the caseworm does not exacerbate sierra.
sent1: if something drains More then the fact that it is both not a cootie and a regimentation is not correct. sent2: that the sundial is geriatrics and does drain glaciation does not hold if the mineralogist does not drain glaciation. sent3: if the fact that something is not a cootie and is a kind of a regimentation is not right it does not drain Bellerophon. sent4: if the caseworm is neurobiological it drains version. sent5: if the fact that the sundial is geriatrics and drains glaciation is incorrect then the fact that the caseworm does not exacerbate sierra hold. sent6: the mineralogist does not exacerbate copper. sent7: something is not geriatrics if it is acetylic. sent8: if the mineralogist is not geriatrics then the patio does not exacerbate sierra and it does not exacerbate copper. sent9: The copper does not exacerbate mineralogist. sent10: if the mineralogist does not exacerbate copper it is not a kind of a Hefa and does not drain glaciation. sent11: the mineralogist is both not non-Eucharistic and acetylic if the sundial does not drain Bellerophon. sent12: if the fact that something is acetylic and/or is not Eucharistic is not true then it is not geriatrics. sent13: if the fact that the caseworm does exacerbate copper and it drains glaciation does not hold the mineralogist does not exacerbate sierra. sent14: if the caseworm does drain version the fact that the sundial does drain More is not incorrect.
sent10 & sent6 -> int1: the mineralogist is not a kind of a Hefa and does not drain glaciation.; int1 -> int2: the mineralogist does not drain glaciation.; sent2 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the sundial is geriatrics and it does drain glaciation does not hold.; sent5 & int3 -> hypothesis;
the caseworm exacerbates sierra.
sent12 -> int4: the mineralogist is not geriatrics if the fact that it is acetylic and/or is not Eucharistic does not hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the caseworm does not exacerbate sierra. ; $context$ = sent1: if something drains More then the fact that it is both not a cootie and a regimentation is not correct. sent2: that the sundial is geriatrics and does drain glaciation does not hold if the mineralogist does not drain glaciation. sent3: if the fact that something is not a cootie and is a kind of a regimentation is not right it does not drain Bellerophon. sent4: if the caseworm is neurobiological it drains version. sent5: if the fact that the sundial is geriatrics and drains glaciation is incorrect then the fact that the caseworm does not exacerbate sierra hold. sent6: the mineralogist does not exacerbate copper. sent7: something is not geriatrics if it is acetylic. sent8: if the mineralogist is not geriatrics then the patio does not exacerbate sierra and it does not exacerbate copper. sent9: The copper does not exacerbate mineralogist. sent10: if the mineralogist does not exacerbate copper it is not a kind of a Hefa and does not drain glaciation. sent11: the mineralogist is both not non-Eucharistic and acetylic if the sundial does not drain Bellerophon. sent12: if the fact that something is acetylic and/or is not Eucharistic is not true then it is not geriatrics. sent13: if the fact that the caseworm does exacerbate copper and it drains glaciation does not hold the mineralogist does not exacerbate sierra. sent14: if the caseworm does drain version the fact that the sundial does drain More is not incorrect. ; $proof$ = 
sent10 & sent6 -> int1: the mineralogist is not a kind of a Hefa and does not drain glaciation.; int1 -> int2: the mineralogist does not drain glaciation.; sent2 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the sundial is geriatrics and it does drain glaciation does not hold.; sent5 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__