the E does flour.
sent1: the modiolus does fragment Leucaena. sent2: the fact that the teletypewriter does not finish pip-squeak or is not a musicianship or both is false. sent3: if there is something such that that the fact that it does finish teletypewriter and it does finish scherzo is correct does not hold the motorcycle does not finish scherzo. sent4: there is something such that that either it is not a glaze or it is not a kind of a flatness or both is false. sent5: the grouper is a discharge. sent6: the fact that something does finish teletypewriter and does finish scherzo is not true if it is not a kind of a intentionality. sent7: the grouper does discharge if there exists something such that that it is not a flour and/or it does not fragment fence-sitter is incorrect. sent8: if there is something such that that it either does not fragment fence-sitter or is not a discharge or both is wrong then the E is a kind of a flour. sent9: that either the grouper is not a flour or it does not discharge or both is not correct. sent10: that the E either is not catoptrics or is not experiential or both is incorrect. sent11: the E does flour if there exists something such that the fact that either it does not fragment fence-sitter or it is a kind of a discharge or both is not correct. sent12: the E is a kind of a discharge. sent13: everything does discharge. sent14: if something does fragment Leucaena then the wolffish is not a intentionality. sent15: something is a discharge. sent16: there is nothing such that it does not fragment fence-sitter or it does not discharge or both.
sent16 -> int1: that either the grouper does not fragment fence-sitter or it is not a discharge or both is not right.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it does not fragment fence-sitter and/or it does not discharge is wrong.; int2 & sent8 -> hypothesis;
the E is not a kind of a flour.
sent6 -> int3: that the wolffish finishes teletypewriter and does finish scherzo is not true if it is not a kind of a intentionality.; sent1 -> int4: there is something such that that it fragments Leucaena is true.; int4 & sent14 -> int5: that the wolffish is not a intentionality is not false.; int3 & int5 -> int6: that the fact that the wolffish finishes teletypewriter and it finishes scherzo hold is incorrect.; int6 -> int7: the fact that there is something such that the fact that it finishes teletypewriter and it finishes scherzo does not hold is not false.; int7 & sent3 -> int8: the motorcycle does not finish scherzo.; int8 -> int9: the motorcycle does not finish scherzo and/or it is not a kind of a flour.; int9 -> int10: something does not finish scherzo or it is not a flour or both.;
$hypothesis$ = the E does flour. ; $context$ = sent1: the modiolus does fragment Leucaena. sent2: the fact that the teletypewriter does not finish pip-squeak or is not a musicianship or both is false. sent3: if there is something such that that the fact that it does finish teletypewriter and it does finish scherzo is correct does not hold the motorcycle does not finish scherzo. sent4: there is something such that that either it is not a glaze or it is not a kind of a flatness or both is false. sent5: the grouper is a discharge. sent6: the fact that something does finish teletypewriter and does finish scherzo is not true if it is not a kind of a intentionality. sent7: the grouper does discharge if there exists something such that that it is not a flour and/or it does not fragment fence-sitter is incorrect. sent8: if there is something such that that it either does not fragment fence-sitter or is not a discharge or both is wrong then the E is a kind of a flour. sent9: that either the grouper is not a flour or it does not discharge or both is not correct. sent10: that the E either is not catoptrics or is not experiential or both is incorrect. sent11: the E does flour if there exists something such that the fact that either it does not fragment fence-sitter or it is a kind of a discharge or both is not correct. sent12: the E is a kind of a discharge. sent13: everything does discharge. sent14: if something does fragment Leucaena then the wolffish is not a intentionality. sent15: something is a discharge. sent16: there is nothing such that it does not fragment fence-sitter or it does not discharge or both. ; $proof$ = 
sent16 -> int1: that either the grouper does not fragment fence-sitter or it is not a discharge or both is not right.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it does not fragment fence-sitter and/or it does not discharge is wrong.; int2 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__