the candidate is a kind of a fire.
sent1: if something is not a lark then that the minibar is a baroreceptor and superficial does not hold. sent2: the fact that that the minibar is a fire and not a baroreceptor hold is wrong. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is a fire that is not a baroreceptor does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a lark. sent5: if something is a fire but not a grant-in-aid then it is superficial. sent6: the wet-nurse swims Carlsbad. sent7: there exists something such that that it is a baroreceptor and it is superficial is not correct. sent8: the candidate is not a Calvin if that the sucrose is not deconstructionist and is not Aberdonian is false. sent9: the fact that something is not a notice hold if the fact that it is not a baroreceptor and it is not a lark is incorrect. sent10: something does not pair Thursday if it does not trephine and it does swim Carlsbad. sent11: that the minibar is not a baroreceptor and not a lark is wrong if there exists something such that it is superficial. sent12: the candidate is a fire if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a baroreceptor and is not superficial does not hold. sent13: if the fact that there exists something such that that it trephines and is not rocky does not hold is true then the Comrade does not trephines. sent14: something is a kind of a fire that is not a grant-in-aid if it is not syncategorematic. sent15: something is not a fire if it is either a baroreceptor or a lark or both. sent16: the Comrade swims Carlsbad if the wet-nurse does swims Carlsbad. sent17: the fact that the minibar is a baroreceptor and it is superficial does not hold. sent18: there exists something such that the fact that it trephines and is non-rocky is false. sent19: if something does pair microbrewery it is not syncategorematic. sent20: something that is not a Calvin does pair microbrewery and is anuretic. sent21: the fact that the minibar is a baroreceptor but it is not superficial is not right if there is something such that it is not a lark. sent22: something is a lark.
sent4 & sent21 -> int1: that the minibar is a baroreceptor but it is not superficial is wrong.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a baroreceptor that is not superficial does not hold.; int2 & sent12 -> hypothesis;
something does not notice.
sent9 -> int3: the minibar does not notice if the fact that it is not a baroreceptor and it is not a kind of a lark is incorrect.; sent5 -> int4: if the candidate is both a fire and not a grant-in-aid then it is superficial.; sent14 -> int5: the candidate fires but it is not a grant-in-aid if it is not syncategorematic.; sent19 -> int6: the candidate is non-syncategorematic if it does pair microbrewery.; sent20 -> int7: if the candidate is not a Calvin then it pairs microbrewery and is anuretic.; sent10 -> int8: the Comrade does not pair Thursday if it does not trephine and it swims Carlsbad.; sent18 & sent13 -> int9: the Comrade does not trephine.; sent16 & sent6 -> int10: the Comrade does swim Carlsbad.; int9 & int10 -> int11: the Comrade does not trephine and does swim Carlsbad.; int8 & int11 -> int12: the Comrade does not pair Thursday.; int12 -> int13: there is something such that that it does not pair Thursday is not false.;
$hypothesis$ = the candidate is a kind of a fire. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a lark then that the minibar is a baroreceptor and superficial does not hold. sent2: the fact that that the minibar is a fire and not a baroreceptor hold is wrong. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is a fire that is not a baroreceptor does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a lark. sent5: if something is a fire but not a grant-in-aid then it is superficial. sent6: the wet-nurse swims Carlsbad. sent7: there exists something such that that it is a baroreceptor and it is superficial is not correct. sent8: the candidate is not a Calvin if that the sucrose is not deconstructionist and is not Aberdonian is false. sent9: the fact that something is not a notice hold if the fact that it is not a baroreceptor and it is not a lark is incorrect. sent10: something does not pair Thursday if it does not trephine and it does swim Carlsbad. sent11: that the minibar is not a baroreceptor and not a lark is wrong if there exists something such that it is superficial. sent12: the candidate is a fire if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a baroreceptor and is not superficial does not hold. sent13: if the fact that there exists something such that that it trephines and is not rocky does not hold is true then the Comrade does not trephines. sent14: something is a kind of a fire that is not a grant-in-aid if it is not syncategorematic. sent15: something is not a fire if it is either a baroreceptor or a lark or both. sent16: the Comrade swims Carlsbad if the wet-nurse does swims Carlsbad. sent17: the fact that the minibar is a baroreceptor and it is superficial does not hold. sent18: there exists something such that the fact that it trephines and is non-rocky is false. sent19: if something does pair microbrewery it is not syncategorematic. sent20: something that is not a Calvin does pair microbrewery and is anuretic. sent21: the fact that the minibar is a baroreceptor but it is not superficial is not right if there is something such that it is not a lark. sent22: something is a lark. ; $proof$ = 
sent4 & sent21 -> int1: that the minibar is a baroreceptor but it is not superficial is wrong.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a baroreceptor that is not superficial does not hold.; int2 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__