the fact that the antiperspirant does not entrain is true.
sent1: that the cymbid does not entrain and it is not adjudicative is false. sent2: if the fact that something scouts meprobamate and does squinch thievishness does not hold then it is not a snicker. sent3: the webbing does predate cymbid and it squinches thievishness. sent4: that the cymbid does not entrain hold if that the antiperspirant libels and it is adjudicative is not false. sent5: if there exists something such that it does oxidise the cymbid does squinch thievishness and it is adjudicative. sent6: there exists something such that it does oxidise. sent7: the talipot is a kind of a Lycaenidae and is not a libel if the webbing does snicker. sent8: the octane is a kind of a Lycaenidae. sent9: the antiperspirant is spartan. sent10: if the cymbid does squinch thievishness and scouts meprobamate then the antiperspirant does not entrain. sent11: that the webbing does scout meprobamate is not wrong. sent12: the antiperspirant entrains if it is a kind of a snicker. sent13: the fact that the webbing is a snicker hold. sent14: if that something does not entrain and is not adjudicative is wrong then it entrain.
sent7 & sent13 -> int1: the talipot is a Lycaenidae but it is not a kind of a libel.; sent6 & sent5 -> int2: the cymbid does squinch thievishness and it is not non-adjudicative.; int2 -> int3: the cymbid squinches thievishness.;
the webbing is bloodless thing that is non-uterine.
sent2 -> int4: if that the talipot scouts meprobamate and squinches thievishness is incorrect it is not a snicker.; sent14 -> int5: the cymbid does entrain if that it does not entrain and is not adjudicative is false.; int5 & sent1 -> int6: the cymbid does entrain.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that it entrains.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the antiperspirant does not entrain is true. ; $context$ = sent1: that the cymbid does not entrain and it is not adjudicative is false. sent2: if the fact that something scouts meprobamate and does squinch thievishness does not hold then it is not a snicker. sent3: the webbing does predate cymbid and it squinches thievishness. sent4: that the cymbid does not entrain hold if that the antiperspirant libels and it is adjudicative is not false. sent5: if there exists something such that it does oxidise the cymbid does squinch thievishness and it is adjudicative. sent6: there exists something such that it does oxidise. sent7: the talipot is a kind of a Lycaenidae and is not a libel if the webbing does snicker. sent8: the octane is a kind of a Lycaenidae. sent9: the antiperspirant is spartan. sent10: if the cymbid does squinch thievishness and scouts meprobamate then the antiperspirant does not entrain. sent11: that the webbing does scout meprobamate is not wrong. sent12: the antiperspirant entrains if it is a kind of a snicker. sent13: the fact that the webbing is a snicker hold. sent14: if that something does not entrain and is not adjudicative is wrong then it entrain. ; $proof$ = 
sent7 & sent13 -> int1: the talipot is a Lycaenidae but it is not a kind of a libel.; sent6 & sent5 -> int2: the cymbid does squinch thievishness and it is not non-adjudicative.; int2 -> int3: the cymbid squinches thievishness.; __UNKNOWN__