the barren is not inconsistent.
sent1: that the saiga is not a kind of a legalization and is Aeschylean does not hold if the stowaway does not shush Plantagenet. sent2: if something is an expectorant then it does not shush Plantagenet. sent3: if the patina is estimable the fact that it is not pyrogenic is not false. sent4: if something is not incalculable and is not a disunion then the patina is a Ahab. sent5: if there exists something such that it is not inharmonious then the roman is not an audible. sent6: if the saiga is non-Aeschylean the fact that it does speak and shushes paste-up is not correct. sent7: the satrap is non-incalculable thing that is not a disunion. sent8: the patina is not pyrogenic if it does not fume. sent9: the saiga is not Aeschylean. sent10: if something is not pyrogenic it is a kind of a disengagement and it is a kind of a Sundacarpus. sent11: that the stowaway is an expectorant is not incorrect if something is a kind of a Ahab and it is a disengagement. sent12: the barren is not inconsistent if there exists something such that the fact that it does speak and it does shush paste-up is incorrect. sent13: the patina is estimable or it does not fume or both.
sent6 & sent9 -> int1: that the saiga speaks and shushes paste-up is not true.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it speaks and does shush paste-up is wrong.; int2 & sent12 -> hypothesis;
the barren is inconsistent.
sent2 -> int3: if that the stowaway is a kind of an expectorant hold it does not shush Plantagenet.; sent7 -> int4: there exists something such that it is not incalculable and is not a disunion.; int4 & sent4 -> int5: the patina is a kind of a Ahab.; sent10 -> int6: the patina is a kind of a disengagement that is a Sundacarpus if it is not pyrogenic.; sent13 & sent3 & sent8 -> int7: the patina is not pyrogenic.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the patina is a kind of a disengagement and it is a Sundacarpus.; int8 -> int9: the patina is a disengagement.; int5 & int9 -> int10: the patina is a Ahab and it is a disengagement.; int10 -> int11: something is a kind of a Ahab and it is a disengagement.; int11 & sent11 -> int12: the stowaway is a kind of an expectorant.; int3 & int12 -> int13: the stowaway does not shush Plantagenet.; sent1 & int13 -> int14: the fact that the saiga is both not a legalization and Aeschylean is wrong.; int14 -> int15: there is something such that that it is both not a legalization and Aeschylean is not right.;
$hypothesis$ = the barren is not inconsistent. ; $context$ = sent1: that the saiga is not a kind of a legalization and is Aeschylean does not hold if the stowaway does not shush Plantagenet. sent2: if something is an expectorant then it does not shush Plantagenet. sent3: if the patina is estimable the fact that it is not pyrogenic is not false. sent4: if something is not incalculable and is not a disunion then the patina is a Ahab. sent5: if there exists something such that it is not inharmonious then the roman is not an audible. sent6: if the saiga is non-Aeschylean the fact that it does speak and shushes paste-up is not correct. sent7: the satrap is non-incalculable thing that is not a disunion. sent8: the patina is not pyrogenic if it does not fume. sent9: the saiga is not Aeschylean. sent10: if something is not pyrogenic it is a kind of a disengagement and it is a kind of a Sundacarpus. sent11: that the stowaway is an expectorant is not incorrect if something is a kind of a Ahab and it is a disengagement. sent12: the barren is not inconsistent if there exists something such that the fact that it does speak and it does shush paste-up is incorrect. sent13: the patina is estimable or it does not fume or both. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 & sent9 -> int1: that the saiga speaks and shushes paste-up is not true.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it speaks and does shush paste-up is wrong.; int2 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__