the Croesus is not unactable and it does not pry.
sent1: the idler crooks. sent2: if something is not benevolent then that it is not unactable and it does not pry is not right. sent3: the fact that the Croesus pries but it is not a kind of a squelch is not correct. sent4: that the bordelaise is not benevolent is right. sent5: if something is not a revenant but it does syllogize Croesus then it is benevolent. sent6: the Croesus is not unactable if there is something such that that it is not a revenant and it syllogizes Croesus is wrong. sent7: the fact that the bordelaise is revenant and does syllogize Croesus is not correct. sent8: if the fact that something is a revenant and does not measure placer does not hold then it is not revenant. sent9: the bordelaise is not a Lens and does not theme microgametophyte.
sent5 -> int1: that the bordelaise is benevolent if the bordelaise is not a revenant and does syllogize Croesus is correct.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bordelaise is not a revenant but it syllogizes Croesus.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the bordelaise is benevolent.; int2 & sent4 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the bordelaise is not a revenant but it does syllogize Croesus is wrong.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that the fact that it is non-revenant thing that syllogizes Croesus is wrong.; int5 & sent6 -> int6: the Croesus is not unactable.;
if the fact that the sir is revenant thing that does not measure placer does not hold it is not revenant.
sent8 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the Croesus is not unactable and it does not pry. ; $context$ = sent1: the idler crooks. sent2: if something is not benevolent then that it is not unactable and it does not pry is not right. sent3: the fact that the Croesus pries but it is not a kind of a squelch is not correct. sent4: that the bordelaise is not benevolent is right. sent5: if something is not a revenant but it does syllogize Croesus then it is benevolent. sent6: the Croesus is not unactable if there is something such that that it is not a revenant and it syllogizes Croesus is wrong. sent7: the fact that the bordelaise is revenant and does syllogize Croesus is not correct. sent8: if the fact that something is a revenant and does not measure placer does not hold then it is not revenant. sent9: the bordelaise is not a Lens and does not theme microgametophyte. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 -> int1: that the bordelaise is benevolent if the bordelaise is not a revenant and does syllogize Croesus is correct.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bordelaise is not a revenant but it syllogizes Croesus.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the bordelaise is benevolent.; int2 & sent4 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the bordelaise is not a revenant but it does syllogize Croesus is wrong.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that the fact that it is non-revenant thing that syllogizes Croesus is wrong.; int5 & sent6 -> int6: the Croesus is not unactable.; __UNKNOWN__