the larch is a exorbitance.
sent1: if the larch is a trademark that the ruddles is both not non-branchy and non-manorial is not incorrect. sent2: the pion glares Himantoglossum and it glares pseudopod if the Manichaean is not nonsyllabic. sent3: something is a kind of a exorbitance that is not a conformist if it is not a Canella-alba. sent4: the Zealander is not impractical if it trademarks. sent5: there is nothing that permeates and is not exoteric. sent6: if the pseudopod is not ballistic the Manichaean is not nonsyllabic. sent7: that the Zealander trademarks and is not branchy is not correct if it is not manorial. sent8: the fact that the Zealander is not a trademark and not branchy is not right if it is not manorial. sent9: if the pion is not chimerical and it is not a shin then the larch is not a Canella-alba. sent10: the larch is a exorbitance if it is not viatical. sent11: if something is a exorbitance but it is not a conformist it is viatical. sent12: the Zealander is not impractical if that it does not trademark and it is not branchy is wrong. sent13: if that something does glare Himantoglossum hold then it is not chimerical and it is not a kind of a shin. sent14: that the Zealander does not permeate but it is exoteric does not hold. sent15: the larch is not a kind of a exorbitance if the pion is a kind of a exorbitance. sent16: something is a kind of a trademark that is not impractical if it is viatical. sent17: the larch is not viatical if the Zealander is not impractical. sent18: there exists nothing such that it does not permeate and it is not exoteric. sent19: the Appalachian is not a take or not a Tamil or both. sent20: if that the Zealander does not permeate and it is not exoteric is not correct then it is not manorial. sent21: something is not unerect if it is branchy but not manorial. sent22: there exists nothing such that it does not permeate and it is exoteric. sent23: the fact that the Zealander permeates but it is not exoteric is not true. sent24: that the pseudopod is non-ballistic is true if the Appalachian is not a take. sent25: the fact that the larch is not exoteric and is not viatical does not hold. sent26: the fact that the Zealander is both a trademark and not branchy is not correct.
sent18 -> int1: the fact that the Zealander does not permeate and is not exoteric does not hold.; int1 & sent20 -> int2: the Zealander is not manorial.; int2 & sent8 -> int3: that the Zealander does not trademark and it is non-branchy is false.; int3 & sent12 -> int4: the Zealander is not impractical.; int4 & sent17 -> int5: the fact that the larch is not viatical hold.; int5 & sent10 -> hypothesis;
the ruddles is not unerect.
sent21 -> int6: if the ruddles is a kind of branchy thing that is not manorial then it is not unerect.; sent16 -> int7: the larch is a trademark that is not impractical if it is viatical.; sent11 -> int8: if the larch is a exorbitance but it is not a conformist then it is viatical.; sent3 -> int9: if the larch is not a Canella-alba it is a exorbitance and it is not a conformist.; sent13 -> int10: the fact that if the pion does glare Himantoglossum then the pion is not chimerical and it is not a kind of a shin is right.;
$hypothesis$ = the larch is a exorbitance. ; $context$ = sent1: if the larch is a trademark that the ruddles is both not non-branchy and non-manorial is not incorrect. sent2: the pion glares Himantoglossum and it glares pseudopod if the Manichaean is not nonsyllabic. sent3: something is a kind of a exorbitance that is not a conformist if it is not a Canella-alba. sent4: the Zealander is not impractical if it trademarks. sent5: there is nothing that permeates and is not exoteric. sent6: if the pseudopod is not ballistic the Manichaean is not nonsyllabic. sent7: that the Zealander trademarks and is not branchy is not correct if it is not manorial. sent8: the fact that the Zealander is not a trademark and not branchy is not right if it is not manorial. sent9: if the pion is not chimerical and it is not a shin then the larch is not a Canella-alba. sent10: the larch is a exorbitance if it is not viatical. sent11: if something is a exorbitance but it is not a conformist it is viatical. sent12: the Zealander is not impractical if that it does not trademark and it is not branchy is wrong. sent13: if that something does glare Himantoglossum hold then it is not chimerical and it is not a kind of a shin. sent14: that the Zealander does not permeate but it is exoteric does not hold. sent15: the larch is not a kind of a exorbitance if the pion is a kind of a exorbitance. sent16: something is a kind of a trademark that is not impractical if it is viatical. sent17: the larch is not viatical if the Zealander is not impractical. sent18: there exists nothing such that it does not permeate and it is not exoteric. sent19: the Appalachian is not a take or not a Tamil or both. sent20: if that the Zealander does not permeate and it is not exoteric is not correct then it is not manorial. sent21: something is not unerect if it is branchy but not manorial. sent22: there exists nothing such that it does not permeate and it is exoteric. sent23: the fact that the Zealander permeates but it is not exoteric is not true. sent24: that the pseudopod is non-ballistic is true if the Appalachian is not a take. sent25: the fact that the larch is not exoteric and is not viatical does not hold. sent26: the fact that the Zealander is both a trademark and not branchy is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent18 -> int1: the fact that the Zealander does not permeate and is not exoteric does not hold.; int1 & sent20 -> int2: the Zealander is not manorial.; int2 & sent8 -> int3: that the Zealander does not trademark and it is non-branchy is false.; int3 & sent12 -> int4: the Zealander is not impractical.; int4 & sent17 -> int5: the fact that the larch is not viatical hold.; int5 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__