the introduction is implacable and it is a Ascension.
sent1: the introduction is a kind of a Ascension if the comedian is not starchy. sent2: if the comedian is not a aquatint it is a kind of an aristocrat and it is starchy. sent3: the introduction is a Ascension. sent4: if the eosinophil does not aquatint and it is not a kind of a Rhenish the introduction is not starchy. sent5: the eosinophil is not an aristocrat. sent6: the comedian is not starchy if the fact that the eosinophil is a kind of an aristocrat that is not accommodational is correct. sent7: if the comedian is not starchy then the introduction is implacable and a Ascension. sent8: the eosinophil is not an aristocrat and not starchy. sent9: that something is implacable and it is a Ascension is not correct if that it is not starchy hold. sent10: the eosinophil is non-starchy. sent11: the comedian is not starchy if that the eosinophil is not an aristocrat and it is non-accommodational hold. sent12: the eosinophil is an aristocrat if the comedian is a kind of an aristocrat. sent13: the fact that the introduction is Rhenish is correct. sent14: if the eosinophil is an aristocrat and is implacable the push is not an aristocrat. sent15: the landfill is not accommodational. sent16: the eosinophil is not an aristocrat and it is not accommodational.
sent11 & sent16 -> int1: the comedian is not starchy.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis;
that the introduction is implacable and it is a Ascension is not right.
sent9 -> int2: that the introduction is a kind of implacable thing that is a Ascension is not true if it is not starchy.;
$hypothesis$ = the introduction is implacable and it is a Ascension. ; $context$ = sent1: the introduction is a kind of a Ascension if the comedian is not starchy. sent2: if the comedian is not a aquatint it is a kind of an aristocrat and it is starchy. sent3: the introduction is a Ascension. sent4: if the eosinophil does not aquatint and it is not a kind of a Rhenish the introduction is not starchy. sent5: the eosinophil is not an aristocrat. sent6: the comedian is not starchy if the fact that the eosinophil is a kind of an aristocrat that is not accommodational is correct. sent7: if the comedian is not starchy then the introduction is implacable and a Ascension. sent8: the eosinophil is not an aristocrat and not starchy. sent9: that something is implacable and it is a Ascension is not correct if that it is not starchy hold. sent10: the eosinophil is non-starchy. sent11: the comedian is not starchy if that the eosinophil is not an aristocrat and it is non-accommodational hold. sent12: the eosinophil is an aristocrat if the comedian is a kind of an aristocrat. sent13: the fact that the introduction is Rhenish is correct. sent14: if the eosinophil is an aristocrat and is implacable the push is not an aristocrat. sent15: the landfill is not accommodational. sent16: the eosinophil is not an aristocrat and it is not accommodational. ; $proof$ = 
sent11 & sent16 -> int1: the comedian is not starchy.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__