the schlock does cachinnate if the cayenne is a follow-on.
sent1: if the ageratum is unable then that the locomotive does spurt tractability is correct. sent2: the cayenne is not a follow-on if the fact that that the poplar is a priming but not possessive is not correct is not false. sent3: the Clydesdale is leafless if the fact that the locomotive does spurt tractability hold. sent4: if the ageratum is not unable then that the fact that the poplar does prime but it is not possessive hold is wrong. sent5: the fact that the poplar is both priming and possessive does not hold if the ageratum is not unable. sent6: if the schlock is not leafy the Clydesdale does cachinnate. sent7: if that the poplar is a kind of a priming and is not possessive is not correct the cayenne is a follow-on.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cayenne is a follow-on.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the ageratum is not unable.; sent4 & assump2 -> int1: the fact that the poplar is a priming that is not possessive is not right.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the cayenne is not a follow-on hold.; assump1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the ageratum is not able.; sent1 & int4 -> int5: the locomotive does spurt tractability.; sent3 & int5 -> int6: the Clydesdale is not leafy.;
$hypothesis$ = the schlock does cachinnate if the cayenne is a follow-on. ; $context$ = sent1: if the ageratum is unable then that the locomotive does spurt tractability is correct. sent2: the cayenne is not a follow-on if the fact that that the poplar is a priming but not possessive is not correct is not false. sent3: the Clydesdale is leafless if the fact that the locomotive does spurt tractability hold. sent4: if the ageratum is not unable then that the fact that the poplar does prime but it is not possessive hold is wrong. sent5: the fact that the poplar is both priming and possessive does not hold if the ageratum is not unable. sent6: if the schlock is not leafy the Clydesdale does cachinnate. sent7: if that the poplar is a kind of a priming and is not possessive is not correct the cayenne is a follow-on. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cayenne is a follow-on.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the ageratum is not unable.; sent4 & assump2 -> int1: the fact that the poplar is a priming that is not possessive is not right.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the cayenne is not a follow-on hold.; assump1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the ageratum is not able.; sent1 & int4 -> int5: the locomotive does spurt tractability.; sent3 & int5 -> int6: the Clydesdale is not leafy.; __UNKNOWN__