the paraphilia is a kind of a Kalki.
sent1: that the combustible is a Orpington or a burr or both is correct if it is not a possible. sent2: the fact that the orrery is a self-stimulation but it does not jet is false. sent3: that the combustible is not a kind of a burr and it is not a Orpington does not hold if the fact that the paraphilia is a possible is not false. sent4: the rosebud is not creative if the argentine is creative. sent5: if that the congressman is Prakritic and/or it does not indicate is false then the vegetation does not blind detergency. sent6: something is an incendiary if that it is not a cabin and does not accouter rosebud is incorrect. sent7: the watchman is not papery if there is something such that it repots deconstruction and it does blind Jackson. sent8: if the combustible is a Kalki then the fact that the vegetation does not blind detergency but it is a residual is not true. sent9: the watchman is an incendiary and it does accouter rosebud if it does not cabin. sent10: the dendrobium does blind Jackson and is not scentless. sent11: the fact that the combustible is not a possible hold. sent12: if a residual does blind Sennett the paraphilia is not a kind of a Kalki. sent13: the watchman is not a cabin. sent14: if the combustible is a Orpington it is a residual. sent15: the manipulator is a residual if the watchman is a burr. sent16: the combustible is a kind of a residual if it is a kind of a burr. sent17: there exists nothing that either is Prakritic or does not indicate or both. sent18: if the rosebud is uncreative the dendrobium repots deconstruction. sent19: if there is something such that that that it is a self-stimulation and not a jetting is right does not hold the argentine is uncreative. sent20: that something is a Kalki if the fact that it is not a burr and it is not a Orpington is incorrect is not false. sent21: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not blind detergency and it is not non-residual is not correct then the Python does not blind Sennett. sent22: if that the watchman is incendiary is true then it is a burr. sent23: if the manipulator is a Orpington that is a residual then the combustible does not blind Sennett. sent24: if the watchman is not papery the manipulator is exteroceptive and is not a kind of a heel. sent25: the fact that that something is not a cabin and does not accouter rosebud is not incorrect is incorrect if it is exteroceptive. sent26: the combustible blinds detergency and it blinds Sennett if the vegetation does not blinds detergency. sent27: if the vegetation does blind detergency and/or it is not a Kalki the paraphilia is a Kalki.
sent17 -> int1: that either the congressman is Prakritic or it does not indicate or both does not hold.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the vegetation does not blind detergency.; int2 & sent26 -> int3: the combustible blinds detergency and does blind Sennett.; int3 -> int4: the fact that the combustible blinds Sennett is not wrong.; sent1 & sent11 -> int5: the combustible is a kind of a Orpington or is a kind of a burr or both.; int5 & sent14 & sent16 -> int6: the combustible is a residual.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the combustible is a residual and it does blind Sennett.; int7 -> int8: something is a kind of a residual that blinds Sennett.; int8 & sent12 -> hypothesis;
the paraphilia is a kind of a Kalki.
sent9 & sent13 -> int9: the watchman is incendiary thing that accouters rosebud.; int9 -> int10: the watchman is an incendiary.; sent22 & int10 -> int11: the watchman is a kind of a burr.; sent15 & int11 -> int12: the manipulator is residual.;
$hypothesis$ = the paraphilia is a kind of a Kalki. ; $context$ = sent1: that the combustible is a Orpington or a burr or both is correct if it is not a possible. sent2: the fact that the orrery is a self-stimulation but it does not jet is false. sent3: that the combustible is not a kind of a burr and it is not a Orpington does not hold if the fact that the paraphilia is a possible is not false. sent4: the rosebud is not creative if the argentine is creative. sent5: if that the congressman is Prakritic and/or it does not indicate is false then the vegetation does not blind detergency. sent6: something is an incendiary if that it is not a cabin and does not accouter rosebud is incorrect. sent7: the watchman is not papery if there is something such that it repots deconstruction and it does blind Jackson. sent8: if the combustible is a Kalki then the fact that the vegetation does not blind detergency but it is a residual is not true. sent9: the watchman is an incendiary and it does accouter rosebud if it does not cabin. sent10: the dendrobium does blind Jackson and is not scentless. sent11: the fact that the combustible is not a possible hold. sent12: if a residual does blind Sennett the paraphilia is not a kind of a Kalki. sent13: the watchman is not a cabin. sent14: if the combustible is a Orpington it is a residual. sent15: the manipulator is a residual if the watchman is a burr. sent16: the combustible is a kind of a residual if it is a kind of a burr. sent17: there exists nothing that either is Prakritic or does not indicate or both. sent18: if the rosebud is uncreative the dendrobium repots deconstruction. sent19: if there is something such that that that it is a self-stimulation and not a jetting is right does not hold the argentine is uncreative. sent20: that something is a Kalki if the fact that it is not a burr and it is not a Orpington is incorrect is not false. sent21: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not blind detergency and it is not non-residual is not correct then the Python does not blind Sennett. sent22: if that the watchman is incendiary is true then it is a burr. sent23: if the manipulator is a Orpington that is a residual then the combustible does not blind Sennett. sent24: if the watchman is not papery the manipulator is exteroceptive and is not a kind of a heel. sent25: the fact that that something is not a cabin and does not accouter rosebud is not incorrect is incorrect if it is exteroceptive. sent26: the combustible blinds detergency and it blinds Sennett if the vegetation does not blinds detergency. sent27: if the vegetation does blind detergency and/or it is not a Kalki the paraphilia is a Kalki. ; $proof$ = 
sent17 -> int1: that either the congressman is Prakritic or it does not indicate or both does not hold.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the vegetation does not blind detergency.; int2 & sent26 -> int3: the combustible blinds detergency and does blind Sennett.; int3 -> int4: the fact that the combustible blinds Sennett is not wrong.; sent1 & sent11 -> int5: the combustible is a kind of a Orpington or is a kind of a burr or both.; int5 & sent14 & sent16 -> int6: the combustible is a residual.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the combustible is a residual and it does blind Sennett.; int7 -> int8: something is a kind of a residual that blinds Sennett.; int8 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__