the demulcent does redeem and/or miscounts.
sent1: the demulcent is a toad-in-the-hole and/or redeems. sent2: the demulcent is a kind of a miscount and/or it is a toad-in-the-hole. sent3: if the plodder does not redeem that the demulcent is a toad-in-the-hole is right. sent4: that the demulcent is mousy and/or it redeems is right. sent5: the fact that the demulcent is mousy is not false if that the plodder does not redeem and does miscount does not hold. sent6: if the demulcent is not a toad-in-the-hole then the plodder is a miscount. sent7: the Kolam redeems. sent8: if the fact that the plodder is not a toad-in-the-hole and is mousy is false then the fact that the demulcent redeems hold. sent9: that the demulcent is a kind of a miscount if that the plodder does not redeem and is mousy is not true is not wrong. sent10: if the demulcent is not mousy that the plodder is a toad-in-the-hole is correct. sent11: the plodder does redeem if the fact that the demulcent is not a toad-in-the-hole is not wrong. sent12: the fact that the plodder is not a toad-in-the-hole but it is mousy is false. sent13: the plodder is a mouth but it is not a kind of a blue. sent14: the demulcent is a capriccio. sent15: the nonresident does redeem. sent16: the demulcent is a toad-in-the-hole if the plodder is not mousy. sent17: the demulcent is mousy. sent18: if something that is a kind of a mouth is not a blue it is not allopathic. sent19: if the fact that the demulcent does not miscount but it is a toad-in-the-hole is wrong the plodder is mousy. sent20: the fact that the plodder is not mousy but it is a arboriculture is not correct.
sent8 & sent12 -> int1: the demulcent redeems.; int1 -> hypothesis;
the demulcent is a toad-in-the-hole.
sent18 -> int2: the plodder is not allopathic if it is a mouth that is not a blue.; int2 & sent13 -> int3: the plodder is not allopathic.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that that it is not allopathic is right.;
$hypothesis$ = the demulcent does redeem and/or miscounts. ; $context$ = sent1: the demulcent is a toad-in-the-hole and/or redeems. sent2: the demulcent is a kind of a miscount and/or it is a toad-in-the-hole. sent3: if the plodder does not redeem that the demulcent is a toad-in-the-hole is right. sent4: that the demulcent is mousy and/or it redeems is right. sent5: the fact that the demulcent is mousy is not false if that the plodder does not redeem and does miscount does not hold. sent6: if the demulcent is not a toad-in-the-hole then the plodder is a miscount. sent7: the Kolam redeems. sent8: if the fact that the plodder is not a toad-in-the-hole and is mousy is false then the fact that the demulcent redeems hold. sent9: that the demulcent is a kind of a miscount if that the plodder does not redeem and is mousy is not true is not wrong. sent10: if the demulcent is not mousy that the plodder is a toad-in-the-hole is correct. sent11: the plodder does redeem if the fact that the demulcent is not a toad-in-the-hole is not wrong. sent12: the fact that the plodder is not a toad-in-the-hole but it is mousy is false. sent13: the plodder is a mouth but it is not a kind of a blue. sent14: the demulcent is a capriccio. sent15: the nonresident does redeem. sent16: the demulcent is a toad-in-the-hole if the plodder is not mousy. sent17: the demulcent is mousy. sent18: if something that is a kind of a mouth is not a blue it is not allopathic. sent19: if the fact that the demulcent does not miscount but it is a toad-in-the-hole is wrong the plodder is mousy. sent20: the fact that the plodder is not mousy but it is a arboriculture is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent8 & sent12 -> int1: the demulcent redeems.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__