the fact that the actress is not arthrosporic and it is not a salter is false.
sent1: the fact that the amputator does ammoniate autoeroticism and it is psychotherapeutic is not true. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it ammoniates autoeroticism and is psychotherapeutic does not hold the fact that the actress is not psychotherapeutic is right. sent3: the radar is not arthrosporic. sent4: that something is not arthrosporic and it is not a kind of a salter does not hold if it is not a heave. sent5: something is non-arthrosporic and it is not a salter if it does not design. sent6: the actress is voyeuristic if the radar designs. sent7: that something does not heave but it is psychotherapeutic is false if it is not arthrosporic. sent8: if the fact that something is voyeuristic is not false it is anionic. sent9: that if a anionic is not psychotherapeutic then it is not a heave is right. sent10: the radar is a kind of a design. sent11: if a design is not voyeuristic then the gaff is not audio-lingual.
sent6 & sent10 -> int1: the actress is voyeuristic.; sent8 -> int2: if the actress is voyeuristic it is a anionic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the actress is anionic.; sent1 -> int4: there exists something such that that it ammoniates autoeroticism and it is psychotherapeutic is not right.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: the actress is not psychotherapeutic.; int3 & int5 -> int6: the actress is a anionic and is not psychotherapeutic.; sent9 -> int7: the actress is not a heave if it is a kind of anionic thing that is not psychotherapeutic.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the actress does not heave.; sent4 -> int9: the fact that the actress is not arthrosporic and it is not a salter is incorrect if it is not a heave.; int8 & int9 -> hypothesis;
the actress is not arthrosporic and is not a salter.
sent5 -> int10: the actress is non-arthrosporic thing that is not a salter if it is not a design.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the actress is not arthrosporic and it is not a salter is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the amputator does ammoniate autoeroticism and it is psychotherapeutic is not true. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it ammoniates autoeroticism and is psychotherapeutic does not hold the fact that the actress is not psychotherapeutic is right. sent3: the radar is not arthrosporic. sent4: that something is not arthrosporic and it is not a kind of a salter does not hold if it is not a heave. sent5: something is non-arthrosporic and it is not a salter if it does not design. sent6: the actress is voyeuristic if the radar designs. sent7: that something does not heave but it is psychotherapeutic is false if it is not arthrosporic. sent8: if the fact that something is voyeuristic is not false it is anionic. sent9: that if a anionic is not psychotherapeutic then it is not a heave is right. sent10: the radar is a kind of a design. sent11: if a design is not voyeuristic then the gaff is not audio-lingual. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 & sent10 -> int1: the actress is voyeuristic.; sent8 -> int2: if the actress is voyeuristic it is a anionic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the actress is anionic.; sent1 -> int4: there exists something such that that it ammoniates autoeroticism and it is psychotherapeutic is not right.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: the actress is not psychotherapeutic.; int3 & int5 -> int6: the actress is a anionic and is not psychotherapeutic.; sent9 -> int7: the actress is not a heave if it is a kind of anionic thing that is not psychotherapeutic.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the actress does not heave.; sent4 -> int9: the fact that the actress is not arthrosporic and it is not a salter is incorrect if it is not a heave.; int8 & int9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__