the poacher does dimple.
sent1: The Ajax does spiel vamp. sent2: that the glasswort does not impersonate gin is not incorrect. sent3: the vamp is not a kind of a Iranian if that the gin is Iranian but it is not imperialistic does not hold. sent4: the vamp does spiel Ajax. sent5: something is not a dimple if that it is not a mercilessness and is imperialistic is false. sent6: something is not a kind of a mercilessness if the fact that it does unwrap typology and it is not priestly is wrong. sent7: the vamp is not a kind of a waitress. sent8: either the vamp does not spiel Ajax or it is not a Iranian or both if there is something such that it is not a kind of a dimple. sent9: that the glasswort does unwrap typology and it is priestly is right. sent10: the poacher is anodic. sent11: that something does unwrap typology and is not priestly is wrong if the fact that it does not impersonate gin hold. sent12: the fact that the vamp does not spiel Ajax is not wrong if the poacher is not a dimple. sent13: if there is something such that it does unwrap typology the fact that the fact that the gin is not a kind of a mercilessness but it is imperialistic is correct is not right. sent14: the fact that the gin is Iranian thing that is non-imperialistic is wrong if something is not a mercilessness. sent15: the fact that that something spiels Ajax and it is a dimple hold is not right if it is not a Iranian. sent16: the knee does dimple.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the poacher does not dimple.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the vamp does not spiel Ajax.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;
the poacher does not spiel Ajax.
sent5 -> int3: the fact that the gin is not a dimple hold if the fact that it is not a mercilessness and it is imperialistic is false.; sent9 -> int4: the glasswort does unwrap typology.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that it does unwrap typology.; int5 & sent13 -> int6: the fact that the gin is not a mercilessness but imperialistic does not hold.; int3 & int6 -> int7: the gin is not a dimple.; int7 -> int8: there is something such that it does not dimple.; int8 & sent8 -> int9: the vamp does not spiel Ajax and/or is not a Iranian.; int9 -> int10: there exists something such that it does not spiel Ajax or it is not Iranian or both.;
$hypothesis$ = the poacher does dimple. ; $context$ = sent1: The Ajax does spiel vamp. sent2: that the glasswort does not impersonate gin is not incorrect. sent3: the vamp is not a kind of a Iranian if that the gin is Iranian but it is not imperialistic does not hold. sent4: the vamp does spiel Ajax. sent5: something is not a dimple if that it is not a mercilessness and is imperialistic is false. sent6: something is not a kind of a mercilessness if the fact that it does unwrap typology and it is not priestly is wrong. sent7: the vamp is not a kind of a waitress. sent8: either the vamp does not spiel Ajax or it is not a Iranian or both if there is something such that it is not a kind of a dimple. sent9: that the glasswort does unwrap typology and it is priestly is right. sent10: the poacher is anodic. sent11: that something does unwrap typology and is not priestly is wrong if the fact that it does not impersonate gin hold. sent12: the fact that the vamp does not spiel Ajax is not wrong if the poacher is not a dimple. sent13: if there is something such that it does unwrap typology the fact that the fact that the gin is not a kind of a mercilessness but it is imperialistic is correct is not right. sent14: the fact that the gin is Iranian thing that is non-imperialistic is wrong if something is not a mercilessness. sent15: the fact that that something spiels Ajax and it is a dimple hold is not right if it is not a Iranian. sent16: the knee does dimple. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the poacher does not dimple.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the vamp does not spiel Ajax.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__