if the attack is flinty then it is a pellitory.
sent1: that that the attack is not distrustful but it is a journalism does not hold is not false. sent2: the scyphus is not a journalism. sent3: the fact that the talent adolesces and is a kind of a pellitory is not correct. sent4: something is a pellitory if it does not subtilize Kattegatt and is flinty. sent5: if the table is flinty then the fact that it is not a workmate but an intermediate does not hold. sent6: something is not a beads if that it does not subtilize collocation and is moonless is incorrect. sent7: the fact that something is non-distrustful thing that is neurological is not right if it is Lusitanian. sent8: something does not subtilize Kattegatt if that it is not distrustful and it is neurological is false. sent9: if an irrevocable thing is a quadrivium then it is a kind of a workmate. sent10: the scyphus is neurological if something is not flinty but it is a canopy. sent11: something that does not subtilize chordate and is a rig does ford. sent12: if something that does not subtilize impetigo does festoon Wavell then it beads. sent13: if something is Lusitanian then the fact that it is distrustful thing that is neurological is incorrect. sent14: if something does not subtilize scyphus and is a areola then it is parametric. sent15: that the scyphus is flinty is not incorrect. sent16: the scyphus is non-neurological. sent17: the scyphus is corneal. sent18: everything is not a journalism. sent19: everything is not a kind of a journalism and it is a canopy. sent20: the attack is Lusitanian if there is something such that it is not a kind of a journalism and it is a canopy. sent21: if something does not festoon Ipsus but it is a wingspread then it festoons talent. sent22: that the scyphus is not tamed but it is a kind of a parlay is not correct. sent23: if the attack does festoon table it is not non-flinty.
sent19 -> int1: the scyphus is not a kind of a journalism but it does canopy.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it is both not a journalism and a canopy.; int2 & sent20 -> int3: that the attack is Lusitanian is not incorrect.; sent7 -> int4: if the attack is Lusitanian then the fact that it is not distrustful and it is neurological does not hold.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the attack is both not distrustful and neurological does not hold.; sent8 -> int6: the attack does not subtilize Kattegatt if the fact that it is a kind of non-distrustful thing that is neurological does not hold.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the attack does not subtilize Kattegatt.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the attack is flinty.; int7 & assump1 -> int8: the attack does not subtilize Kattegatt and is flinty.; sent4 -> int9: the attack is a kind of a pellitory if it does not subtilize Kattegatt and it is flinty.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the attack is a pellitory.; [assump1] & int10 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = if the attack is flinty then it is a pellitory. ; $context$ = sent1: that that the attack is not distrustful but it is a journalism does not hold is not false. sent2: the scyphus is not a journalism. sent3: the fact that the talent adolesces and is a kind of a pellitory is not correct. sent4: something is a pellitory if it does not subtilize Kattegatt and is flinty. sent5: if the table is flinty then the fact that it is not a workmate but an intermediate does not hold. sent6: something is not a beads if that it does not subtilize collocation and is moonless is incorrect. sent7: the fact that something is non-distrustful thing that is neurological is not right if it is Lusitanian. sent8: something does not subtilize Kattegatt if that it is not distrustful and it is neurological is false. sent9: if an irrevocable thing is a quadrivium then it is a kind of a workmate. sent10: the scyphus is neurological if something is not flinty but it is a canopy. sent11: something that does not subtilize chordate and is a rig does ford. sent12: if something that does not subtilize impetigo does festoon Wavell then it beads. sent13: if something is Lusitanian then the fact that it is distrustful thing that is neurological is incorrect. sent14: if something does not subtilize scyphus and is a areola then it is parametric. sent15: that the scyphus is flinty is not incorrect. sent16: the scyphus is non-neurological. sent17: the scyphus is corneal. sent18: everything is not a journalism. sent19: everything is not a kind of a journalism and it is a canopy. sent20: the attack is Lusitanian if there is something such that it is not a kind of a journalism and it is a canopy. sent21: if something does not festoon Ipsus but it is a wingspread then it festoons talent. sent22: that the scyphus is not tamed but it is a kind of a parlay is not correct. sent23: if the attack does festoon table it is not non-flinty. ; $proof$ = 
sent19 -> int1: the scyphus is not a kind of a journalism but it does canopy.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it is both not a journalism and a canopy.; int2 & sent20 -> int3: that the attack is Lusitanian is not incorrect.; sent7 -> int4: if the attack is Lusitanian then the fact that it is not distrustful and it is neurological does not hold.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the attack is both not distrustful and neurological does not hold.; sent8 -> int6: the attack does not subtilize Kattegatt if the fact that it is a kind of non-distrustful thing that is neurological does not hold.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the attack does not subtilize Kattegatt.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the attack is flinty.; int7 & assump1 -> int8: the attack does not subtilize Kattegatt and is flinty.; sent4 -> int9: the attack is a kind of a pellitory if it does not subtilize Kattegatt and it is flinty.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the attack is a pellitory.; [assump1] & int10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__