the bluster is hypoglycemic.
sent1: something that does not ammoniate contradistinction and is bridgeable does not crook Quakerism. sent2: something is sulphuric if it is a spatter. sent3: the kniphofia is bridgeable. sent4: the fact that that the bluster is not hypoglycemic but it is sulphuric is true does not hold if the Sennenhunde is a scent. sent5: the bluster is a kind of a roughleg. sent6: if something is not a scent then it is a spatter. sent7: the kniphofia does not ammoniate contradistinction. sent8: if something is a kind of sulphuric thing that is not non-roughleg then it is not hypoglycemic. sent9: the bluster is a xerophyte. sent10: if something is not a kind of a drinking that it clanks Sennenhunde is not incorrect. sent11: the bluster is not a scent but it does crook Quakerism. sent12: if the fact that something is not hypoglycemic but it is sulphuric is not correct it is hypoglycemic. sent13: the bluster crooks Quakerism. sent14: the lygaeid is not a kind of a roughleg.
sent6 -> int1: the bluster is a kind of a spatter if it is not a scent.; sent11 -> int2: the bluster does not scent.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the bluster spatters.; sent2 -> int4: the bluster is sulphuric if the fact that it is a spatter is not false.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the bluster is sulphuric.; int5 & sent5 -> int6: the bluster is sulphuric and is a roughleg.; sent8 -> int7: if the bluster is sulphuric a roughleg then it is not hypoglycemic.; int6 & int7 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the bluster is hypoglycemic is not wrong.
sent12 -> int8: the bluster is hypoglycemic if that it is hypoglycemic and sulphuric is not true.; sent1 -> int9: if the kniphofia does not ammoniate contradistinction but it is bridgeable then it does not crook Quakerism.; sent7 & sent3 -> int10: the kniphofia does not ammoniate contradistinction but it is bridgeable.; int9 & int10 -> int11: the kniphofia does not crook Quakerism.; int11 -> int12: there is something such that it does not crook Quakerism.;
$hypothesis$ = the bluster is hypoglycemic. ; $context$ = sent1: something that does not ammoniate contradistinction and is bridgeable does not crook Quakerism. sent2: something is sulphuric if it is a spatter. sent3: the kniphofia is bridgeable. sent4: the fact that that the bluster is not hypoglycemic but it is sulphuric is true does not hold if the Sennenhunde is a scent. sent5: the bluster is a kind of a roughleg. sent6: if something is not a scent then it is a spatter. sent7: the kniphofia does not ammoniate contradistinction. sent8: if something is a kind of sulphuric thing that is not non-roughleg then it is not hypoglycemic. sent9: the bluster is a xerophyte. sent10: if something is not a kind of a drinking that it clanks Sennenhunde is not incorrect. sent11: the bluster is not a scent but it does crook Quakerism. sent12: if the fact that something is not hypoglycemic but it is sulphuric is not correct it is hypoglycemic. sent13: the bluster crooks Quakerism. sent14: the lygaeid is not a kind of a roughleg. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 -> int1: the bluster is a kind of a spatter if it is not a scent.; sent11 -> int2: the bluster does not scent.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the bluster spatters.; sent2 -> int4: the bluster is sulphuric if the fact that it is a spatter is not false.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the bluster is sulphuric.; int5 & sent5 -> int6: the bluster is sulphuric and is a roughleg.; sent8 -> int7: if the bluster is sulphuric a roughleg then it is not hypoglycemic.; int6 & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__