the tammy is a refractoriness.
sent1: the tammy dissents individuality. sent2: the lipoprotein socks. sent3: the ackee is a luxuriation if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Riemann and it is not a harvester is wrong. sent4: the tammy is calisthenics thing that does not dissent Podargidae if the adit does dissent ackee. sent5: the adit dissents individuality. sent6: that the lipoprotein is a Riemann but it is not a harvester is wrong if it does process reformatory. sent7: the tammy dissents individuality but it is not a kind of a barycenter if the adit ventilates. sent8: if the lipoprotein is a kind of a sock then it processes reformatory and does not process constructivist. sent9: the adit ventilates and/or it is not calisthenics if something does not dissent Podargidae. sent10: if the tammy is a barycenter the adit dissents individuality but it is not a refractoriness. sent11: something does not dissent Podargidae if the fact that it does not symbolize and it does not dissent ackee does not hold. sent12: the quick ventilates. sent13: if the adit does ventilate the tammy dissents individuality. sent14: if the tammy ventilates then the adit is not a refractoriness. sent15: if something is calisthenics it is not a refractoriness and ventilates. sent16: the tammy does ventilate. sent17: the adit does ventilate. sent18: something that dissents individuality and is not a barycenter is a kind of a refractoriness. sent19: that the fellow does not symbolize and does not dissent ackee is false if the ackee is a luxuriation.
sent18 -> int1: the fact that the tammy is a refractoriness is not wrong if the fact that it dissents individuality and is not a kind of a barycenter is not incorrect.; sent7 & sent17 -> int2: the tammy dissents individuality and is not a barycenter.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;
the tammy is not a refractoriness.
sent15 -> int3: the tammy is not a refractoriness but it does ventilate if it is calisthenics.;
$hypothesis$ = the tammy is a refractoriness. ; $context$ = sent1: the tammy dissents individuality. sent2: the lipoprotein socks. sent3: the ackee is a luxuriation if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Riemann and it is not a harvester is wrong. sent4: the tammy is calisthenics thing that does not dissent Podargidae if the adit does dissent ackee. sent5: the adit dissents individuality. sent6: that the lipoprotein is a Riemann but it is not a harvester is wrong if it does process reformatory. sent7: the tammy dissents individuality but it is not a kind of a barycenter if the adit ventilates. sent8: if the lipoprotein is a kind of a sock then it processes reformatory and does not process constructivist. sent9: the adit ventilates and/or it is not calisthenics if something does not dissent Podargidae. sent10: if the tammy is a barycenter the adit dissents individuality but it is not a refractoriness. sent11: something does not dissent Podargidae if the fact that it does not symbolize and it does not dissent ackee does not hold. sent12: the quick ventilates. sent13: if the adit does ventilate the tammy dissents individuality. sent14: if the tammy ventilates then the adit is not a refractoriness. sent15: if something is calisthenics it is not a refractoriness and ventilates. sent16: the tammy does ventilate. sent17: the adit does ventilate. sent18: something that dissents individuality and is not a barycenter is a kind of a refractoriness. sent19: that the fellow does not symbolize and does not dissent ackee is false if the ackee is a luxuriation. ; $proof$ = 
sent18 -> int1: the fact that the tammy is a refractoriness is not wrong if the fact that it dissents individuality and is not a kind of a barycenter is not incorrect.; sent7 & sent17 -> int2: the tammy dissents individuality and is not a barycenter.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__