if the roentgenogram is not illicit but it is a rhumba the treat is refractive.
sent1: if the roentgenogram is illicit thing that is a kind of a rhumba then the treat is refractive. sent2: the provocateur is not a lobbyism if there exists something such that that it is either a Methodist or a bast or both is false. sent3: the treat is not non-viscometric if the roentgenogram is both not illicit and a rhumba. sent4: the fact that if the provocateur does warm then the treat is not warm is not wrong. sent5: the treat is ectomorphic. sent6: the roentgenogram does not warm if the treat is warm thing that does unbutton sailboat. sent7: the roentgenogram is a rhumba. sent8: if the roentgenogram does not Simonize Amphioxidae and is not refractive then the hymen is refractive. sent9: if the treat is a kind of a rhumba then it is viscometric. sent10: if the Balmoral is not a Joffre then the packinghouse is immutable and/or it does anguish. sent11: the roentgenogram is illicit if it is refractive. sent12: if the roentgenogram is illicit and it is a rhumba the treat is viscometric. sent13: if the fact that the roentgenogram does not warm is not wrong then it does not Simonize Amphioxidae and is not refractive. sent14: the roentgenogram is not illicit. sent15: there exists something such that the fact that it is a Methodist and/or a bast is not correct. sent16: the provocateur either is a reverence or warms or both if that it is not a lobbyism hold. sent17: the fact that if the provocateur is a kind of a reverence the treat does warm is right. sent18: something is refractive if it is viscometric.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the roentgenogram is not illicit and is a rhumba.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the treat is viscometric.; sent18 -> int2: if the treat is viscometric it is refractive.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the treat is refractive.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;
the hymen is non-viscometric thing that is classificatory.
sent15 & sent2 -> int4: the provocateur is not a lobbyism.; sent16 & int4 -> int5: the provocateur reverences and/or warms.; int5 & sent17 & sent4 -> int6: the treat is warmed.;
$hypothesis$ = if the roentgenogram is not illicit but it is a rhumba the treat is refractive. ; $context$ = sent1: if the roentgenogram is illicit thing that is a kind of a rhumba then the treat is refractive. sent2: the provocateur is not a lobbyism if there exists something such that that it is either a Methodist or a bast or both is false. sent3: the treat is not non-viscometric if the roentgenogram is both not illicit and a rhumba. sent4: the fact that if the provocateur does warm then the treat is not warm is not wrong. sent5: the treat is ectomorphic. sent6: the roentgenogram does not warm if the treat is warm thing that does unbutton sailboat. sent7: the roentgenogram is a rhumba. sent8: if the roentgenogram does not Simonize Amphioxidae and is not refractive then the hymen is refractive. sent9: if the treat is a kind of a rhumba then it is viscometric. sent10: if the Balmoral is not a Joffre then the packinghouse is immutable and/or it does anguish. sent11: the roentgenogram is illicit if it is refractive. sent12: if the roentgenogram is illicit and it is a rhumba the treat is viscometric. sent13: if the fact that the roentgenogram does not warm is not wrong then it does not Simonize Amphioxidae and is not refractive. sent14: the roentgenogram is not illicit. sent15: there exists something such that the fact that it is a Methodist and/or a bast is not correct. sent16: the provocateur either is a reverence or warms or both if that it is not a lobbyism hold. sent17: the fact that if the provocateur is a kind of a reverence the treat does warm is right. sent18: something is refractive if it is viscometric. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the roentgenogram is not illicit and is a rhumba.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the treat is viscometric.; sent18 -> int2: if the treat is viscometric it is refractive.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the treat is refractive.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__