the cornpone is not grammatical.
sent1: the fact that the no is the pellet if the no is wearable is not incorrect. sent2: the no is erect. sent3: the no does incriminate illicitness. sent4: something is a hypostatization if it does not riddle absorbency and it does riddle pervasiveness. sent5: if something that does incriminate illicitness is erect it does not riddle absorbency. sent6: the tung is not a lasher but it is quantitative. sent7: the no is wearable. sent8: something does riddle pervasiveness if it is a pellet. sent9: if the no is a hypostatization then the fact that the cornpone is not grammatical is right. sent10: the cornpone is not erect if the no riddles pervasiveness. sent11: the escape is grammatical. sent12: the cornpone is not a pellet. sent13: The illicitness does incriminate no.
sent1 & sent7 -> int1: the no is a kind of a pellet.; sent8 -> int2: if the no is a pellet then it does riddle pervasiveness.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the no riddles pervasiveness.; sent5 -> int4: the no does not riddle absorbency if it incriminates illicitness and it is erect.; sent3 & sent2 -> int5: the no does incriminate illicitness and is erect.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the no does not riddle absorbency.; int3 & int6 -> int7: the no does not riddle absorbency and does riddle pervasiveness.; sent4 -> int8: if the no does not riddle absorbency and riddles pervasiveness it is a hypostatization.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the no is a hypostatization.; int9 & sent9 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the cornpone is not grammatical. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the no is the pellet if the no is wearable is not incorrect. sent2: the no is erect. sent3: the no does incriminate illicitness. sent4: something is a hypostatization if it does not riddle absorbency and it does riddle pervasiveness. sent5: if something that does incriminate illicitness is erect it does not riddle absorbency. sent6: the tung is not a lasher but it is quantitative. sent7: the no is wearable. sent8: something does riddle pervasiveness if it is a pellet. sent9: if the no is a hypostatization then the fact that the cornpone is not grammatical is right. sent10: the cornpone is not erect if the no riddles pervasiveness. sent11: the escape is grammatical. sent12: the cornpone is not a pellet. sent13: The illicitness does incriminate no. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 & sent7 -> int1: the no is a kind of a pellet.; sent8 -> int2: if the no is a pellet then it does riddle pervasiveness.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the no riddles pervasiveness.; sent5 -> int4: the no does not riddle absorbency if it incriminates illicitness and it is erect.; sent3 & sent2 -> int5: the no does incriminate illicitness and is erect.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the no does not riddle absorbency.; int3 & int6 -> int7: the no does not riddle absorbency and does riddle pervasiveness.; sent4 -> int8: if the no does not riddle absorbency and riddles pervasiveness it is a hypostatization.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the no is a hypostatization.; int9 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__