the limit is not determinable.
sent1: the fact that the crottle is a recessive and/or it is upland does not hold. sent2: there exists nothing such that it is both determinable and a nonaggression. sent3: if something does not spend straphanger it is cloudy and it is recessive. sent4: the declension rehabilitates resolution if the crottle does rehabilitates resolution. sent5: if the limit does not labor Baudelaire the crottle does rehabilitate resolution and it is a Robespierre. sent6: if the fact that the crottle is a kind of a recessive or is upland or both does not hold then the declension does not labor Baudelaire. sent7: that the crottle either is upland or is determinable or both does not hold. sent8: the limit is a Robespierre. sent9: the declension is a Heteranthera and it is determinable. sent10: the declension does not spend straphanger. sent11: the limit is not determinable if it does labor Baudelaire and it is a kind of a Robespierre. sent12: the limit is not a founder. sent13: the fact that the limit does labor Baudelaire and is a Robespierre is correct if the declension does not labor Baudelaire.
sent6 & sent1 -> int1: that the declension does not labor Baudelaire is correct.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: that the limit labors Baudelaire and is a kind of a Robespierre is right.; int2 & sent11 -> hypothesis;
the declension is a recessive that does rehabilitate resolution.
sent3 -> int3: the fact that the declension is not non-cloudy and it is a kind of a recessive is not false if it does not spend straphanger.; int3 & sent10 -> int4: the declension is a kind of cloudy thing that is recessive.; int4 -> int5: the declension is a recessive.; sent2 -> int6: that the roll is determinable and it is a nonaggression is not correct.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that the fact that it is determinable thing that is a nonaggression is not true.;
$hypothesis$ = the limit is not determinable. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the crottle is a recessive and/or it is upland does not hold. sent2: there exists nothing such that it is both determinable and a nonaggression. sent3: if something does not spend straphanger it is cloudy and it is recessive. sent4: the declension rehabilitates resolution if the crottle does rehabilitates resolution. sent5: if the limit does not labor Baudelaire the crottle does rehabilitate resolution and it is a Robespierre. sent6: if the fact that the crottle is a kind of a recessive or is upland or both does not hold then the declension does not labor Baudelaire. sent7: that the crottle either is upland or is determinable or both does not hold. sent8: the limit is a Robespierre. sent9: the declension is a Heteranthera and it is determinable. sent10: the declension does not spend straphanger. sent11: the limit is not determinable if it does labor Baudelaire and it is a kind of a Robespierre. sent12: the limit is not a founder. sent13: the fact that the limit does labor Baudelaire and is a Robespierre is correct if the declension does not labor Baudelaire. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 & sent1 -> int1: that the declension does not labor Baudelaire is correct.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: that the limit labors Baudelaire and is a kind of a Robespierre is right.; int2 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__