the specifier is a kind of a trailing.
sent1: the reagin is not a Tettigoniidae if something is not a kind of a Tettigoniidae or is not a kind of a mirid or both. sent2: the specifier bestirs spic if there exists something such that either it does not unwrap or it is not a pollack or both. sent3: that something does liquefy heist hold if it is a kind of an accumulation. sent4: if the specifier does bestir spic the fact that it liquefies hostage hold. sent5: if there is something such that it does not unwrap the specifier does bestir spic. sent6: if the specifier does liquefy hostage then it is a kind of a peel. sent7: the southland is a chlordiazepoxide. sent8: something does not unwrap and/or is a pollack. sent9: if the Seder does not bestir spic then the specifier is a trailing. sent10: the triphosphopyridine bestirs awning if the Seder does not bestirs awning. sent11: something is not a Tettigoniidae and/or it is not a mirid if that it does not liquefy heist does not hold. sent12: there exists something such that either it does not unwrap or it is not a pollack or both. sent13: the Blackburn is an accumulation. sent14: that something is not a kind of a Bedouin and is a chlordiazepoxide is not true if it is not a kind of a Tettigoniidae. sent15: if that the touch-typist does peel but it does not liquefy hostage is incorrect then the Seder does not bestir spic. sent16: the fact that something does peel but it does not liquefy hostage is wrong if it is not a chlordiazepoxide. sent17: there is something such that it does unwrap and/or it is not a kind of a pollack. sent18: if a peel is a kind of a trailing then it is not a chlordiazepoxide. sent19: the fact that the specifier is a chlordiazepoxide is not incorrect.
sent12 & sent2 -> int1: the specifier does bestir spic.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the specifier liquefies hostage.; int2 & sent6 -> int3: the specifier does peel.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the specifier does trail.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: the specifier is a kind of a peel that is a kind of a trailing.; sent18 -> int5: if the specifier is a peel and does trail then it is not a chlordiazepoxide.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the specifier is not a chlordiazepoxide.; int6 & sent19 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis;
the triphosphopyridine does bestir awning and does plant.
$hypothesis$ = the specifier is a kind of a trailing. ; $context$ = sent1: the reagin is not a Tettigoniidae if something is not a kind of a Tettigoniidae or is not a kind of a mirid or both. sent2: the specifier bestirs spic if there exists something such that either it does not unwrap or it is not a pollack or both. sent3: that something does liquefy heist hold if it is a kind of an accumulation. sent4: if the specifier does bestir spic the fact that it liquefies hostage hold. sent5: if there is something such that it does not unwrap the specifier does bestir spic. sent6: if the specifier does liquefy hostage then it is a kind of a peel. sent7: the southland is a chlordiazepoxide. sent8: something does not unwrap and/or is a pollack. sent9: if the Seder does not bestir spic then the specifier is a trailing. sent10: the triphosphopyridine bestirs awning if the Seder does not bestirs awning. sent11: something is not a Tettigoniidae and/or it is not a mirid if that it does not liquefy heist does not hold. sent12: there exists something such that either it does not unwrap or it is not a pollack or both. sent13: the Blackburn is an accumulation. sent14: that something is not a kind of a Bedouin and is a chlordiazepoxide is not true if it is not a kind of a Tettigoniidae. sent15: if that the touch-typist does peel but it does not liquefy hostage is incorrect then the Seder does not bestir spic. sent16: the fact that something does peel but it does not liquefy hostage is wrong if it is not a chlordiazepoxide. sent17: there is something such that it does unwrap and/or it is not a kind of a pollack. sent18: if a peel is a kind of a trailing then it is not a chlordiazepoxide. sent19: the fact that the specifier is a chlordiazepoxide is not incorrect. ; $proof$ = 
sent12 & sent2 -> int1: the specifier does bestir spic.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the specifier liquefies hostage.; int2 & sent6 -> int3: the specifier does peel.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the specifier does trail.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: the specifier is a kind of a peel that is a kind of a trailing.; sent18 -> int5: if the specifier is a peel and does trail then it is not a chlordiazepoxide.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the specifier is not a chlordiazepoxide.; int6 & sent19 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__