the dealfish is a kind of unguiculate thing that does moralize.
sent1: the vesiculation is not a kind of a grease-gun. sent2: everything is a kind of a unguiculate and is a vac. sent3: if the vesiculation is not a grease-gun then it does image and it is prehistoric. sent4: the dealfish does moralize but it is not a Jansenism. sent5: if something is not a grease-gun that it is a kind of husbandly thing that does incriminate vermicide does not hold. sent6: the vermicide is not ungenerous. sent7: if the vermicide is not husbandly it does not incriminate vermicide. sent8: that something is not a vac but a Jansenism is not true if it incriminates fetus. sent9: if that something is not a vac and it does not incriminate fetus does not hold then the fact that it is a vac hold. sent10: if the vermicide is not ungenerous and does not incriminate vermicide then the vesiculation is not ungenerous. sent11: the barograph is a kind of indistinguishable thing that assails vesiculation. sent12: the V is prehistoric if there exists something such that that it is husbandly thing that incriminates vermicide is incorrect. sent13: the barograph does not moralize if there exists something such that it is an image and not ungenerous. sent14: the Colbert is not an image and/or is not ungenerous if the V is prehistoric. sent15: that something is unguiculate thing that does moralize is not correct if it is not a kind of a vac. sent16: the gromwell is husbandly or does not assail vesiculation or both. sent17: that the V is not a kind of a vac and does not incriminate fetus does not hold if the barograph does not moralize. sent18: the barograph is not a grease-gun if it does assail vesiculation. sent19: everything is a vac. sent20: if something is not an image it does incriminate fetus. sent21: if the gromwell is husbandly and/or it does not assail vesiculation the vermicide is not husbandly. sent22: if there exists something such that it is a vac then either the Colbert is not a unguiculate or it is a Jansenism or both.
sent2 -> int1: the dealfish is both unguiculate and a vac.; int1 -> int2: the dealfish is a kind of a unguiculate.; sent4 -> int3: the dealfish does moralize.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;
that that the dealfish is unguiculate and it does moralize is not correct is not wrong.
sent15 -> int4: if the dealfish is not a vac then the fact that it is unguiculate thing that moralizes is not true.; sent8 -> int5: if the Colbert incriminates fetus then the fact that the fact that it is not a kind of a vac and it is a Jansenism hold is not true.; sent5 -> int6: if the barograph is not a grease-gun the fact that it is husbandly and it does incriminate vermicide is wrong.; sent11 -> int7: the barograph assails vesiculation.; sent18 & int7 -> int8: the barograph is not a kind of a grease-gun.; int6 & int8 -> int9: the fact that the barograph is a kind of husbandly thing that incriminates vermicide does not hold.; int9 -> int10: there exists something such that the fact that it is husbandly and does incriminate vermicide does not hold.; int10 & sent12 -> int11: the V is prehistoric.; sent14 & int11 -> int12: the Colbert is not an image or generous or both.; sent20 -> int13: the Colbert incriminates fetus if it is not an image.;
$hypothesis$ = the dealfish is a kind of unguiculate thing that does moralize. ; $context$ = sent1: the vesiculation is not a kind of a grease-gun. sent2: everything is a kind of a unguiculate and is a vac. sent3: if the vesiculation is not a grease-gun then it does image and it is prehistoric. sent4: the dealfish does moralize but it is not a Jansenism. sent5: if something is not a grease-gun that it is a kind of husbandly thing that does incriminate vermicide does not hold. sent6: the vermicide is not ungenerous. sent7: if the vermicide is not husbandly it does not incriminate vermicide. sent8: that something is not a vac but a Jansenism is not true if it incriminates fetus. sent9: if that something is not a vac and it does not incriminate fetus does not hold then the fact that it is a vac hold. sent10: if the vermicide is not ungenerous and does not incriminate vermicide then the vesiculation is not ungenerous. sent11: the barograph is a kind of indistinguishable thing that assails vesiculation. sent12: the V is prehistoric if there exists something such that that it is husbandly thing that incriminates vermicide is incorrect. sent13: the barograph does not moralize if there exists something such that it is an image and not ungenerous. sent14: the Colbert is not an image and/or is not ungenerous if the V is prehistoric. sent15: that something is unguiculate thing that does moralize is not correct if it is not a kind of a vac. sent16: the gromwell is husbandly or does not assail vesiculation or both. sent17: that the V is not a kind of a vac and does not incriminate fetus does not hold if the barograph does not moralize. sent18: the barograph is not a grease-gun if it does assail vesiculation. sent19: everything is a vac. sent20: if something is not an image it does incriminate fetus. sent21: if the gromwell is husbandly and/or it does not assail vesiculation the vermicide is not husbandly. sent22: if there exists something such that it is a vac then either the Colbert is not a unguiculate or it is a Jansenism or both. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 -> int1: the dealfish is both unguiculate and a vac.; int1 -> int2: the dealfish is a kind of a unguiculate.; sent4 -> int3: the dealfish does moralize.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__