the incompetent is a hub-and-spoke.
sent1: The woodiness rids bunny. sent2: something that is not specialistic is prelapsarian thing that is a kind of an itch. sent3: something does confabulate. sent4: something is not a kind of a hub-and-spoke if it does rid woodiness. sent5: the nit does slog hee-haw. sent6: that the fact that the drug is a Froebel and it is a Higi is true does not hold. sent7: if the fact that the drug does not book Bam or it is a kind of an astonishment or both is not correct then the bunny is not an astonishment. sent8: that the semiweekly is not a kind of a Higi and is not non-specialistic is not correct if the songbird is not non-specialistic. sent9: the bunny rids woodiness. sent10: that the songbird is a teaberry is not incorrect. sent11: the fact that the incompetent is a teaberry and it is a hub-and-spoke is incorrect if the nit rids woodiness. sent12: the Swift is prelapsarian and it is a kind of an astonishment. sent13: the incompetent is a kind of a hub-and-spoke if the semiweekly is not specialistic. sent14: the fact that something is both specialistic and not a Higi does not hold if it is not an astonishment. sent15: the fact that the drug is not a Froebel but it slogs hee-haw is false if the bunny rids woodiness. sent16: the songbird is not specialistic if the Swift is prelapsarian and it is an itch. sent17: that the nit is a kind of a teaberry is correct if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Froebel and does slog hee-haw is not true. sent18: the incompetent is a kind of a hub-and-spoke if that the semiweekly is not a Higi but it is specialistic is not true. sent19: the drug itches and it slogs hee-haw. sent20: the Swift itches if the nit is a teaberry. sent21: the drug does not suck if the nit does suck and it does propagandize. sent22: the nit sucks if there is something such that it does confabulate. sent23: if the Swift rids woodiness then the fact that the bunny is not an astonishment but an itch is incorrect. sent24: something rids woodiness or it is not a teaberry or both if it is an itch. sent25: the nit does propagandize. sent26: if something does not suck the fact that it does not book Bam and/or it is an astonishment is not true. sent27: if that the bunny is both specialistic and not a Higi is incorrect the incompetent is not specialistic.
sent15 & sent9 -> int1: that the drug is not a Froebel and slogs hee-haw does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Froebel and it slogs hee-haw is not right.; int2 & sent17 -> int3: the nit is a teaberry.; int3 & sent20 -> int4: the Swift itches.; sent12 -> int5: the Swift is prelapsarian.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the Swift is prelapsarian and it itches.; int6 & sent16 -> int7: the songbird is not specialistic.; int7 & sent8 -> int8: the fact that the semiweekly is not a kind of a Higi and is specialistic is not correct.; int8 & sent18 -> hypothesis;
the incompetent is not a kind of a hub-and-spoke.
sent24 -> int9: the incompetent does rid woodiness or is not a teaberry or both if it is a kind of an itch.; sent2 -> int10: the incompetent is prelapsarian and is an itch if it is not specialistic.; sent14 -> int11: if the bunny is not an astonishment that it is specialistic and it is not a kind of a Higi is not right.; sent26 -> int12: the fact that either the drug does not book Bam or it is a kind of an astonishment or both is not true if the fact that it does not suck hold.; sent3 & sent22 -> int13: that the nit sucks hold.; int13 & sent25 -> int14: the nit does suck and does propagandize.; sent21 & int14 -> int15: the drug does not suck.; int12 & int15 -> int16: that the drug does not book Bam or it is an astonishment or both is incorrect.; sent7 & int16 -> int17: that the bunny is not an astonishment is not incorrect.; int11 & int17 -> int18: that the bunny is specialistic but not a Higi is not correct.; sent27 & int18 -> int19: the incompetent is not specialistic.; int10 & int19 -> int20: the incompetent is prelapsarian and an itch.; int20 -> int21: the incompetent itches.; int9 & int21 -> int22: the incompetent rids woodiness or it is not a teaberry or both.; sent4 -> int23: if the incompetent does rid woodiness it is not a hub-and-spoke.;
$hypothesis$ = the incompetent is a hub-and-spoke. ; $context$ = sent1: The woodiness rids bunny. sent2: something that is not specialistic is prelapsarian thing that is a kind of an itch. sent3: something does confabulate. sent4: something is not a kind of a hub-and-spoke if it does rid woodiness. sent5: the nit does slog hee-haw. sent6: that the fact that the drug is a Froebel and it is a Higi is true does not hold. sent7: if the fact that the drug does not book Bam or it is a kind of an astonishment or both is not correct then the bunny is not an astonishment. sent8: that the semiweekly is not a kind of a Higi and is not non-specialistic is not correct if the songbird is not non-specialistic. sent9: the bunny rids woodiness. sent10: that the songbird is a teaberry is not incorrect. sent11: the fact that the incompetent is a teaberry and it is a hub-and-spoke is incorrect if the nit rids woodiness. sent12: the Swift is prelapsarian and it is a kind of an astonishment. sent13: the incompetent is a kind of a hub-and-spoke if the semiweekly is not specialistic. sent14: the fact that something is both specialistic and not a Higi does not hold if it is not an astonishment. sent15: the fact that the drug is not a Froebel but it slogs hee-haw is false if the bunny rids woodiness. sent16: the songbird is not specialistic if the Swift is prelapsarian and it is an itch. sent17: that the nit is a kind of a teaberry is correct if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Froebel and does slog hee-haw is not true. sent18: the incompetent is a kind of a hub-and-spoke if that the semiweekly is not a Higi but it is specialistic is not true. sent19: the drug itches and it slogs hee-haw. sent20: the Swift itches if the nit is a teaberry. sent21: the drug does not suck if the nit does suck and it does propagandize. sent22: the nit sucks if there is something such that it does confabulate. sent23: if the Swift rids woodiness then the fact that the bunny is not an astonishment but an itch is incorrect. sent24: something rids woodiness or it is not a teaberry or both if it is an itch. sent25: the nit does propagandize. sent26: if something does not suck the fact that it does not book Bam and/or it is an astonishment is not true. sent27: if that the bunny is both specialistic and not a Higi is incorrect the incompetent is not specialistic. ; $proof$ = 
sent15 & sent9 -> int1: that the drug is not a Froebel and slogs hee-haw does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Froebel and it slogs hee-haw is not right.; int2 & sent17 -> int3: the nit is a teaberry.; int3 & sent20 -> int4: the Swift itches.; sent12 -> int5: the Swift is prelapsarian.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the Swift is prelapsarian and it itches.; int6 & sent16 -> int7: the songbird is not specialistic.; int7 & sent8 -> int8: the fact that the semiweekly is not a kind of a Higi and is specialistic is not correct.; int8 & sent18 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__