the nevirapine does sip.
sent1: that the lighting is steadying and it is alabaster does not hold. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it does interfere nevirapine and is not ampullar is not true then the nevirapine is a sip. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a putrefaction that is not a sip is not right. sent4: the nevirapine uplifts Cetoniidae. sent5: if that something is not steadying and it is not a putrefaction does not hold that it is a kind of a putrefaction is true. sent6: the nevirapine is not ampullar. sent7: there exists something such that it is weedless. sent8: if something interferes nevirapine but it is not ampullar it is not a putrefaction. sent9: the fact that the round does not steady but it is a putrefaction does not hold. sent10: if there exists something such that it is weedless that the round is non-steadying thing that is not a putrefaction is false.
sent8 -> int1: the round is not a putrefaction if it interferes nevirapine and it is non-ampullar.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the round interferes nevirapine and is not ampullar.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the round is not a kind of a putrefaction.; sent5 -> int3: the round is a putrefaction if the fact that it is not steadying and it is not a putrefaction does not hold.; sent7 & sent10 -> int4: the fact that the round is non-steadying and it is not a putrefaction is not right.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the round is a putrefaction.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the fact that the round does interfere nevirapine and is not ampullar is not right.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that the fact that it interferes nevirapine and it is not ampullar is not correct.; int8 & sent2 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the nevirapine does sip. ; $context$ = sent1: that the lighting is steadying and it is alabaster does not hold. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it does interfere nevirapine and is not ampullar is not true then the nevirapine is a sip. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a putrefaction that is not a sip is not right. sent4: the nevirapine uplifts Cetoniidae. sent5: if that something is not steadying and it is not a putrefaction does not hold that it is a kind of a putrefaction is true. sent6: the nevirapine is not ampullar. sent7: there exists something such that it is weedless. sent8: if something interferes nevirapine but it is not ampullar it is not a putrefaction. sent9: the fact that the round does not steady but it is a putrefaction does not hold. sent10: if there exists something such that it is weedless that the round is non-steadying thing that is not a putrefaction is false. ; $proof$ = 
sent8 -> int1: the round is not a putrefaction if it interferes nevirapine and it is non-ampullar.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the round interferes nevirapine and is not ampullar.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the round is not a kind of a putrefaction.; sent5 -> int3: the round is a putrefaction if the fact that it is not steadying and it is not a putrefaction does not hold.; sent7 & sent10 -> int4: the fact that the round is non-steadying and it is not a putrefaction is not right.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the round is a putrefaction.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the fact that the round does interfere nevirapine and is not ampullar is not right.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that the fact that it interferes nevirapine and it is not ampullar is not correct.; int8 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__