the fact that the curiosity is a kind of a monogamy that is not a scab is false.
sent1: that the fact that the curiosity is a monogamy and is not a kind of a scab does not hold is correct if something is a quadratics. sent2: the fact that the curiosity is a kind of a monogamy and it does scab is not correct. sent3: the fact that the thermotropism is a monogamy and it is a quadratics is not correct if something scabs. sent4: the thermotropism is a kind of a quadratics. sent5: something is a monogamy but it is not a scab if it is not quadratics. sent6: the fact that if the panda is non-quadratics but not ergonomic then the curiosity is not non-quadratics is right. sent7: if something is a monogamy that the curiosity is quadratics and it is a kind of a scab is not right. sent8: that the thermotropism is both a scab and quadratics does not hold if there exists something such that it is a monogamy. sent9: the fact that the thermotropism is a kind of a scab that is a monogamy is not correct if there exists something such that it is a kind of a quadratics. sent10: that the florist is a Parisienne that does not stigmatize onomancer is wrong. sent11: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a quadratics the fact that the curiosity is a monogamy and it is a kind of a scab is not correct. sent12: the fact that the curiosity is quadratics and not a monogamy does not hold if there is something such that it is a scab.
sent4 -> int1: there exists something such that it is a quadratics.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis;
the curiosity is a monogamy but not a scab.
sent5 -> int2: if that the curiosity is not quadratics is right it is a monogamy that is not a scab.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the curiosity is a kind of a monogamy that is not a scab is false. ; $context$ = sent1: that the fact that the curiosity is a monogamy and is not a kind of a scab does not hold is correct if something is a quadratics. sent2: the fact that the curiosity is a kind of a monogamy and it does scab is not correct. sent3: the fact that the thermotropism is a monogamy and it is a quadratics is not correct if something scabs. sent4: the thermotropism is a kind of a quadratics. sent5: something is a monogamy but it is not a scab if it is not quadratics. sent6: the fact that if the panda is non-quadratics but not ergonomic then the curiosity is not non-quadratics is right. sent7: if something is a monogamy that the curiosity is quadratics and it is a kind of a scab is not right. sent8: that the thermotropism is both a scab and quadratics does not hold if there exists something such that it is a monogamy. sent9: the fact that the thermotropism is a kind of a scab that is a monogamy is not correct if there exists something such that it is a kind of a quadratics. sent10: that the florist is a Parisienne that does not stigmatize onomancer is wrong. sent11: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a quadratics the fact that the curiosity is a monogamy and it is a kind of a scab is not correct. sent12: the fact that the curiosity is quadratics and not a monogamy does not hold if there is something such that it is a scab. ; $proof$ = 
sent4 -> int1: there exists something such that it is a quadratics.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__