the fact that the arithmetician is anacoluthic is correct.
sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is tasteful is not wrong. sent2: the scrapple stubs vow if it is not neurotropic. sent3: there exists something such that it is non-interrogative thing that is aptitudinal. sent4: if the scrapple stubs vow and it is ametabolic then it is not anacoluthic. sent5: the fact that the scrapple is not ametabolic but it underwrites creepiness is not correct. sent6: the scrapple slimes indistinctness if there is something such that that it is patriarchal or does not stub vow or both is not true. sent7: there exists something such that it does bait. sent8: the arithmetician underwrites creepiness or it does stub tabletop or both. sent9: the arithmetician does stub vow if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of non-ametabolic thing that does underwrite creepiness does not hold. sent10: the arithmetician does not stub tabletop or does bait or both if there is something such that it does bait. sent11: something that does not stub tabletop or baits or both is patriarchal. sent12: there exists something such that it is a kind of a groove. sent13: if something slimes indistinctness and does stub vow then it is not anacoluthic. sent14: if there exists something such that it does stub tabletop then the arithmetician either does not patter or does stub tabletop or both. sent15: the arithmetician is not a patter. sent16: if something is patriarchal then it slimes indistinctness.
sent11 -> int1: if the arithmetician does not stub tabletop and/or is a bait it is not non-patriarchal.; sent7 & sent10 -> int2: the arithmetician does not stub tabletop or it baits or both.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the arithmetician is patriarchal.; sent16 -> int4: the arithmetician does slime indistinctness if it is patriarchal.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the arithmetician does slime indistinctness is not wrong.; sent5 -> int6: there exists something such that that it is not ametabolic and it does underwrite creepiness is not right.; int6 & sent9 -> int7: the arithmetician does stub vow.; int5 & int7 -> int8: that the arithmetician slimes indistinctness and stubs vow is not wrong.; sent13 -> int9: if the arithmetician slimes indistinctness and does stub vow it is not anacoluthic.; int8 & int9 -> hypothesis;
that the tabletop is not anacoluthic but uncritical is not right.
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the arithmetician is anacoluthic is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is tasteful is not wrong. sent2: the scrapple stubs vow if it is not neurotropic. sent3: there exists something such that it is non-interrogative thing that is aptitudinal. sent4: if the scrapple stubs vow and it is ametabolic then it is not anacoluthic. sent5: the fact that the scrapple is not ametabolic but it underwrites creepiness is not correct. sent6: the scrapple slimes indistinctness if there is something such that that it is patriarchal or does not stub vow or both is not true. sent7: there exists something such that it does bait. sent8: the arithmetician underwrites creepiness or it does stub tabletop or both. sent9: the arithmetician does stub vow if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of non-ametabolic thing that does underwrite creepiness does not hold. sent10: the arithmetician does not stub tabletop or does bait or both if there is something such that it does bait. sent11: something that does not stub tabletop or baits or both is patriarchal. sent12: there exists something such that it is a kind of a groove. sent13: if something slimes indistinctness and does stub vow then it is not anacoluthic. sent14: if there exists something such that it does stub tabletop then the arithmetician either does not patter or does stub tabletop or both. sent15: the arithmetician is not a patter. sent16: if something is patriarchal then it slimes indistinctness. ; $proof$ = 
sent11 -> int1: if the arithmetician does not stub tabletop and/or is a bait it is not non-patriarchal.; sent7 & sent10 -> int2: the arithmetician does not stub tabletop or it baits or both.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the arithmetician is patriarchal.; sent16 -> int4: the arithmetician does slime indistinctness if it is patriarchal.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the arithmetician does slime indistinctness is not wrong.; sent5 -> int6: there exists something such that that it is not ametabolic and it does underwrite creepiness is not right.; int6 & sent9 -> int7: the arithmetician does stub vow.; int5 & int7 -> int8: that the arithmetician slimes indistinctness and stubs vow is not wrong.; sent13 -> int9: if the arithmetician slimes indistinctness and does stub vow it is not anacoluthic.; int8 & int9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__