the courbaril is a sannup but it does not perpetuate misused. sent4: if the Xhosa is not a kind of a ben but it resists the celebrity does not evict aleph. sent5: the courbaril does not perpetuate misused if the evaluator does evict shariah. sent6: the Xhosa is a ben and/or it does evict aleph. sent7: the Xhosa is a kind of a ben or is stored-program or both. sent8: something evicts celebrity and perpetuates misused if it is not foliate. sent9: if the Xhosa is a kind of a ben then it is not foliate. sent10: if the fact that the evaluator does not evict shariah and is a rubel does not hold then that the courbaril does not perpetuate misused is not incorrect. sent11: the bettor is not a rubel if the celebrity does not evict celebrity. sent12: the Xhosa is foliate if the celebrity evicts celebrity. sent13: that something is not a kind of a rubel but it is a pragmatics is not right if it does not evict celebrity. sent14: if the Xhosa is a ben and/or it is stored-program it is not foliate. sent15: something is not stored-program if it is both grammatical and not non-prodromal. sent16: the evaluator is not ungrammatical and it whores. sent17: the Xhosa is not a kind of a ben and resists if the evaluator is not stored-program. sent18: if the courbaril is non-Pauline the fact that it is not prodromal and does not inhabit is false. sent19: the courbaril is a kind of a sannup and does resist. sent20: the courbaril does resist. sent21: if there exists something such that that it is not prodromal and it does not inhabit is not right then the evaluator is prodromal. sent22: the fact that something does not evict shariah but it is a sannup is incorrect if it does not evict aleph. sent23: that the fact that the evaluator does not evict shariah and is a rubel is not right hold if the bettor is not a kind of a rubel. sent24: the bettor does not evict celebrity if the celebrity evict celebrity and it does perpetuate misused. sent25: the Xhosa either is a kind of a ben or is a sannup or both. sent26: that the evaluator does evict shariah and it is a rubel is false. sent27: the courbaril is not Pauline.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the celebrity does evict celebrity.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the Xhosa is foliate.; sent14 & sent7 -> int2: the Xhosa does not foliate.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the celebrity does not evict celebrity.; int4 & sent11 -> int5: the bettor is not a rubel.; int5 & sent23 -> int6: the fact that the evaluator does not evict shariah but it is a kind of a rubel does not hold.; int6 & sent10 -> int7: the courbaril does not perpetuate misused.; sent19 -> int8: the courbaril is a kind of a sannup.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the fact that the courbaril is a sannup but it does not perpetuate misused is not wrong.; int9 & sent3 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the bettor is not a rubel but a pragmatics is not correct.
sent13 -> int10: that the fact that the bettor is not a kind of a rubel but it is a pragmatics is not right is true if it does not evict celebrity.; sent8 -> int11: the celebrity evicts celebrity and it does perpetuate misused if it does not foliate.; sent22 -> int12: if the celebrity does not evict aleph then that it does not evict shariah and is a kind of a sannup is not right.; sent15 -> int13: the evaluator is non-stored-program if it is grammatical and it is not non-prodromal.; sent16 -> int14: the evaluator is grammatical.; sent18 & sent27 -> int15: that the courbaril is not prodromal and it does not inhabit is incorrect.; int15 -> int16: there exists something such that the fact that it is non-prodromal thing that does not inhabit does not hold.; int16 & sent21 -> int17: the fact that the evaluator is not non-prodromal is right.; int14 & int17 -> int18: the evaluator is grammatical and prodromal.; int13 & int18 -> int19: the fact that the evaluator is not stored-program hold.; sent17 & int19 -> int20: the Xhosa is not a ben but it resists.; sent4 & int20 -> int21: the celebrity does not evict aleph.; int12 & int21 -> int22: the fact that the celebrity does not evict shariah but it is a kind of a sannup is false.;
$hypothesis$ = the internist evicts aleph. ; $context$ = sent1: the bettor is stative and it is a ben. sent2: the fact that the evaluator does evict shariah and is a rubel is not right if the bettor is not a rubel. sent3: the internist evicts aleph if the courbaril is a sannup but it does not perpetuate misused. sent4: if the Xhosa is not a kind of a ben but it resists the celebrity does not evict aleph. sent5: the courbaril does not perpetuate misused if the evaluator does evict shariah. sent6: the Xhosa is a ben and/or it does evict aleph. sent7: the Xhosa is a kind of a ben or is stored-program or both. sent8: something evicts celebrity and perpetuates misused if it is not foliate. sent9: if the Xhosa is a kind of a ben then it is not foliate. sent10: if the fact that the evaluator does not evict shariah and is a rubel does not hold then that the courbaril does not perpetuate misused is not incorrect. sent11: the bettor is not a rubel if the celebrity does not evict celebrity. sent12: the Xhosa is foliate if the celebrity evicts celebrity. sent13: that something is not a kind of a rubel but it is a pragmatics is not right if it does not evict celebrity. sent14: if the Xhosa is a ben and/or it is stored-program it is not foliate. sent15: something is not stored-program if it is both grammatical and not non-prodromal. sent16: the evaluator is not ungrammatical and it whores. sent17: the Xhosa is not a kind of a ben and resists if the evaluator is not stored-program. sent18: if the courbaril is non-Pauline the fact that it is not prodromal and does not inhabit is false. sent19: the courbaril is a kind of a sannup and does resist. sent20: the courbaril does resist. sent21: if there exists something such that that it is not prodromal and it does not inhabit is not right then the evaluator is prodromal. sent22: the fact that something does not evict shariah but it is a sannup is incorrect if it does not evict aleph. sent23: that the fact that the evaluator does not evict shariah and is a rubel is not right hold if the bettor is not a kind of a rubel. sent24: the bettor does not evict celebrity if the celebrity evict celebrity and it does perpetuate misused. sent25: the Xhosa either is a kind of a ben or is a sannup or both. sent26: that the evaluator does evict shariah and it is a rubel is false. sent27: the courbaril is not Pauline. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the celebrity does evict celebrity.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the Xhosa is foliate.; sent14 & sent7 -> int2: the Xhosa does not foliate.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the celebrity does not evict celebrity.; int4 & sent11 -> int5: the bettor is not a rubel.; int5 & sent23 -> int6: the fact that the evaluator does not evict shariah but it is a kind of a rubel does not hold.; int6 & sent10 -> int7: the courbaril does not perpetuate misused.; sent19 -> int8: the courbaril is a kind of a sannup.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the fact that the courbaril is a sannup but it does not perpetuate misused is not wrong.; int9 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__