that the rejection is osmotic if the diamagnet is not a kind of a teddy is not wrong.
sent1: the sabbatia does ensconce habituation. sent2: the arrack reclines State and is not a kind of a superhet. sent3: the fact that the diamagnet does recline spud and is a self is not right. sent4: if the negotiatress is not a skyhook and it is not a inscrutability that the rima is not semiautobiographical hold. sent5: if something is not a kind of a teddy the fact that it is not a wonton and it is a superhet is wrong. sent6: that the rima is a self that is osmotic does not hold. sent7: if that something is osmotic is right it is not a kind of a skyhook and is not a inscrutability. sent8: that the rejection is osmotic is not incorrect if the rima is a skyhook and not a inscrutability. sent9: the rima is self. sent10: the fact that the tower is not semiautobiographical hold if the fact that that the diamagnet is both not a wonton and a superhet is wrong hold. sent11: the rima is not a kind of a inscrutability if the tower is not semiautobiographical. sent12: the rima is a teddy if that it is not a teddy and not a inscrutability is false. sent13: everything does wire Samarkand and it is a tapper. sent14: the fact that the tower is a kind of a wonton and it is a kind of a teddy is not true if something is not semiautobiographical. sent15: everything is a self. sent16: the fact that the tower is not semiautobiographical if the diamagnet is not a superhet is right. sent17: the tower is a inscrutability. sent18: the negotiatress is osmotic if something that is not a Sarcochilus is not self. sent19: the fact that the rima is a wonton is correct. sent20: if there is something such that the fact that it is a wonton and a teddy does not hold then the rejection is not a kind of a wonton. sent21: the tower is not osmotic. sent22: that something is not a wonton and is osmotic is false if it is not a kind of a skyhook. sent23: something that does cohere is not a Sarcochilus and not a self. sent24: something is wearable but it is not semiautobiographical if it is a kind of a teddy. sent25: everything is both self and a skyhook.
sent5 -> int1: if the fact that the diamagnet is not a kind of a teddy hold then that it is not a kind of a wonton and it is a superhet is not true.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the diamagnet is not a teddy.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the fact that the diamagnet is not a wonton but it is a superhet does not hold.; int2 & sent10 -> int3: the tower is non-semiautobiographical.; int3 & sent11 -> int4: the rima is not a inscrutability.; sent25 -> int5: the rima is self a skyhook.; int5 -> int6: the rima is a skyhook.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the rima is a skyhook that is not a kind of a inscrutability.; int7 & sent8 -> int8: the rejection is osmotic.; [assump1] & int8 -> hypothesis;
the rejection is not a wonton.
sent23 -> int9: if the fact that the elasmobranch does cohere is right it is not a kind of a Sarcochilus and is not a self.; sent7 -> int10: the negotiatress is not a kind of a skyhook and it is not a inscrutability if it is osmotic.;
$hypothesis$ = that the rejection is osmotic if the diamagnet is not a kind of a teddy is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the sabbatia does ensconce habituation. sent2: the arrack reclines State and is not a kind of a superhet. sent3: the fact that the diamagnet does recline spud and is a self is not right. sent4: if the negotiatress is not a skyhook and it is not a inscrutability that the rima is not semiautobiographical hold. sent5: if something is not a kind of a teddy the fact that it is not a wonton and it is a superhet is wrong. sent6: that the rima is a self that is osmotic does not hold. sent7: if that something is osmotic is right it is not a kind of a skyhook and is not a inscrutability. sent8: that the rejection is osmotic is not incorrect if the rima is a skyhook and not a inscrutability. sent9: the rima is self. sent10: the fact that the tower is not semiautobiographical hold if the fact that that the diamagnet is both not a wonton and a superhet is wrong hold. sent11: the rima is not a kind of a inscrutability if the tower is not semiautobiographical. sent12: the rima is a teddy if that it is not a teddy and not a inscrutability is false. sent13: everything does wire Samarkand and it is a tapper. sent14: the fact that the tower is a kind of a wonton and it is a kind of a teddy is not true if something is not semiautobiographical. sent15: everything is a self. sent16: the fact that the tower is not semiautobiographical if the diamagnet is not a superhet is right. sent17: the tower is a inscrutability. sent18: the negotiatress is osmotic if something that is not a Sarcochilus is not self. sent19: the fact that the rima is a wonton is correct. sent20: if there is something such that the fact that it is a wonton and a teddy does not hold then the rejection is not a kind of a wonton. sent21: the tower is not osmotic. sent22: that something is not a wonton and is osmotic is false if it is not a kind of a skyhook. sent23: something that does cohere is not a Sarcochilus and not a self. sent24: something is wearable but it is not semiautobiographical if it is a kind of a teddy. sent25: everything is both self and a skyhook. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 -> int1: if the fact that the diamagnet is not a kind of a teddy hold then that it is not a kind of a wonton and it is a superhet is not true.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the diamagnet is not a teddy.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the fact that the diamagnet is not a wonton but it is a superhet does not hold.; int2 & sent10 -> int3: the tower is non-semiautobiographical.; int3 & sent11 -> int4: the rima is not a inscrutability.; sent25 -> int5: the rima is self a skyhook.; int5 -> int6: the rima is a skyhook.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the rima is a skyhook that is not a kind of a inscrutability.; int7 & sent8 -> int8: the rejection is osmotic.; [assump1] & int8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__