the penetrator is a kind of a block.
sent1: the Espagnole is a block. sent2: if the Espagnole is not non-nectariferous then the pyrograph is pectic. sent3: the Espagnole is pectic. sent4: if something is not catoptrics the pyrograph is nectariferous. sent5: there is something such that it is a hemlock. sent6: if something that does spill tenor is pectic then it is not catoptrics. sent7: that the botulin is a re-formation and is main does not hold. sent8: the Espagnole is a lochia if the fact that the botulin is a kind of a re-formation but it is not a main does not hold. sent9: the fact that the botulin is a re-formation and not a main is not true. sent10: the penetrator is not pectic if the botulin is not catoptrics. sent11: there is something such that it is nectariferous. sent12: the stater is a electrum if the pyrograph is nectariferous. sent13: if the Espagnole is nectariferous then the fact that it is not a electrum and it is not catoptrics is not true. sent14: the poolroom does block. sent15: something spills tenor if it is a kind of a lochia. sent16: the Espagnole is nectariferous if the pyrograph spills tenor. sent17: the botulin spills tenor. sent18: the vernier is a kind of a electrum. sent19: there is something such that it is catoptrics.
sent8 & sent9 -> int1: the Espagnole is a lochia.; sent15 -> int2: the Espagnole spills tenor if it is a kind of a lochia.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the Espagnole spills tenor is correct.; int3 & sent3 -> int4: the Espagnole does spill tenor and is pectic.; sent6 -> int5: if the Espagnole spills tenor and it is pectic it is not catoptrics.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the Espagnole is not catoptrics.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that it is not catoptrics.; int7 & sent4 -> int8: the pyrograph is nectariferous.; int8 & sent12 -> int9: the stater is a electrum.;
the penetrator is not a kind of a block.
$hypothesis$ = the penetrator is a kind of a block. ; $context$ = sent1: the Espagnole is a block. sent2: if the Espagnole is not non-nectariferous then the pyrograph is pectic. sent3: the Espagnole is pectic. sent4: if something is not catoptrics the pyrograph is nectariferous. sent5: there is something such that it is a hemlock. sent6: if something that does spill tenor is pectic then it is not catoptrics. sent7: that the botulin is a re-formation and is main does not hold. sent8: the Espagnole is a lochia if the fact that the botulin is a kind of a re-formation but it is not a main does not hold. sent9: the fact that the botulin is a re-formation and not a main is not true. sent10: the penetrator is not pectic if the botulin is not catoptrics. sent11: there is something such that it is nectariferous. sent12: the stater is a electrum if the pyrograph is nectariferous. sent13: if the Espagnole is nectariferous then the fact that it is not a electrum and it is not catoptrics is not true. sent14: the poolroom does block. sent15: something spills tenor if it is a kind of a lochia. sent16: the Espagnole is nectariferous if the pyrograph spills tenor. sent17: the botulin spills tenor. sent18: the vernier is a kind of a electrum. sent19: there is something such that it is catoptrics. ; $proof$ = 
sent8 & sent9 -> int1: the Espagnole is a lochia.; sent15 -> int2: the Espagnole spills tenor if it is a kind of a lochia.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the Espagnole spills tenor is correct.; int3 & sent3 -> int4: the Espagnole does spill tenor and is pectic.; sent6 -> int5: if the Espagnole spills tenor and it is pectic it is not catoptrics.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the Espagnole is not catoptrics.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that it is not catoptrics.; int7 & sent4 -> int8: the pyrograph is nectariferous.; int8 & sent12 -> int9: the stater is a electrum.; __UNKNOWN__