if the orthoptist does not concern kaolinite the yew is molal thing that is not a kind of a neurotransmitter.
sent1: that if the orthoptist concerns kaolinite then the orthoptist is a kind of a Sudanese but it is not a videotape is not false. sent2: the varnish does concern kaolinite and it is cursorial if it is not a lamented. sent3: the defecator is an attar but it does not reopen orthoptist. sent4: if something expenses supermarket the yew is not a kind of a neurotransmitter. sent5: the orthoptist is Sudanese. sent6: if something expenses supermarket then the yew is both molal and not a neurotransmitter. sent7: something does uncloak. sent8: if the orthoptist does not concern kaolinite that the yew is not a neurotransmitter is not incorrect. sent9: the yew is both not non-molal and not a neurotransmitter if the orthoptist does concern kaolinite. sent10: if something does concern kaolinite then it is a Sudanese that does not videotape. sent11: the yew is not a neurotransmitter. sent12: if the recombinant is a Sudanese that does not concern kaolinite then it expenses supermarket. sent13: if something does not concern kaolinite then it is a kind of a Sudanese. sent14: the fact that there exists something such that it is an attar is not incorrect. sent15: the recombinant is molal but it does not videotape if the yew does not expense supermarket. sent16: the yew is a videotape that is not molal if the orthoptist is not a neurotransmitter. sent17: something laments if it is a Sudanese that is not a videotape. sent18: the orthoptist is a Sudanese if the fact that it does not concern kaolinite hold. sent19: if the orthoptist does lament then the fact that the recombinant does expense supermarket is not false. sent20: something that does not concern kaolinite is both Sudanese and not a videotape. sent21: the supermarket does concern kaolinite. sent22: that the recombinant is not a neurotransmitter and expenses supermarket is incorrect. sent23: the recombinant is a neurotransmitter and not molal if there is something such that it expenses supermarket.
sent20 -> int1: if the orthoptist does not concern kaolinite then it is a Sudanese and it is not a videotape.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the orthoptist does not concern kaolinite.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the orthoptist is a Sudanese but it is not a videotape.; sent17 -> int3: the orthoptist laments if it is Sudanese and it is not a videotape.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the orthoptist is a kind of a lamented.; int4 & sent19 -> int5: the recombinant does expense supermarket.; int5 -> int6: something does expense supermarket.; int6 & sent6 -> int7: the yew is a kind of molal thing that is not a kind of a neurotransmitter.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis;
the varnish is cursorial but it is not a coccus.
sent22 -> int8: there is something such that the fact that it is not a neurotransmitter and does expense supermarket is incorrect.;
$hypothesis$ = if the orthoptist does not concern kaolinite the yew is molal thing that is not a kind of a neurotransmitter. ; $context$ = sent1: that if the orthoptist concerns kaolinite then the orthoptist is a kind of a Sudanese but it is not a videotape is not false. sent2: the varnish does concern kaolinite and it is cursorial if it is not a lamented. sent3: the defecator is an attar but it does not reopen orthoptist. sent4: if something expenses supermarket the yew is not a kind of a neurotransmitter. sent5: the orthoptist is Sudanese. sent6: if something expenses supermarket then the yew is both molal and not a neurotransmitter. sent7: something does uncloak. sent8: if the orthoptist does not concern kaolinite that the yew is not a neurotransmitter is not incorrect. sent9: the yew is both not non-molal and not a neurotransmitter if the orthoptist does concern kaolinite. sent10: if something does concern kaolinite then it is a Sudanese that does not videotape. sent11: the yew is not a neurotransmitter. sent12: if the recombinant is a Sudanese that does not concern kaolinite then it expenses supermarket. sent13: if something does not concern kaolinite then it is a kind of a Sudanese. sent14: the fact that there exists something such that it is an attar is not incorrect. sent15: the recombinant is molal but it does not videotape if the yew does not expense supermarket. sent16: the yew is a videotape that is not molal if the orthoptist is not a neurotransmitter. sent17: something laments if it is a Sudanese that is not a videotape. sent18: the orthoptist is a Sudanese if the fact that it does not concern kaolinite hold. sent19: if the orthoptist does lament then the fact that the recombinant does expense supermarket is not false. sent20: something that does not concern kaolinite is both Sudanese and not a videotape. sent21: the supermarket does concern kaolinite. sent22: that the recombinant is not a neurotransmitter and expenses supermarket is incorrect. sent23: the recombinant is a neurotransmitter and not molal if there is something such that it expenses supermarket. ; $proof$ = 
sent20 -> int1: if the orthoptist does not concern kaolinite then it is a Sudanese and it is not a videotape.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the orthoptist does not concern kaolinite.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the orthoptist is a Sudanese but it is not a videotape.; sent17 -> int3: the orthoptist laments if it is Sudanese and it is not a videotape.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the orthoptist is a kind of a lamented.; int4 & sent19 -> int5: the recombinant does expense supermarket.; int5 -> int6: something does expense supermarket.; int6 & sent6 -> int7: the yew is a kind of molal thing that is not a kind of a neurotransmitter.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__