the cragsman is not non-citrous.
sent1: the fact that something is creative but it is not a veracity is not right if it is not a pop. sent2: everything conceals. sent3: if there is something such that it is creative and it is not a Klondike then the cragsman is not unscientific. sent4: the cragsman does blanket channel. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that it is a shoot and it is a salvinorin does not hold. sent6: there is something such that it is a kind of a diacritic and fraternizes. sent7: something that is not creative is both a quarto and a Klondike. sent8: if the headful is both unscientific and citrous then the cragsman is not citrous. sent9: there exists something such that it is centesimal. sent10: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a stanchion that is cardiographic is not false. sent11: if the fact that something is creative and is not a veracity does not hold then it is not creative. sent12: if that something is a kind of a quarto that is not unscientific is not false then it is citrous. sent13: something is a PST. sent14: that the bathtub promises troublesomeness and/or it jams silique is not correct. sent15: if there is something such that the fact that it describes and it is citrous does not hold then the cragsman is indivisible. sent16: something is both a pop and granuliferous if it does not confabulate. sent17: if there is something such that that either it does promise troublesomeness or it does jam silique or both is wrong then the Rice is not a kind of a prizefighter. sent18: if something is a wrong but it does not trepan Comstock then the cragsman is not a kind of a quarto. sent19: if the keystone is a kind of a quarto and it is a Klondike then the Bohemian is not a quarto. sent20: if there exists something such that it is not a prizefighter the perijove does not confabulate. sent21: if the perijove does conceal and it pops the keystone is not a pops. sent22: the cragsman is creative. sent23: there exists something such that it is creative and it is not a kind of a Klondike. sent24: the cragsman is a kind of a quarto if there is something such that the fact that it is a shoot and it is a salvinorin is not true.
sent5 & sent24 -> int1: the cragsman is a quarto.; sent23 & sent3 -> int2: the cragsman is not unscientific.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the cragsman is a kind of a quarto that is not unscientific.; sent12 -> int4: if the cragsman is a quarto but not unscientific then it is citrous.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;
the cragsman is non-citrous.
sent7 -> int5: if the keystone is not creative it is a quarto and it is a Klondike.; sent11 -> int6: if the fact that the keystone is creative but it is not a veracity does not hold then it is not creative.; sent1 -> int7: if the keystone is not a pop then the fact that it is creative and it is not a veracity is false.; sent2 -> int8: the perijove conceals.; sent16 -> int9: if that the perijove does not confabulate is not false then it pops and it is granuliferous.; sent14 -> int10: there is something such that the fact that either it does promise troublesomeness or it jams silique or both is incorrect.; int10 & sent17 -> int11: the Rice is not a prizefighter.; int11 -> int12: there exists something such that it is not a prizefighter.; int12 & sent20 -> int13: that the perijove does not confabulate is not false.; int9 & int13 -> int14: the perijove is a pop but not non-granuliferous.; int14 -> int15: the perijove pops.; int8 & int15 -> int16: the perijove conceals and it is a pop.; sent21 & int16 -> int17: the fact that the keystone is not a pop is correct.; int7 & int17 -> int18: that the keystone is creative but not a veracity is wrong.; int6 & int18 -> int19: the fact that the keystone is creative does not hold.; int5 & int19 -> int20: the keystone is a quarto and it is a kind of a Klondike.; sent19 & int20 -> int21: the Bohemian is not a quarto.; int21 -> int22: there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a quarto hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the cragsman is not non-citrous. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is creative but it is not a veracity is not right if it is not a pop. sent2: everything conceals. sent3: if there is something such that it is creative and it is not a Klondike then the cragsman is not unscientific. sent4: the cragsman does blanket channel. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that it is a shoot and it is a salvinorin does not hold. sent6: there is something such that it is a kind of a diacritic and fraternizes. sent7: something that is not creative is both a quarto and a Klondike. sent8: if the headful is both unscientific and citrous then the cragsman is not citrous. sent9: there exists something such that it is centesimal. sent10: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a stanchion that is cardiographic is not false. sent11: if the fact that something is creative and is not a veracity does not hold then it is not creative. sent12: if that something is a kind of a quarto that is not unscientific is not false then it is citrous. sent13: something is a PST. sent14: that the bathtub promises troublesomeness and/or it jams silique is not correct. sent15: if there is something such that the fact that it describes and it is citrous does not hold then the cragsman is indivisible. sent16: something is both a pop and granuliferous if it does not confabulate. sent17: if there is something such that that either it does promise troublesomeness or it does jam silique or both is wrong then the Rice is not a kind of a prizefighter. sent18: if something is a wrong but it does not trepan Comstock then the cragsman is not a kind of a quarto. sent19: if the keystone is a kind of a quarto and it is a Klondike then the Bohemian is not a quarto. sent20: if there exists something such that it is not a prizefighter the perijove does not confabulate. sent21: if the perijove does conceal and it pops the keystone is not a pops. sent22: the cragsman is creative. sent23: there exists something such that it is creative and it is not a kind of a Klondike. sent24: the cragsman is a kind of a quarto if there is something such that the fact that it is a shoot and it is a salvinorin is not true. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 & sent24 -> int1: the cragsman is a quarto.; sent23 & sent3 -> int2: the cragsman is not unscientific.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the cragsman is a kind of a quarto that is not unscientific.; sent12 -> int4: if the cragsman is a quarto but not unscientific then it is citrous.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__