the scolopendrium refers Telemann.
sent1: something is a bludgeon and it is a kind of an assertiveness if it is not preclinical. sent2: the nucellus is not a scatterbrain. sent3: if the verapamil does not refer Electrophoridae then the nucellus is non-lotic thing that is not bodily. sent4: something is a jack-in-the-pulpit if it is an assertiveness. sent5: everything does not swagger. sent6: if the nucellus does not refer Electrophoridae the scolopendrium is both lotic and bodily. sent7: if the fact that something sheathes nucellus and is a kind of a Upanishad does not hold then it is not preclinical. sent8: if the verapamil is not maxillodental the nucellus does not refer Electrophoridae. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it is not a Karelian and it is cyclothymic does not hold. sent10: the fact that the verapamil is not a Karelian and not cyclothymic is not right if the nucellus is not a scatterbrain. sent11: the nucellus does not refer Electrophoridae if the verapamil is not a kind of an administration. sent12: that something does sheathe nucellus and is a Upanishad is not correct if it does not swagger. sent13: either the verapamil is not maxillodental or it is not an administration or both if the pictorial is a jack-in-the-pulpit. sent14: something refers Telemann if it is a scatterbrain. sent15: if something is lotic and it is bodily it is not a scatterbrain. sent16: the scolopendrium refers Telemann if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Karelian and it is not cyclothymic is not right.
sent10 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the verapamil is both not a Karelian and not cyclothymic does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it is not a Karelian and it is not cyclothymic does not hold.; int2 & sent16 -> hypothesis;
the damask does refer Telemann.
sent14 -> int3: the fact that if the damask is a kind of the scatterbrain then the damask refers Telemann is not wrong.;
$hypothesis$ = the scolopendrium refers Telemann. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a bludgeon and it is a kind of an assertiveness if it is not preclinical. sent2: the nucellus is not a scatterbrain. sent3: if the verapamil does not refer Electrophoridae then the nucellus is non-lotic thing that is not bodily. sent4: something is a jack-in-the-pulpit if it is an assertiveness. sent5: everything does not swagger. sent6: if the nucellus does not refer Electrophoridae the scolopendrium is both lotic and bodily. sent7: if the fact that something sheathes nucellus and is a kind of a Upanishad does not hold then it is not preclinical. sent8: if the verapamil is not maxillodental the nucellus does not refer Electrophoridae. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it is not a Karelian and it is cyclothymic does not hold. sent10: the fact that the verapamil is not a Karelian and not cyclothymic is not right if the nucellus is not a scatterbrain. sent11: the nucellus does not refer Electrophoridae if the verapamil is not a kind of an administration. sent12: that something does sheathe nucellus and is a Upanishad is not correct if it does not swagger. sent13: either the verapamil is not maxillodental or it is not an administration or both if the pictorial is a jack-in-the-pulpit. sent14: something refers Telemann if it is a scatterbrain. sent15: if something is lotic and it is bodily it is not a scatterbrain. sent16: the scolopendrium refers Telemann if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Karelian and it is not cyclothymic is not right. ; $proof$ = 
sent10 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the verapamil is both not a Karelian and not cyclothymic does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it is not a Karelian and it is not cyclothymic does not hold.; int2 & sent16 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__