that the stowaway is both rhinal and a rabbiteye is incorrect.
sent1: if something is not a Semite then that it is rhinal and it is a kind of a rabbiteye is not true. sent2: the maestro is a kind of a Semite and it fractures insightfulness if there is something such that the fact that it is noneffervescent hold. sent3: there exists something such that it is either not a deco or not eared or both. sent4: if the fact that the stowaway does not service ether and does not fracture insightfulness is wrong it does not service stowaway. sent5: the fact that the fact that the graphologist does service eloquence and is rhinal is incorrect if the graphologist is not a kind of a muchness is right. sent6: the Galilean is noneffervescent and is not noticeable if that the celebrant does reface capiz hold. sent7: that the stowaway is not a Semite hold if the fact that it is non-noneffervescent thing that does not fracture insightfulness is wrong. sent8: the celebrant is not taciturn if either something is not a kind of a deco or it is earless or both. sent9: the stowaway is not a kind of a colored. sent10: that the stowaway is sparkling thing that fractures insightfulness is wrong. sent11: that the stowaway is not effervescent but it does not fracture insightfulness is incorrect. sent12: if the celebrant is not taciturn then it does reface capiz and it is carpellate. sent13: that the stowaway is not noneffervescent and does not fracture insightfulness does not hold.
sent1 -> int1: the fact that the stowaway is rhinal and it is a kind of a rabbiteye is not right if it is not Semite.; sent7 & sent13 -> int2: the stowaway is not a Semite.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the cosmologist does not fracture tamarack and is not Tahitian does not hold.
sent3 & sent8 -> int3: the fact that the celebrant is not taciturn hold.; sent12 & int3 -> int4: the celebrant refaces capiz and it is carpellate.; int4 -> int5: the celebrant refaces capiz.; sent6 & int5 -> int6: the Galilean is noneffervescent but not noticeable.; int6 -> int7: the Galilean is noneffervescent.; int7 -> int8: something is noneffervescent.; int8 & sent2 -> int9: that the maestro is a kind of a Semite and it fractures insightfulness is true.; int9 -> int10: the maestro is a kind of a Semite.; int10 -> int11: there is something such that it is a kind of a Semite.;
$hypothesis$ = that the stowaway is both rhinal and a rabbiteye is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a Semite then that it is rhinal and it is a kind of a rabbiteye is not true. sent2: the maestro is a kind of a Semite and it fractures insightfulness if there is something such that the fact that it is noneffervescent hold. sent3: there exists something such that it is either not a deco or not eared or both. sent4: if the fact that the stowaway does not service ether and does not fracture insightfulness is wrong it does not service stowaway. sent5: the fact that the fact that the graphologist does service eloquence and is rhinal is incorrect if the graphologist is not a kind of a muchness is right. sent6: the Galilean is noneffervescent and is not noticeable if that the celebrant does reface capiz hold. sent7: that the stowaway is not a Semite hold if the fact that it is non-noneffervescent thing that does not fracture insightfulness is wrong. sent8: the celebrant is not taciturn if either something is not a kind of a deco or it is earless or both. sent9: the stowaway is not a kind of a colored. sent10: that the stowaway is sparkling thing that fractures insightfulness is wrong. sent11: that the stowaway is not effervescent but it does not fracture insightfulness is incorrect. sent12: if the celebrant is not taciturn then it does reface capiz and it is carpellate. sent13: that the stowaway is not noneffervescent and does not fracture insightfulness does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 -> int1: the fact that the stowaway is rhinal and it is a kind of a rabbiteye is not right if it is not Semite.; sent7 & sent13 -> int2: the stowaway is not a Semite.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__