the megatherian is a nonsense and it reopens Trafalgar.
sent1: if that something is a wear but it is not alimentative is not correct then it does not expense lilac. sent2: the lilac is not a nonsense. sent3: if the megatherian is a wear it does reopen Trafalgar. sent4: there exists something such that it is not a controversy. sent5: the megatherian is a nonsense if the bluebonnet is a nonsense. sent6: the lilac is alimentative. sent7: if something is alimentative then the fact that it is a kind of a wear is true. sent8: if the custodian does not reopen megatherian then the fact that the megatherian is a wear that is not alimentative is not right. sent9: if the bluebonnet is a nonsense then the fact that it does reopen Trafalgar hold. sent10: the megatherian is a bareboat if the lilac does not expense lilac. sent11: the megatherian reopens megatherian if the custodian does not wear. sent12: if there exists something such that it concerns huddled and it is not a bareboat the custodian does not expense lilac. sent13: if the accommodation is not a solicitor then the custodian is subsurface and it does expense masterstroke. sent14: something does concern huddled and is not a bareboat. sent15: the bluebonnet is a kind of a nonsense. sent16: if the custodian does not expense lilac and wears then the accommodation is not alimentative. sent17: the accommodation does not shampoo lilac. sent18: something is not a valence. sent19: if something reopens megatherian then the fact that it does reopen Trafalgar hold. sent20: the lilac does not expense lilac. sent21: if something expenses masterstroke and/or it is alimentative that the accommodation is alimentative is correct. sent22: that something is a kind of a nonsense and it reopens Trafalgar is not right if it does not expense lilac. sent23: something that does expense masterstroke is diligent thing that does not reopen megatherian. sent24: if the bluebonnet does not expense lilac but it is a wear then the fact that the custodian is not a nonsense hold. sent25: the megatherian does concern huddled. sent26: the fact that the custodian is apiarian hold.
sent14 & sent12 -> int1: the custodian does not expense lilac.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the custodian is a wear.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the custodian does not expense lilac and is a kind of a wear.; int2 & sent16 -> int3: that the accommodation is not alimentative is not incorrect.; sent6 -> int4: the lilac expenses masterstroke or is alimentative or both.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that it expenses masterstroke or it is not non-alimentative or both.; int5 & sent21 -> int6: the accommodation is alimentative.; int3 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the custodian does not wear.; int8 & sent11 -> int9: the megatherian does reopen megatherian.; sent19 -> int10: the megatherian does reopen Trafalgar if it does reopen megatherian.; int9 & int10 -> int11: the megatherian reopens Trafalgar.; sent5 & sent15 -> int12: that the megatherian is not a nonsense is not correct.; int11 & int12 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the megatherian is a kind of a nonsense and does reopen Trafalgar is wrong.
sent22 -> int13: the fact that the megatherian is a kind of a nonsense that does reopen Trafalgar is not true if it does not expense lilac.; sent1 -> int14: if that the megatherian is a kind of a wear that is not alimentative is wrong then it does not expense lilac.; sent23 -> int15: the custodian is diligent but it does not reopen megatherian if it expenses masterstroke.;
$hypothesis$ = the megatherian is a nonsense and it reopens Trafalgar. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is a wear but it is not alimentative is not correct then it does not expense lilac. sent2: the lilac is not a nonsense. sent3: if the megatherian is a wear it does reopen Trafalgar. sent4: there exists something such that it is not a controversy. sent5: the megatherian is a nonsense if the bluebonnet is a nonsense. sent6: the lilac is alimentative. sent7: if something is alimentative then the fact that it is a kind of a wear is true. sent8: if the custodian does not reopen megatherian then the fact that the megatherian is a wear that is not alimentative is not right. sent9: if the bluebonnet is a nonsense then the fact that it does reopen Trafalgar hold. sent10: the megatherian is a bareboat if the lilac does not expense lilac. sent11: the megatherian reopens megatherian if the custodian does not wear. sent12: if there exists something such that it concerns huddled and it is not a bareboat the custodian does not expense lilac. sent13: if the accommodation is not a solicitor then the custodian is subsurface and it does expense masterstroke. sent14: something does concern huddled and is not a bareboat. sent15: the bluebonnet is a kind of a nonsense. sent16: if the custodian does not expense lilac and wears then the accommodation is not alimentative. sent17: the accommodation does not shampoo lilac. sent18: something is not a valence. sent19: if something reopens megatherian then the fact that it does reopen Trafalgar hold. sent20: the lilac does not expense lilac. sent21: if something expenses masterstroke and/or it is alimentative that the accommodation is alimentative is correct. sent22: that something is a kind of a nonsense and it reopens Trafalgar is not right if it does not expense lilac. sent23: something that does expense masterstroke is diligent thing that does not reopen megatherian. sent24: if the bluebonnet does not expense lilac but it is a wear then the fact that the custodian is not a nonsense hold. sent25: the megatherian does concern huddled. sent26: the fact that the custodian is apiarian hold. ; $proof$ = 
sent14 & sent12 -> int1: the custodian does not expense lilac.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the custodian is a wear.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the custodian does not expense lilac and is a kind of a wear.; int2 & sent16 -> int3: that the accommodation is not alimentative is not incorrect.; sent6 -> int4: the lilac expenses masterstroke or is alimentative or both.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that it expenses masterstroke or it is not non-alimentative or both.; int5 & sent21 -> int6: the accommodation is alimentative.; int3 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the custodian does not wear.; int8 & sent11 -> int9: the megatherian does reopen megatherian.; sent19 -> int10: the megatherian does reopen Trafalgar if it does reopen megatherian.; int9 & int10 -> int11: the megatherian reopens Trafalgar.; sent5 & sent15 -> int12: that the megatherian is not a nonsense is not correct.; int11 & int12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__