the pistachio is non-papillary thing that is a phrenology.
sent1: if the pistachio is a kith then it is not papillary. sent2: that the explosive does not bedizen filler but it is unexcitable is wrong if it does fit agronomy. sent3: the explosive does not bedizen filler and is a kind of a phrenology. sent4: there exists something such that it is a kith that is a phrenology. sent5: The agronomy fits explosive. sent6: That the ascolichen does not contort explosive is not correct. sent7: something is a twofer if that it does not bedizen filler and it is unexcitable is wrong. sent8: there is something such that it contorts ascolichen. sent9: that the explosive does not contort ascolichen is not correct. sent10: if something does contort ascolichen then it is a kind of a diuretic. sent11: the explosive fits agronomy. sent12: the fact that the pistachio is a kith is true. sent13: if something is a twofer and is a diuretic the fact that the pistachio is a phrenology is right. sent14: the explosive is papillary.
sent7 -> int1: the explosive is a kind of a twofer if that it does not bedizen filler and it is unexcitable is not correct.; sent2 & sent11 -> int2: that the explosive does not bedizen filler but it is unexcitable is not true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the explosive is a twofer.; sent10 -> int4: if the explosive contorts ascolichen then it is a diuretic.; int4 & sent9 -> int5: the explosive is a diuretic.; int3 & int5 -> int6: the explosive is a twofer that is a diuretic.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that it is a twofer and a diuretic.; int7 & sent13 -> int8: the pistachio is a kind of a phrenology.; sent1 & sent12 -> int9: the pistachio is not papillary.; int8 & int9 -> hypothesis;
that that the filler is not a croissant but it is a kind of a twofer is true is incorrect.
$hypothesis$ = the pistachio is non-papillary thing that is a phrenology. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pistachio is a kith then it is not papillary. sent2: that the explosive does not bedizen filler but it is unexcitable is wrong if it does fit agronomy. sent3: the explosive does not bedizen filler and is a kind of a phrenology. sent4: there exists something such that it is a kith that is a phrenology. sent5: The agronomy fits explosive. sent6: That the ascolichen does not contort explosive is not correct. sent7: something is a twofer if that it does not bedizen filler and it is unexcitable is wrong. sent8: there is something such that it contorts ascolichen. sent9: that the explosive does not contort ascolichen is not correct. sent10: if something does contort ascolichen then it is a kind of a diuretic. sent11: the explosive fits agronomy. sent12: the fact that the pistachio is a kith is true. sent13: if something is a twofer and is a diuretic the fact that the pistachio is a phrenology is right. sent14: the explosive is papillary. ; $proof$ = 
sent7 -> int1: the explosive is a kind of a twofer if that it does not bedizen filler and it is unexcitable is not correct.; sent2 & sent11 -> int2: that the explosive does not bedizen filler but it is unexcitable is not true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the explosive is a twofer.; sent10 -> int4: if the explosive contorts ascolichen then it is a diuretic.; int4 & sent9 -> int5: the explosive is a diuretic.; int3 & int5 -> int6: the explosive is a twofer that is a diuretic.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that it is a twofer and a diuretic.; int7 & sent13 -> int8: the pistachio is a kind of a phrenology.; sent1 & sent12 -> int9: the pistachio is not papillary.; int8 & int9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__