the spur does exempt indispensability.
sent1: the spur describes Fagopyrum. sent2: if the rangpur foliates but it is not a tied the fact that the spur exempts indispensability hold. sent3: the fact that the spur does not clean vasopressin is correct. sent4: the spur is not a tied. sent5: if the sweatshirt does not describe spur then the knickknack does foliate but it does not describe Fagopyrum. sent6: if the gravedigger is bursal then the puddler is a kind of a Lilo. sent7: the gravedigger is not aphrodisiac. sent8: there exists nothing such that it is a kind of non-Tudor thing that does not clean vasopressin. sent9: if something is not an aphrodisiac the fact that it describes spur and it cleans vasopressin does not hold. sent10: the rangpur does not describe spur if it is not postwar. sent11: the affine is a Lilo. sent12: that something does not describe spur and it does not exempt indispensability is wrong if it cleans vasopressin. sent13: if the rangpur is a tied that the gravedigger is not a Lilo but bursal is wrong. sent14: something does not foliate and does describe filicide if it is a Lilo. sent15: the fact that that something is not an aphrodisiac is right if that it is not unconscious and it is an aphrodisiac does not hold is not false. sent16: the gravedigger does not clean vasopressin but it does describe spur if it is not aphrodisiac. sent17: the headful is not a Tudor. sent18: the rangpur is a tied if there is something such that it is foliate thing that does not describe Fagopyrum. sent19: if the gravedigger is a tied and is a Lilo then it does not describe Fagopyrum. sent20: if the rangpur does not describe Fagopyrum the gravedigger is bursal and it ties. sent21: the rangpur is not foliate and is not a kind of a tied if the gravedigger does not tied. sent22: if the headful is not a Tudor then the fact that the sweatshirt is conscious and it is an aphrodisiac does not hold. sent23: the fact that the spur exempts indispensability is not false if the rangpur does not foliate and is not a tied. sent24: if something does describe spur then the fact that it describes Fagopyrum is not wrong. sent25: the gravedigger is a Lilo and it is bursal. sent26: if that the rangpur does not describe spur and it does not exempt indispensability is not right it does not describe Fagopyrum.
sent25 -> int1: the gravedigger is a kind of a Lilo.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the gravedigger is a kind of a tied is correct.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the gravedigger is a tied and it is a kind of a Lilo.; int2 & sent19 -> int3: the gravedigger does not describe Fagopyrum.; sent24 -> int4: the gravedigger does describe Fagopyrum if it does describe spur.; sent16 & sent7 -> int5: the gravedigger does not clean vasopressin and describes spur.; int5 -> int6: the gravedigger does describe spur.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the gravedigger describes Fagopyrum.; int3 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the gravedigger is not a tied.; int9 & sent21 -> int10: the rangpur does not foliate and it is not a tied.; int10 & sent23 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the puddler is non-foliate thing that describes filicide is correct.
sent14 -> int11: the puddler is a kind of non-foliate thing that does describe filicide if it is a Lilo.; sent12 -> int12: that the rangpur does not describe spur and does not exempt indispensability is false if it does clean vasopressin.; sent8 -> int13: the fact that the spur is not a Tudor and it does not clean vasopressin is not true.; int13 -> int14: there is something such that the fact that it is not a Tudor and it does not clean vasopressin is false.;
$hypothesis$ = the spur does exempt indispensability. ; $context$ = sent1: the spur describes Fagopyrum. sent2: if the rangpur foliates but it is not a tied the fact that the spur exempts indispensability hold. sent3: the fact that the spur does not clean vasopressin is correct. sent4: the spur is not a tied. sent5: if the sweatshirt does not describe spur then the knickknack does foliate but it does not describe Fagopyrum. sent6: if the gravedigger is bursal then the puddler is a kind of a Lilo. sent7: the gravedigger is not aphrodisiac. sent8: there exists nothing such that it is a kind of non-Tudor thing that does not clean vasopressin. sent9: if something is not an aphrodisiac the fact that it describes spur and it cleans vasopressin does not hold. sent10: the rangpur does not describe spur if it is not postwar. sent11: the affine is a Lilo. sent12: that something does not describe spur and it does not exempt indispensability is wrong if it cleans vasopressin. sent13: if the rangpur is a tied that the gravedigger is not a Lilo but bursal is wrong. sent14: something does not foliate and does describe filicide if it is a Lilo. sent15: the fact that that something is not an aphrodisiac is right if that it is not unconscious and it is an aphrodisiac does not hold is not false. sent16: the gravedigger does not clean vasopressin but it does describe spur if it is not aphrodisiac. sent17: the headful is not a Tudor. sent18: the rangpur is a tied if there is something such that it is foliate thing that does not describe Fagopyrum. sent19: if the gravedigger is a tied and is a Lilo then it does not describe Fagopyrum. sent20: if the rangpur does not describe Fagopyrum the gravedigger is bursal and it ties. sent21: the rangpur is not foliate and is not a kind of a tied if the gravedigger does not tied. sent22: if the headful is not a Tudor then the fact that the sweatshirt is conscious and it is an aphrodisiac does not hold. sent23: the fact that the spur exempts indispensability is not false if the rangpur does not foliate and is not a tied. sent24: if something does describe spur then the fact that it describes Fagopyrum is not wrong. sent25: the gravedigger is a Lilo and it is bursal. sent26: if that the rangpur does not describe spur and it does not exempt indispensability is not right it does not describe Fagopyrum. ; $proof$ = 
sent25 -> int1: the gravedigger is a kind of a Lilo.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the gravedigger is a kind of a tied is correct.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the gravedigger is a tied and it is a kind of a Lilo.; int2 & sent19 -> int3: the gravedigger does not describe Fagopyrum.; sent24 -> int4: the gravedigger does describe Fagopyrum if it does describe spur.; sent16 & sent7 -> int5: the gravedigger does not clean vasopressin and describes spur.; int5 -> int6: the gravedigger does describe spur.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the gravedigger describes Fagopyrum.; int3 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the gravedigger is not a tied.; int9 & sent21 -> int10: the rangpur does not foliate and it is not a tied.; int10 & sent23 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__