that the sacking is not a thriller and does sparge is wrong.
sent1: the fact that the sacking is not a thriller but it sparges does not hold if the authorizer sparges. sent2: the sacking is not a communicant and it does not acquaint menhaden if it is a kind of an abbey. sent3: the authorizer is a gunnery if the scaphopod does not acquaint menhaden. sent4: the scaphopod is scurfy. sent5: that the fact that the sacking is a thriller that sparges is true is wrong if the authorizer does sparges. sent6: the sacking is not hair-shirt and/or it does not slight Strix if it is not a aftershaft. sent7: something is not a thriller if it does not slight Strix. sent8: the scaphopod is scurfy if it is a gunnery. sent9: if something is non-hair-shirt that it is not a thriller is true. sent10: something does sparge if it is a gunnery. sent11: the fact that the sacking is a thriller and does sparge does not hold. sent12: the sacking is not a kind of a aftershaft. sent13: the scaphopod is scurfy and it is hydrophobic. sent14: the scaphopod does not acquaint menhaden if it is both not non-scurfy and hydrophobic. sent15: something is intuitionist if it is a Jakobson. sent16: if something does not acquaint menhaden it does sparge and is a gunnery.
sent14 & sent13 -> int1: the scaphopod does not acquaint menhaden.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the authorizer is a kind of a gunnery.; sent10 -> int3: if the authorizer is a kind of a gunnery then it does sparge.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the authorizer sparges.; int4 & sent1 -> hypothesis;
the sacking is not a thriller but it does sparge.
sent6 & sent12 -> int5: the sacking is not hair-shirt and/or it does not slight Strix.; sent9 -> int6: if the sacking is not hair-shirt it is not a thriller.; sent7 -> int7: if the sacking does not slight Strix it is not a kind of a thriller.; int5 & int6 & int7 -> int8: the sacking is not a thriller.; sent16 -> int9: the sacking does sparge and is a gunnery if it does not acquaint menhaden.;
$hypothesis$ = that the sacking is not a thriller and does sparge is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the sacking is not a thriller but it sparges does not hold if the authorizer sparges. sent2: the sacking is not a communicant and it does not acquaint menhaden if it is a kind of an abbey. sent3: the authorizer is a gunnery if the scaphopod does not acquaint menhaden. sent4: the scaphopod is scurfy. sent5: that the fact that the sacking is a thriller that sparges is true is wrong if the authorizer does sparges. sent6: the sacking is not hair-shirt and/or it does not slight Strix if it is not a aftershaft. sent7: something is not a thriller if it does not slight Strix. sent8: the scaphopod is scurfy if it is a gunnery. sent9: if something is non-hair-shirt that it is not a thriller is true. sent10: something does sparge if it is a gunnery. sent11: the fact that the sacking is a thriller and does sparge does not hold. sent12: the sacking is not a kind of a aftershaft. sent13: the scaphopod is scurfy and it is hydrophobic. sent14: the scaphopod does not acquaint menhaden if it is both not non-scurfy and hydrophobic. sent15: something is intuitionist if it is a Jakobson. sent16: if something does not acquaint menhaden it does sparge and is a gunnery. ; $proof$ = 
sent14 & sent13 -> int1: the scaphopod does not acquaint menhaden.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the authorizer is a kind of a gunnery.; sent10 -> int3: if the authorizer is a kind of a gunnery then it does sparge.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the authorizer sparges.; int4 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__