the jacamar is a periselene.
sent1: the light is not licit. sent2: the jacamar is not Satanic and it does not pole light. sent3: if the backpacker is a kind of a muckraker the light is both not licit and not a monosaccharide. sent4: the Don is hilar. sent5: if the light does not mean puissance the backpacker does mean puissance. sent6: there is something such that it is not amethystine and it is not a periselene. sent7: the Don does dote but it is not licit if it is a ablative. sent8: the fact that there is something such that it does not pole Virginian and it is hydrophilic is true. sent9: there exists something such that it does not gong titmouse. sent10: that the jacamar is both not amethystine and not a periselene is not correct if the backpacker means puissance. sent11: the jacamar is not a periselene if something is not licit and it is not a monosaccharide. sent12: the direction is not amethystine. sent13: something is not a kind of a ex-spouse and does not gong flail. sent14: the backpacker is amethystine. sent15: if the Don is hilar then it is ablative. sent16: the light is a kind of amethystine thing that does not mean self-aggrandizement. sent17: something is a periselene if that it is not amethystine and it is not a periselene is not true. sent18: The puissance does not mean backpacker. sent19: if the backpacker is licit then the fact that the light is not a monosaccharide and it is not amethystine is not incorrect. sent20: if something that is amethystine does not mean puissance then it is a muckraker. sent21: the backpacker does not mean puissance. sent22: something is not licit.
sent14 & sent21 -> int1: the backpacker is a kind of amethystine thing that does not mean puissance.; sent20 -> int2: if the backpacker is a kind of amethystine thing that does not mean puissance it is a muckraker.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the backpacker is a muckraker is not incorrect.; int3 & sent3 -> int4: the light is not licit and it is not a kind of a monosaccharide.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that it is a kind of illicit thing that is not a kind of a monosaccharide.; int5 & sent11 -> hypothesis;
the jacamar is a periselene.
sent17 -> int6: the jacamar is a kind of a periselene if that it is not amethystine and it is not a periselene is wrong.; sent15 & sent4 -> int7: the fact that the Don is not a ablative does not hold.; sent7 & int7 -> int8: the Don does dote and is not licit.; int8 -> int9: the Don is not licit.;
$hypothesis$ = the jacamar is a periselene. ; $context$ = sent1: the light is not licit. sent2: the jacamar is not Satanic and it does not pole light. sent3: if the backpacker is a kind of a muckraker the light is both not licit and not a monosaccharide. sent4: the Don is hilar. sent5: if the light does not mean puissance the backpacker does mean puissance. sent6: there is something such that it is not amethystine and it is not a periselene. sent7: the Don does dote but it is not licit if it is a ablative. sent8: the fact that there is something such that it does not pole Virginian and it is hydrophilic is true. sent9: there exists something such that it does not gong titmouse. sent10: that the jacamar is both not amethystine and not a periselene is not correct if the backpacker means puissance. sent11: the jacamar is not a periselene if something is not licit and it is not a monosaccharide. sent12: the direction is not amethystine. sent13: something is not a kind of a ex-spouse and does not gong flail. sent14: the backpacker is amethystine. sent15: if the Don is hilar then it is ablative. sent16: the light is a kind of amethystine thing that does not mean self-aggrandizement. sent17: something is a periselene if that it is not amethystine and it is not a periselene is not true. sent18: The puissance does not mean backpacker. sent19: if the backpacker is licit then the fact that the light is not a monosaccharide and it is not amethystine is not incorrect. sent20: if something that is amethystine does not mean puissance then it is a muckraker. sent21: the backpacker does not mean puissance. sent22: something is not licit. ; $proof$ = 
sent14 & sent21 -> int1: the backpacker is a kind of amethystine thing that does not mean puissance.; sent20 -> int2: if the backpacker is a kind of amethystine thing that does not mean puissance it is a muckraker.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the backpacker is a muckraker is not incorrect.; int3 & sent3 -> int4: the light is not licit and it is not a kind of a monosaccharide.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that it is a kind of illicit thing that is not a kind of a monosaccharide.; int5 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__