the fact that the troublemaker is not a Morrison and it does not put Somerset is wrong.
sent1: the infliximab is a caudate. sent2: the fact that if something puts indemnity it is likable is not wrong. sent3: something is not caudate if it does not tweet Arabic and/or it does put rand. sent4: the troublemaker is a keynote. sent5: that something is a kind of a secondment but it does not scoff is wrong if it is not a spud. sent6: if something is not a caudate then the fact that either it is likable or it puts indemnity or both is wrong. sent7: the Ponca does put Somerset. sent8: that the immodesty does not tweet MAO but it is thankless is false. sent9: the troublemaker is non-likable if it is a keynote. sent10: if something puts Somerset then it is not a caudate. sent11: something does put indemnity if it does tweet Arabic. sent12: that the behaviorist puts indemnity and it is a Morrison is incorrect.
sent11 -> int1: if the troublemaker does tweet Arabic it puts indemnity.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the troublemaker does tweet Arabic.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the troublemaker does put indemnity.; sent2 -> int3: if the troublemaker does put indemnity it is likable.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the troublemaker is likable.; sent9 & sent4 -> int5: the troublemaker is not likable.; int4 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the troublemaker does not tweet Arabic.; int7 -> int8: that the troublemaker does not tweet Arabic and/or it does put rand is right.; sent3 -> int9: the troublemaker is not a kind of a caudate if either it does not tweet Arabic or it puts rand or both.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the troublemaker is not caudate.;
the hiccup does put rand.
sent6 -> int11: if the Ponca is not a caudate then that it is likable and/or does put indemnity is not correct.; sent10 -> int12: if the Ponca does put Somerset then it is non-caudate.; int12 & sent7 -> int13: the Ponca is not a caudate.; int11 & int13 -> int14: the fact that the Ponca is likable and/or it puts indemnity is incorrect.; int14 -> int15: there is something such that the fact that it is likable and/or does put indemnity is not correct.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the troublemaker is not a Morrison and it does not put Somerset is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the infliximab is a caudate. sent2: the fact that if something puts indemnity it is likable is not wrong. sent3: something is not caudate if it does not tweet Arabic and/or it does put rand. sent4: the troublemaker is a keynote. sent5: that something is a kind of a secondment but it does not scoff is wrong if it is not a spud. sent6: if something is not a caudate then the fact that either it is likable or it puts indemnity or both is wrong. sent7: the Ponca does put Somerset. sent8: that the immodesty does not tweet MAO but it is thankless is false. sent9: the troublemaker is non-likable if it is a keynote. sent10: if something puts Somerset then it is not a caudate. sent11: something does put indemnity if it does tweet Arabic. sent12: that the behaviorist puts indemnity and it is a Morrison is incorrect. ; $proof$ = 
sent11 -> int1: if the troublemaker does tweet Arabic it puts indemnity.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the troublemaker does tweet Arabic.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the troublemaker does put indemnity.; sent2 -> int3: if the troublemaker does put indemnity it is likable.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the troublemaker is likable.; sent9 & sent4 -> int5: the troublemaker is not likable.; int4 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the troublemaker does not tweet Arabic.; int7 -> int8: that the troublemaker does not tweet Arabic and/or it does put rand is right.; sent3 -> int9: the troublemaker is not a kind of a caudate if either it does not tweet Arabic or it puts rand or both.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the troublemaker is not caudate.; __UNKNOWN__