the microscope is a comprehensive and not uncontroversial.
sent1: if the salpinx is a kind of a comprehensive then the microscope is a kind of a comprehensive. sent2: the saddlebill is a kind of a Swazi and it is virological. sent3: the cushaw gets abnegator but it does not angle abiotrophy. sent4: the salpinx is comparable. sent5: if that something is non-Swazi and it is not a comprehensive is incorrect then it is a comprehensive. sent6: the microscope is comprehensive. sent7: the salpinx is comparable but it is not uncontroversial. sent8: the microscope is uncontroversial if it is comparable. sent9: if the microscope is comparable then the salpinx is comparable but not uncontroversial. sent10: something is a comprehensive if it is Manchurian. sent11: the microscope supposes but it is not Manchurian. sent12: the salpinx is comparable if the microscope is Manchurian but it is not comparable. sent13: if the bracteole is not impolite and is uncontroversial then the saddlebill is not uncontroversial. sent14: something demolishes but it is not an insomniac if it is comparable. sent15: that something is not Manchurian and not incomparable is not right if it is a kind of a Swazi. sent16: the microscope is a protegee that is not comparable. sent17: the salpinx is not incomparable and not non-Manchurian. sent18: if that the bracteole is virological is right then it is not impolite and is uncontroversial. sent19: if the saddlebill is not uncontroversial the fact that the microscope is not Swazi and not comprehensive is wrong.
sent17 -> int1: the salpinx is Manchurian.; sent10 -> int2: if the salpinx is Manchurian it is a kind of a comprehensive.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the salpinx is a kind of a comprehensive.;
the fact that the microscope is a kind of comprehensive thing that is controversial is wrong.
sent15 -> int4: that the saddlebill is not Manchurian and is comparable is not true if it is a kind of a Swazi.; sent2 -> int5: the saddlebill is a kind of a Swazi.; int4 & int5 -> int6: that the saddlebill is not Manchurian but it is comparable is not correct.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that that it is non-Manchurian thing that is comparable does not hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the microscope is a comprehensive and not uncontroversial. ; $context$ = sent1: if the salpinx is a kind of a comprehensive then the microscope is a kind of a comprehensive. sent2: the saddlebill is a kind of a Swazi and it is virological. sent3: the cushaw gets abnegator but it does not angle abiotrophy. sent4: the salpinx is comparable. sent5: if that something is non-Swazi and it is not a comprehensive is incorrect then it is a comprehensive. sent6: the microscope is comprehensive. sent7: the salpinx is comparable but it is not uncontroversial. sent8: the microscope is uncontroversial if it is comparable. sent9: if the microscope is comparable then the salpinx is comparable but not uncontroversial. sent10: something is a comprehensive if it is Manchurian. sent11: the microscope supposes but it is not Manchurian. sent12: the salpinx is comparable if the microscope is Manchurian but it is not comparable. sent13: if the bracteole is not impolite and is uncontroversial then the saddlebill is not uncontroversial. sent14: something demolishes but it is not an insomniac if it is comparable. sent15: that something is not Manchurian and not incomparable is not right if it is a kind of a Swazi. sent16: the microscope is a protegee that is not comparable. sent17: the salpinx is not incomparable and not non-Manchurian. sent18: if that the bracteole is virological is right then it is not impolite and is uncontroversial. sent19: if the saddlebill is not uncontroversial the fact that the microscope is not Swazi and not comprehensive is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
sent17 -> int1: the salpinx is Manchurian.; sent10 -> int2: if the salpinx is Manchurian it is a kind of a comprehensive.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the salpinx is a kind of a comprehensive.; __UNKNOWN__