the pekoe froths.
sent1: the zirconium does not exhilarate aril if the peeper is a whack and it is not disrespectful. sent2: the peeper is respectful if there exists something such that that it is a fusil and/or it is accordant is wrong. sent3: if the peeper is not keyless or it is not methodological or both it is a whack. sent4: if that something does not whack or it is respectful or both does not hold then it does not froth. sent5: if something does exhilarate aril then that it is not a whack and/or is respectful is wrong. sent6: that the slammer is a preemptor but it is not adducent is not true if it is not a moire. sent7: the fusil is a kind of a shimmer but it is not architectural. sent8: if the peeper froths and/or is a preemptor it is not adducent. sent9: that the peeper does froth and is not keyless is not correct if it is not methodological. sent10: that something hoes but it is not a fusil is not true if it does not shimmer. sent11: the peeper does froth and/or it is a preemptor. sent12: if the fusil is a shimmer but it is not architectural the slammer is not a kind of a shimmer. sent13: the peeper is not keyless and/or it is not methodological. sent14: if something is adducent then it is a moire. sent15: if the peeper is a moire the pekoe does exhilarate aril. sent16: if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a preemptor and it is not adducent does not hold the pekoe does froth. sent17: if the slammer is not a moire that it is a preemptor and it is adducent is wrong. sent18: there is something such that that it is a fusil or it is accordant or both is not right. sent19: if that the zirconium does not exhilarate aril is not incorrect then the slammer is not a moire. sent20: if there exists something such that that it is a hoe that is not a fusil is not correct the zirconium is not accordant.
sent3 & sent13 -> int1: the peeper is a whack.; sent18 & sent2 -> int2: the peeper is respectful.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the peeper whacks and it is respectful.; int3 & sent1 -> int4: the zirconium does not exhilarate aril.; int4 & sent19 -> int5: the slammer is not a kind of a moire.; int5 & sent6 -> int6: that the slammer is a preemptor but it is not adducent does not hold.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that that it is a preemptor and it is not adducent is not right.; int7 & sent16 -> hypothesis;
the pekoe does not froth.
sent4 -> int8: the pekoe does not froth if the fact that it is not a whack and/or is respectful is not true.; sent5 -> int9: that either the pekoe is not a whack or it is respectful or both is not correct if it exhilarates aril.; sent14 -> int10: if the peeper is adducent then the fact that it is a moire is not incorrect.; sent10 -> int11: that the slammer is a hoe that is not a kind of a fusil is not true if it is not a shimmer.; sent12 & sent7 -> int12: the slammer is not a shimmer.; int11 & int12 -> int13: the fact that that the slammer is a hoe but it is not a fusil is correct is not correct.; int13 -> int14: there exists something such that that it is a hoe but not a fusil is not right.; int14 & sent20 -> int15: the zirconium is not accordant.; int15 -> int16: there exists something such that it is not accordant.;
$hypothesis$ = the pekoe froths. ; $context$ = sent1: the zirconium does not exhilarate aril if the peeper is a whack and it is not disrespectful. sent2: the peeper is respectful if there exists something such that that it is a fusil and/or it is accordant is wrong. sent3: if the peeper is not keyless or it is not methodological or both it is a whack. sent4: if that something does not whack or it is respectful or both does not hold then it does not froth. sent5: if something does exhilarate aril then that it is not a whack and/or is respectful is wrong. sent6: that the slammer is a preemptor but it is not adducent is not true if it is not a moire. sent7: the fusil is a kind of a shimmer but it is not architectural. sent8: if the peeper froths and/or is a preemptor it is not adducent. sent9: that the peeper does froth and is not keyless is not correct if it is not methodological. sent10: that something hoes but it is not a fusil is not true if it does not shimmer. sent11: the peeper does froth and/or it is a preemptor. sent12: if the fusil is a shimmer but it is not architectural the slammer is not a kind of a shimmer. sent13: the peeper is not keyless and/or it is not methodological. sent14: if something is adducent then it is a moire. sent15: if the peeper is a moire the pekoe does exhilarate aril. sent16: if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a preemptor and it is not adducent does not hold the pekoe does froth. sent17: if the slammer is not a moire that it is a preemptor and it is adducent is wrong. sent18: there is something such that that it is a fusil or it is accordant or both is not right. sent19: if that the zirconium does not exhilarate aril is not incorrect then the slammer is not a moire. sent20: if there exists something such that that it is a hoe that is not a fusil is not correct the zirconium is not accordant. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 & sent13 -> int1: the peeper is a whack.; sent18 & sent2 -> int2: the peeper is respectful.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the peeper whacks and it is respectful.; int3 & sent1 -> int4: the zirconium does not exhilarate aril.; int4 & sent19 -> int5: the slammer is not a kind of a moire.; int5 & sent6 -> int6: that the slammer is a preemptor but it is not adducent does not hold.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that that it is a preemptor and it is not adducent is not right.; int7 & sent16 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__