the effector does dowse or does not abandon Helena or both.
sent1: if the out-and-outer is avionic it is not a kind of a streptomycin. sent2: the fact that that the effector is not a kind of a streptomycin and it is not a dowse does not hold if the spokeswoman does abandon Helena hold. sent3: the fact that the out-and-outer is both avionic and not an impatience is wrong if the spokeswoman does abandon tarsier. sent4: the out-and-outer is bacteroidal. sent5: if the spokeswoman does abandon tarsier the fact that the out-and-outer is non-avionic thing that is not an impatience does not hold. sent6: if the out-and-outer is not a kind of a dowse then the fact that the effector is a kind of a dowse and/or it does not abandon Helena is true. sent7: the antivenin does abandon Helena. sent8: either the out-and-outer abandons Helena or it is not a kind of a bond or both. sent9: the spokeswoman abandons tarsier if it is a streptomycin. sent10: the spokeswoman is a kind of a streptomycin. sent11: the fact that the effector is avionic and/or does abandon Helena if the out-and-outer is not avionic is not wrong. sent12: that something does dowse or does not abandon Helena or both is not true if it is a streptomycin. sent13: if the out-and-outer is not a dowse then the effector dowse and/or abandons Helena. sent14: if the fact that something is not avionic and is not an impatience does not hold it is not a dowse. sent15: if the out-and-outer is avionic it is not a dowse.
sent9 & sent10 -> int1: the fact that the spokeswoman does abandon tarsier is right.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: that the out-and-outer is not avionic and it is not a kind of an impatience is not true.; sent14 -> int3: if that the out-and-outer is a kind of non-avionic thing that is not an impatience is wrong it is not a dowse.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the out-and-outer is not a dowse.; int4 & sent6 -> hypothesis;
that the fact that either the effector is a kind of a dowse or it does not abandon Helena or both is false hold.
sent12 -> int5: if the fact that the effector is a kind of a streptomycin is not wrong then that it dowses and/or does not abandon Helena is false.;
$hypothesis$ = the effector does dowse or does not abandon Helena or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if the out-and-outer is avionic it is not a kind of a streptomycin. sent2: the fact that that the effector is not a kind of a streptomycin and it is not a dowse does not hold if the spokeswoman does abandon Helena hold. sent3: the fact that the out-and-outer is both avionic and not an impatience is wrong if the spokeswoman does abandon tarsier. sent4: the out-and-outer is bacteroidal. sent5: if the spokeswoman does abandon tarsier the fact that the out-and-outer is non-avionic thing that is not an impatience does not hold. sent6: if the out-and-outer is not a kind of a dowse then the fact that the effector is a kind of a dowse and/or it does not abandon Helena is true. sent7: the antivenin does abandon Helena. sent8: either the out-and-outer abandons Helena or it is not a kind of a bond or both. sent9: the spokeswoman abandons tarsier if it is a streptomycin. sent10: the spokeswoman is a kind of a streptomycin. sent11: the fact that the effector is avionic and/or does abandon Helena if the out-and-outer is not avionic is not wrong. sent12: that something does dowse or does not abandon Helena or both is not true if it is a streptomycin. sent13: if the out-and-outer is not a dowse then the effector dowse and/or abandons Helena. sent14: if the fact that something is not avionic and is not an impatience does not hold it is not a dowse. sent15: if the out-and-outer is avionic it is not a dowse. ; $proof$ = 
sent9 & sent10 -> int1: the fact that the spokeswoman does abandon tarsier is right.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: that the out-and-outer is not avionic and it is not a kind of an impatience is not true.; sent14 -> int3: if that the out-and-outer is a kind of non-avionic thing that is not an impatience is wrong it is not a dowse.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the out-and-outer is not a dowse.; int4 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__