the fact that the sugarcane is a requisition and is smaller is incorrect.
sent1: the Teleprompter is not hydrophilic if the fact that it is non-fossil or it is mercurial or both is wrong. sent2: something is a kind of warming thing that is smaller if it is not a Cocculus. sent3: the Teleprompter is a visitation but it is not hydrophilic. sent4: the sugarcane is a requisition and it is smaller if something is not a vasoconstriction. sent5: the sugarcane is a requisition. sent6: there is something such that it is not chalky. sent7: the transistor is caesural. sent8: if the bourtree is both not caesural and not a vasoconstriction then the fact that the tendon is caesural is correct. sent9: the bourtree is caesural. sent10: there is something such that it does stow caring. sent11: that the sugarcane requisitions and it is smaller is false if the bourtree does not harbor. sent12: if something is both a visitation and not hydrophilic the fact that the apomict is not a kind of a Cocculus is not false. sent13: the bourtree is a harbor. sent14: the fact that something is not a visitation and it is not a Cocculus does not hold if it is not hydrophilic. sent15: if something that is juiceless is a kind of a Emmenthal then it is not a defect. sent16: if something that is a harbor is caesural it is not a vasoconstriction. sent17: if the Teleprompter is not warming then the apomict is not caesural and is not a kind of a vasoconstriction. sent18: the sugarcane is not a harbor but it requisitions if the apomict is smaller.
sent13 & sent9 -> int1: the bourtree harbors and it is caesural.; sent16 -> int2: if the bourtree does harbor and it is caesural then it is not a vasoconstriction.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the bourtree is not a vasoconstriction.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that it is not a vasoconstriction.; int4 & sent4 -> hypothesis;
the tendon is caesural.
sent2 -> int5: the apomict warms and is smaller if it is not a Cocculus.; sent3 -> int6: something is a visitation but it is not hydrophilic.; int6 & sent12 -> int7: the apomict is not a Cocculus.; int5 & int7 -> int8: the apomict is a kind of warming thing that is smaller.; int8 -> int9: the apomict is not non-smaller.; sent18 & int9 -> int10: the sugarcane is not a harbor but a requisition.; int10 -> int11: the fact that the sugarcane is not a harbor is correct.; int11 -> int12: something is not a harbor.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the sugarcane is a requisition and is smaller is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the Teleprompter is not hydrophilic if the fact that it is non-fossil or it is mercurial or both is wrong. sent2: something is a kind of warming thing that is smaller if it is not a Cocculus. sent3: the Teleprompter is a visitation but it is not hydrophilic. sent4: the sugarcane is a requisition and it is smaller if something is not a vasoconstriction. sent5: the sugarcane is a requisition. sent6: there is something such that it is not chalky. sent7: the transistor is caesural. sent8: if the bourtree is both not caesural and not a vasoconstriction then the fact that the tendon is caesural is correct. sent9: the bourtree is caesural. sent10: there is something such that it does stow caring. sent11: that the sugarcane requisitions and it is smaller is false if the bourtree does not harbor. sent12: if something is both a visitation and not hydrophilic the fact that the apomict is not a kind of a Cocculus is not false. sent13: the bourtree is a harbor. sent14: the fact that something is not a visitation and it is not a Cocculus does not hold if it is not hydrophilic. sent15: if something that is juiceless is a kind of a Emmenthal then it is not a defect. sent16: if something that is a harbor is caesural it is not a vasoconstriction. sent17: if the Teleprompter is not warming then the apomict is not caesural and is not a kind of a vasoconstriction. sent18: the sugarcane is not a harbor but it requisitions if the apomict is smaller. ; $proof$ = 
sent13 & sent9 -> int1: the bourtree harbors and it is caesural.; sent16 -> int2: if the bourtree does harbor and it is caesural then it is not a vasoconstriction.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the bourtree is not a vasoconstriction.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that it is not a vasoconstriction.; int4 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__