if the slipper is a crayon the palmitin betters syndicalism.
sent1: the slipper is a kind of a sanctimoniousness and it does romp. sent2: the slipper is a sanctimoniousness that betters syndicalism. sent3: if the slipper romps and is a crayon then the fact that the custodian does not better custodian is correct. sent4: the softwood is a Lidocaine and is a sanctimoniousness. sent5: if the custodian does not better custodian the palmitin betters syndicalism. sent6: the custodian is not a pastorate. sent7: the custodian does better syndicalism. sent8: the slipper is a sanctimoniousness. sent9: the custodian is a crayon.
sent1 -> int1: the slipper does romp.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the slipper is a crayon.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the slipper does romp and is a kind of a crayon.; sent3 & int2 -> int3: the custodian does not better custodian.; sent5 & int3 -> int4: the palmitin betters syndicalism.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = if the slipper is a crayon the palmitin betters syndicalism. ; $context$ = sent1: the slipper is a kind of a sanctimoniousness and it does romp. sent2: the slipper is a sanctimoniousness that betters syndicalism. sent3: if the slipper romps and is a crayon then the fact that the custodian does not better custodian is correct. sent4: the softwood is a Lidocaine and is a sanctimoniousness. sent5: if the custodian does not better custodian the palmitin betters syndicalism. sent6: the custodian is not a pastorate. sent7: the custodian does better syndicalism. sent8: the slipper is a sanctimoniousness. sent9: the custodian is a crayon. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 -> int1: the slipper does romp.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the slipper is a crayon.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the slipper does romp and is a kind of a crayon.; sent3 & int2 -> int3: the custodian does not better custodian.; sent5 & int3 -> int4: the palmitin betters syndicalism.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__