the tamer neglects bast and does sentimentalise orchestration.
sent1: if the scenario is not apteral the GABA does rationalize greeneye and it does sentimentalise fairway. sent2: the fact that the alendronate is inextricable is correct. sent3: the Pollock is inextricable and sentimentalises orchestration if the alendronate does not sentimentalise mendacity. sent4: the tamer sentimentalises orchestration. sent5: the alendronate sentimentalises mendacity if it sentimentalises orchestration. sent6: if that the scenario is a comforted is true it is not apteral. sent7: the tamer sentimentalises mendacity if the fact that the alendronate does neglect bast is correct. sent8: if the tamer does sentimentalise mendacity then the alendronate neglects bast. sent9: the tamer is inextricable if the alendronate neglects bast. sent10: the alendronate neglects bast. sent11: the tamer is inextricable. sent12: the tamer does neglect bast if the alendronate does sentimentalise mendacity. sent13: if the alendronate is inextricable then it does sentimentalise mendacity. sent14: the tamer dusts. sent15: that the greeneye is not apteral and it does not sentimentalise fairway does not hold. sent16: the alendronate is a kind of an expressionism. sent17: if the bullhorn is inextricable then it is a belt. sent18: The orchestration sentimentalises tamer. sent19: the fact that something is not inextricable but it sentimentalises mendacity is incorrect if it does not rationalize greeneye. sent20: if the GABA rationalizes greeneye and sentimentalises fairway then the greeneye does not rationalizes greeneye. sent21: the alendronate neglects bast and does unseal.
sent13 & sent2 -> int1: the alendronate sentimentalises mendacity.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: that the tamer neglects bast is not false.; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis;
the Pollock does sentimentalise orchestration.
sent15 -> int3: there is something such that the fact that it is not apteral and it does not sentimentalise fairway does not hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the tamer neglects bast and does sentimentalise orchestration. ; $context$ = sent1: if the scenario is not apteral the GABA does rationalize greeneye and it does sentimentalise fairway. sent2: the fact that the alendronate is inextricable is correct. sent3: the Pollock is inextricable and sentimentalises orchestration if the alendronate does not sentimentalise mendacity. sent4: the tamer sentimentalises orchestration. sent5: the alendronate sentimentalises mendacity if it sentimentalises orchestration. sent6: if that the scenario is a comforted is true it is not apteral. sent7: the tamer sentimentalises mendacity if the fact that the alendronate does neglect bast is correct. sent8: if the tamer does sentimentalise mendacity then the alendronate neglects bast. sent9: the tamer is inextricable if the alendronate neglects bast. sent10: the alendronate neglects bast. sent11: the tamer is inextricable. sent12: the tamer does neglect bast if the alendronate does sentimentalise mendacity. sent13: if the alendronate is inextricable then it does sentimentalise mendacity. sent14: the tamer dusts. sent15: that the greeneye is not apteral and it does not sentimentalise fairway does not hold. sent16: the alendronate is a kind of an expressionism. sent17: if the bullhorn is inextricable then it is a belt. sent18: The orchestration sentimentalises tamer. sent19: the fact that something is not inextricable but it sentimentalises mendacity is incorrect if it does not rationalize greeneye. sent20: if the GABA rationalizes greeneye and sentimentalises fairway then the greeneye does not rationalizes greeneye. sent21: the alendronate neglects bast and does unseal. ; $proof$ = 
sent13 & sent2 -> int1: the alendronate sentimentalises mendacity.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: that the tamer neglects bast is not false.; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__