the Rhenish is not a vasotomy.
sent1: that the Rhenish is both not a drone and a Medicago is not correct. sent2: if something does not own skyrocket and is metastatic it is not a SPF. sent3: the Rhenish does not own inamorata. sent4: if the Basotho ripostes camouflaged then it is not side-to-side. sent5: that the salivation is not side-to-side and does not sandpaper speed is not right if the Rhenish is a vasotomy. sent6: that something does not riposte abruption is not incorrect if that the fact that it is not a drone and is a kind of a Medicago hold is not right. sent7: if something does not riposte abruption and is not a SPF it is a vasotomy. sent8: the fact that the Rhenish is a vasotomy but it does not sandpaper speed is not correct. sent9: that the salivation is side-to-side but it does not sandpaper speed is incorrect if the Rhenish is a vasotomy. sent10: if the Rhenish is side-to-side that the salivation is not a vasotomy and does not sandpaper speed is not true. sent11: the fact that the salivation is side-to-side thing that does not sandpaper speed does not hold. sent12: the salivation is not side-to-side. sent13: the fact that the Rhenish does sandpaper speed but it is not side-to-side is not correct if the salivation is a vasotomy. sent14: the salivation is not a vasotomy. sent15: the salivation is a SPF. sent16: if the salivation is a SPF then it is not side-to-side and does not sandpaper speed.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Rhenish is a vasotomy.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the salivation is not side-to-side and does not sandpaper speed is not correct.; sent16 & sent15 -> int2: the salivation is not side-to-side and it does not sandpaper speed.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;
the Rhenish is a vasotomy.
sent7 -> int4: if the Rhenish does not riposte abruption and is not a SPF then it is a vasotomy.; sent6 -> int5: the Rhenish does not riposte abruption if that it does not drone and it is a kind of a Medicago is not right.; int5 & sent1 -> int6: the Rhenish does not riposte abruption.; sent2 -> int7: the Rhenish is not a SPF if it does not own skyrocket and is not non-metastatic.;
$hypothesis$ = the Rhenish is not a vasotomy. ; $context$ = sent1: that the Rhenish is both not a drone and a Medicago is not correct. sent2: if something does not own skyrocket and is metastatic it is not a SPF. sent3: the Rhenish does not own inamorata. sent4: if the Basotho ripostes camouflaged then it is not side-to-side. sent5: that the salivation is not side-to-side and does not sandpaper speed is not right if the Rhenish is a vasotomy. sent6: that something does not riposte abruption is not incorrect if that the fact that it is not a drone and is a kind of a Medicago hold is not right. sent7: if something does not riposte abruption and is not a SPF it is a vasotomy. sent8: the fact that the Rhenish is a vasotomy but it does not sandpaper speed is not correct. sent9: that the salivation is side-to-side but it does not sandpaper speed is incorrect if the Rhenish is a vasotomy. sent10: if the Rhenish is side-to-side that the salivation is not a vasotomy and does not sandpaper speed is not true. sent11: the fact that the salivation is side-to-side thing that does not sandpaper speed does not hold. sent12: the salivation is not side-to-side. sent13: the fact that the Rhenish does sandpaper speed but it is not side-to-side is not correct if the salivation is a vasotomy. sent14: the salivation is not a vasotomy. sent15: the salivation is a SPF. sent16: if the salivation is a SPF then it is not side-to-side and does not sandpaper speed. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Rhenish is a vasotomy.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the salivation is not side-to-side and does not sandpaper speed is not correct.; sent16 & sent15 -> int2: the salivation is not side-to-side and it does not sandpaper speed.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__