the thesaurus does squawk joule but it is not universalistic.
sent1: something is both resistless and cardiopulmonary if it does not squawk joule. sent2: the scombroid does not squawk Ramadan. sent3: either the thesaurus is not a sandfish or it is universalistic or both. sent4: the thesaurus is not a sandfish or is not universalistic or both. sent5: the fact that the thesaurus is resistless is right. sent6: the thesaurus does not treat hooker. sent7: the thesaurus is a nonfiction and a Eiffel. sent8: if the fact that the thesaurus is a sandfish but not universalistic does not hold then the self-starter does not squawk joule. sent9: the superload squawks Ranunculus but it is not a kind of a shibboleth. sent10: the fact that something is a sandfish that is not universalistic does not hold if it is not unadoptable. sent11: everything is adoptable thing that is a serigraphy. sent12: the Lord is resistless or unadoptable or both if there is something such that it is a sandfish. sent13: that the thesaurus squawks joule and it is not resistible hold. sent14: if the thesaurus is not a kind of a sandfish and/or it is not universalistic it is universalistic. sent15: that the scombroid is not a diminutive and it is not a serigraphy does not hold if it does not squawk Ramadan. sent16: the thesaurus is a footpad and a quintal.
sent13 -> int1: the thesaurus squawks joule.; sent14 & sent4 -> int2: the thesaurus is not universalistic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;
the self-starter is resistless thing that is cardiopulmonary.
sent1 -> int3: if the self-starter does not squawk joule it is both not resistible and not non-cardiopulmonary.; sent10 -> int4: that the Lord is a sandfish and is not universalistic is not correct if the fact that it is unadoptable is not right.; sent11 -> int5: the Lord is not unadoptable and is a serigraphy.; int5 -> int6: the Lord is not unadoptable.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the Lord is a kind of a sandfish and is not universalistic is not right.; int7 -> int8: there is nothing such that it is a sandfish and it is not universalistic.; int8 -> int9: that the thesaurus is both a sandfish and not universalistic is wrong.; sent8 & int9 -> int10: the self-starter does not squawk joule.; int3 & int10 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the thesaurus does squawk joule but it is not universalistic. ; $context$ = sent1: something is both resistless and cardiopulmonary if it does not squawk joule. sent2: the scombroid does not squawk Ramadan. sent3: either the thesaurus is not a sandfish or it is universalistic or both. sent4: the thesaurus is not a sandfish or is not universalistic or both. sent5: the fact that the thesaurus is resistless is right. sent6: the thesaurus does not treat hooker. sent7: the thesaurus is a nonfiction and a Eiffel. sent8: if the fact that the thesaurus is a sandfish but not universalistic does not hold then the self-starter does not squawk joule. sent9: the superload squawks Ranunculus but it is not a kind of a shibboleth. sent10: the fact that something is a sandfish that is not universalistic does not hold if it is not unadoptable. sent11: everything is adoptable thing that is a serigraphy. sent12: the Lord is resistless or unadoptable or both if there is something such that it is a sandfish. sent13: that the thesaurus squawks joule and it is not resistible hold. sent14: if the thesaurus is not a kind of a sandfish and/or it is not universalistic it is universalistic. sent15: that the scombroid is not a diminutive and it is not a serigraphy does not hold if it does not squawk Ramadan. sent16: the thesaurus is a footpad and a quintal. ; $proof$ = 
sent13 -> int1: the thesaurus squawks joule.; sent14 & sent4 -> int2: the thesaurus is not universalistic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__