the fact that the massif does clap progress or it is a kind of a petal or both does not hold.
sent1: if the massif does concord it is not a kind of a armet. sent2: if the massif is not a armet then it does not clap progress. sent3: the massif is not a armet if it is a kind of a neopallium and/or it does concord. sent4: the fact that the murderee is a backsaw and/or does equate is right if it is not a kind of a pogonion. sent5: the fact that either the massif claps progress or it is a petal or both is wrong if it is not a kind of a armet. sent6: if the Venushair is not a pogonion then the murderee is not a pogonion. sent7: the massif is a neopallium. sent8: the massif does not clap progress. sent9: if the murderee equates then the pruner is a kernicterus. sent10: if the Chechen is not a kind of a armet the fact that it is not a kind of a neopallium and it concords is incorrect. sent11: the pruner is a kernicterus if the murderee is a kind of a backsaw. sent12: the Venushair is not a kind of a pogonion. sent13: the westerly concords. sent14: if something is a kernicterus the fact that the Kahlua is a coelogyne and non-pectineal is false. sent15: the Chechen is not a armet if the fact that the seaplane is both not a armet and interstitial is not true. sent16: if something is pectineal that it is not a armet and is interstitial is not correct.
sent7 -> int1: the massif is a kind of a neopallium or it concords or both.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the massif is not a armet.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis;
the massif does clap progress and/or it is a petal.
sent16 -> int3: the fact that the seaplane is not a kind of a armet and is interstitial is incorrect if it is pectineal.; sent6 & sent12 -> int4: the murderee is not a kind of a pogonion.; sent4 & int4 -> int5: the murderee is a backsaw or it equates or both.; int5 & sent11 & sent9 -> int6: the pruner is a kernicterus.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a kernicterus is not wrong.; int7 & sent14 -> int8: that the Kahlua is a coelogyne that is not pectineal is wrong.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that that it is a coelogyne and non-pectineal is not true.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the massif does clap progress or it is a kind of a petal or both does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the massif does concord it is not a kind of a armet. sent2: if the massif is not a armet then it does not clap progress. sent3: the massif is not a armet if it is a kind of a neopallium and/or it does concord. sent4: the fact that the murderee is a backsaw and/or does equate is right if it is not a kind of a pogonion. sent5: the fact that either the massif claps progress or it is a petal or both is wrong if it is not a kind of a armet. sent6: if the Venushair is not a pogonion then the murderee is not a pogonion. sent7: the massif is a neopallium. sent8: the massif does not clap progress. sent9: if the murderee equates then the pruner is a kernicterus. sent10: if the Chechen is not a kind of a armet the fact that it is not a kind of a neopallium and it concords is incorrect. sent11: the pruner is a kernicterus if the murderee is a kind of a backsaw. sent12: the Venushair is not a kind of a pogonion. sent13: the westerly concords. sent14: if something is a kernicterus the fact that the Kahlua is a coelogyne and non-pectineal is false. sent15: the Chechen is not a armet if the fact that the seaplane is both not a armet and interstitial is not true. sent16: if something is pectineal that it is not a armet and is interstitial is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent7 -> int1: the massif is a kind of a neopallium or it concords or both.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the massif is not a armet.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__