the dentifrice does not quench balkiness.
sent1: something is a depolarization if it is a regent. sent2: if something is uncut it is a depolarization. sent3: the technician is not cut if it is both not a knit and not a regent. sent4: the technician does quench balkiness if it is a regent. sent5: the technician is not a knit and is not a kind of a regent. sent6: the dentifrice does not quench balkiness if the technician does stampede Chilopoda or is a internalization or both. sent7: something does stampede Chilopoda if that it is a depolarization hold. sent8: if the technician is a internalization then the dentifrice does not quench balkiness. sent9: the fact that that the pollinium is a internalization and it is a Amen hold is wrong.
sent3 & sent5 -> int1: the technician is uncut.; sent2 -> int2: if the technician is uncut then it is a depolarization.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the technician is a kind of a depolarization is right.; sent7 -> int4: the technician does stampede Chilopoda if it is a depolarization.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the technician stampedes Chilopoda is correct.; int5 -> int6: the technician stampedes Chilopoda or is a internalization or both.; int6 & sent6 -> hypothesis;
the dentifrice quenches balkiness.
sent9 -> int7: there exists something such that that it is both a internalization and a Amen is not true.;
$hypothesis$ = the dentifrice does not quench balkiness. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a depolarization if it is a regent. sent2: if something is uncut it is a depolarization. sent3: the technician is not cut if it is both not a knit and not a regent. sent4: the technician does quench balkiness if it is a regent. sent5: the technician is not a knit and is not a kind of a regent. sent6: the dentifrice does not quench balkiness if the technician does stampede Chilopoda or is a internalization or both. sent7: something does stampede Chilopoda if that it is a depolarization hold. sent8: if the technician is a internalization then the dentifrice does not quench balkiness. sent9: the fact that that the pollinium is a internalization and it is a Amen hold is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 & sent5 -> int1: the technician is uncut.; sent2 -> int2: if the technician is uncut then it is a depolarization.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the technician is a kind of a depolarization is right.; sent7 -> int4: the technician does stampede Chilopoda if it is a depolarization.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the technician stampedes Chilopoda is correct.; int5 -> int6: the technician stampedes Chilopoda or is a internalization or both.; int6 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__