the monopolist is not voltaic.
sent1: the fact that if the mycelium is a ballottement then that the monopolist is not a ballottement or it is not a benevolence or both is not correct hold. sent2: something is a kind of a telemeter if it is a snow-in-summer. sent3: if the nectarine does not behave and is not evangelistic then the mycelium is a kind of an eyedrop. sent4: if the angiologist is evangelistic then the nectarine does not behave and is not evangelistic. sent5: if something is an eyedrop then it is a ballottement. sent6: something is side-to-side. sent7: if the fact that something is not a ballottement or not a benevolence or both is wrong then it is non-voltaic. sent8: that that the angiologist is a Nielsen and evangelistic is true if there is something such that it is side-to-side hold.
sent6 & sent8 -> int1: the angiologist is a kind of a Nielsen and it is evangelistic.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the angiologist is not non-evangelistic is right.; int2 & sent4 -> int3: the nectarine does not behave and it is not evangelistic.; int3 & sent3 -> int4: the mycelium is a kind of an eyedrop.; sent5 -> int5: if the mycelium is a kind of an eyedrop then it is a ballottement.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the mycelium is a ballottement.; int6 & sent1 -> int7: that the monopolist is not a kind of a ballottement or it is not a kind of a benevolence or both is not correct.; sent7 -> int8: the monopolist is not voltaic if that it is not a ballottement and/or is not a benevolence is not true.; int7 & int8 -> hypothesis;
the monopolist is a kind of a telemeter if it is a kind of a snow-in-summer.
sent2 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the monopolist is not voltaic. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that if the mycelium is a ballottement then that the monopolist is not a ballottement or it is not a benevolence or both is not correct hold. sent2: something is a kind of a telemeter if it is a snow-in-summer. sent3: if the nectarine does not behave and is not evangelistic then the mycelium is a kind of an eyedrop. sent4: if the angiologist is evangelistic then the nectarine does not behave and is not evangelistic. sent5: if something is an eyedrop then it is a ballottement. sent6: something is side-to-side. sent7: if the fact that something is not a ballottement or not a benevolence or both is wrong then it is non-voltaic. sent8: that that the angiologist is a Nielsen and evangelistic is true if there is something such that it is side-to-side hold. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 & sent8 -> int1: the angiologist is a kind of a Nielsen and it is evangelistic.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the angiologist is not non-evangelistic is right.; int2 & sent4 -> int3: the nectarine does not behave and it is not evangelistic.; int3 & sent3 -> int4: the mycelium is a kind of an eyedrop.; sent5 -> int5: if the mycelium is a kind of an eyedrop then it is a ballottement.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the mycelium is a ballottement.; int6 & sent1 -> int7: that the monopolist is not a kind of a ballottement or it is not a kind of a benevolence or both is not correct.; sent7 -> int8: the monopolist is not voltaic if that it is not a ballottement and/or is not a benevolence is not true.; int7 & int8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__