the venation does not connive.
sent1: if something is a kind of a Orientalism it does provide bang. sent2: if there is something such that it is not unostentatious then the fact that the bluff is a kind of a Orientalism that does not connive is incorrect. sent3: the venation is nonlexical and it is unostentatious if it is not a Orientalism. sent4: the bluff is both a diazoxide and nonlexical if the fact that it is not a kind of a Orientalism is correct. sent5: if the bluff is a kind of a diazoxide then it is nonclassical. sent6: the agitator is a Orientalism if that the bluff is nonlexical thing that is not unostentatious is incorrect. sent7: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a diazoxide that the fact that the bluff is nonlexical but it is not unostentatious is not right hold. sent8: if the agitator is not a ordainer the fact that it sees is not wrong. sent9: if something is not a ordainer that the agitator is not a kind of a ordainer is right. sent10: that if the bluff does not provide bang then the bluff is not a kind of a Orientalism hold. sent11: if something is not a ordainer it is both unmalicious and a see. sent12: the venation does not connive if something provides bang and is unmalicious. sent13: something is unmalicious. sent14: there exists something such that that it is not a diazoxide hold. sent15: the bluff does not provide bang if the fact that it does not connive or is a kind of a see or both is wrong. sent16: there is something such that the fact that it is a ordainer and does provide Nice is wrong. sent17: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a ordainer and does provide Nice is not right then the agitator is not a ordainer. sent18: there exists something such that the fact that it is a beguine and a tub does not hold.
sent14 & sent7 -> int1: that the bluff is not non-nonlexical but it is not unostentatious is not right.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the agitator is a kind of a Orientalism.; sent1 -> int3: if the agitator is a Orientalism it provides bang.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the agitator provides bang.; sent11 -> int5: the agitator is a kind of unmalicious a see if it is not a ordainer.; sent16 & sent17 -> int6: the agitator is not a ordainer.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the agitator is unmalicious and it is a kind of a see is not wrong.; int7 -> int8: the agitator is unmalicious.; int4 & int8 -> int9: that the agitator does provide bang and it is unmalicious is not incorrect.; int9 -> int10: something does provide bang and it is unmalicious.; int10 & sent12 -> hypothesis;
something is neurobiological and is nonclassical.
$hypothesis$ = the venation does not connive. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a kind of a Orientalism it does provide bang. sent2: if there is something such that it is not unostentatious then the fact that the bluff is a kind of a Orientalism that does not connive is incorrect. sent3: the venation is nonlexical and it is unostentatious if it is not a Orientalism. sent4: the bluff is both a diazoxide and nonlexical if the fact that it is not a kind of a Orientalism is correct. sent5: if the bluff is a kind of a diazoxide then it is nonclassical. sent6: the agitator is a Orientalism if that the bluff is nonlexical thing that is not unostentatious is incorrect. sent7: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a diazoxide that the fact that the bluff is nonlexical but it is not unostentatious is not right hold. sent8: if the agitator is not a ordainer the fact that it sees is not wrong. sent9: if something is not a ordainer that the agitator is not a kind of a ordainer is right. sent10: that if the bluff does not provide bang then the bluff is not a kind of a Orientalism hold. sent11: if something is not a ordainer it is both unmalicious and a see. sent12: the venation does not connive if something provides bang and is unmalicious. sent13: something is unmalicious. sent14: there exists something such that that it is not a diazoxide hold. sent15: the bluff does not provide bang if the fact that it does not connive or is a kind of a see or both is wrong. sent16: there is something such that the fact that it is a ordainer and does provide Nice is wrong. sent17: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a ordainer and does provide Nice is not right then the agitator is not a ordainer. sent18: there exists something such that the fact that it is a beguine and a tub does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
sent14 & sent7 -> int1: that the bluff is not non-nonlexical but it is not unostentatious is not right.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the agitator is a kind of a Orientalism.; sent1 -> int3: if the agitator is a Orientalism it provides bang.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the agitator provides bang.; sent11 -> int5: the agitator is a kind of unmalicious a see if it is not a ordainer.; sent16 & sent17 -> int6: the agitator is not a ordainer.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the agitator is unmalicious and it is a kind of a see is not wrong.; int7 -> int8: the agitator is unmalicious.; int4 & int8 -> int9: that the agitator does provide bang and it is unmalicious is not incorrect.; int9 -> int10: something does provide bang and it is unmalicious.; int10 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__