the polymath is not a inscrutability and clouts tobogganing.
sent1: the polymath is not granulocytic if there exists something such that it does not clout tobogganing. sent2: the scrimshaw is equestrian if it does clout tobogganing and it is not obtrusive. sent3: the scrimshaw is equestrian but it is unobtrusive if there is something such that it is not a spiritualism. sent4: if an equestrian thing is not obtrusive it is perinatal. sent5: if the polymath is obtrusive the scrimshaw does clout tobogganing. sent6: that if the dug is not a sweep that the raven frames and is perinatal is not right is true. sent7: if something is equestrian and it is obtrusive then it is perinatal. sent8: that the raven is granulocytic and it is a inscrutability does not hold. sent9: the polymath is not obtrusive. sent10: there exists something such that it is a spiritualism. sent11: if something is a spiritualism the fact that it is not a inscrutability and does clout tobogganing does not hold. sent12: the scrimshaw is perinatal if it is equestrian and is obtrusive. sent13: something is not a kind of a spiritualism. sent14: the raven frames if the polymath is granulocytic. sent15: if that the scrimshaw is perinatal hold then the polymath is a framing. sent16: the scrimshaw is not obtrusive but granulocytic. sent17: something clouts tobogganing if it is a framing. sent18: the scrimshaw is not obtrusive. sent19: the firestone is a inscrutability. sent20: if something clouts mainstream and does collar gag it does clout coupon. sent21: the scrimshaw is not obtrusive if something is not a spiritualism. sent22: the polymath is not a inscrutability if there exists something such that the fact that it is granulocytic and it is a inscrutability is wrong. sent23: the raven clouts tobogganing if it is a inscrutability and it frames. sent24: the fact that the polymath is not a inscrutability is not wrong if there exists something such that it is not granulocytic. sent25: the hoper is not equestrian. sent26: there exists something such that it is granulocytic and it is a inscrutability.
sent13 & sent3 -> int1: the scrimshaw is equestrian but it is not obtrusive.; sent4 -> int2: if the scrimshaw is equestrian and is not obtrusive then it is perinatal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the scrimshaw is perinatal.; int3 & sent15 -> int4: the polymath is a framing.; sent17 -> int5: the polymath clouts tobogganing if it does frame.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the polymath does clout tobogganing.; sent8 -> int7: there exists something such that that it is granulocytic thing that is a inscrutability is wrong.; int7 & sent22 -> int8: the polymath is not a inscrutability.; int6 & int8 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the polymath is not a kind of a inscrutability and clouts tobogganing is not right.
sent11 -> int9: that the polymath is not a inscrutability but it clouts tobogganing is not correct if it is a spiritualism.;
$hypothesis$ = the polymath is not a inscrutability and clouts tobogganing. ; $context$ = sent1: the polymath is not granulocytic if there exists something such that it does not clout tobogganing. sent2: the scrimshaw is equestrian if it does clout tobogganing and it is not obtrusive. sent3: the scrimshaw is equestrian but it is unobtrusive if there is something such that it is not a spiritualism. sent4: if an equestrian thing is not obtrusive it is perinatal. sent5: if the polymath is obtrusive the scrimshaw does clout tobogganing. sent6: that if the dug is not a sweep that the raven frames and is perinatal is not right is true. sent7: if something is equestrian and it is obtrusive then it is perinatal. sent8: that the raven is granulocytic and it is a inscrutability does not hold. sent9: the polymath is not obtrusive. sent10: there exists something such that it is a spiritualism. sent11: if something is a spiritualism the fact that it is not a inscrutability and does clout tobogganing does not hold. sent12: the scrimshaw is perinatal if it is equestrian and is obtrusive. sent13: something is not a kind of a spiritualism. sent14: the raven frames if the polymath is granulocytic. sent15: if that the scrimshaw is perinatal hold then the polymath is a framing. sent16: the scrimshaw is not obtrusive but granulocytic. sent17: something clouts tobogganing if it is a framing. sent18: the scrimshaw is not obtrusive. sent19: the firestone is a inscrutability. sent20: if something clouts mainstream and does collar gag it does clout coupon. sent21: the scrimshaw is not obtrusive if something is not a spiritualism. sent22: the polymath is not a inscrutability if there exists something such that the fact that it is granulocytic and it is a inscrutability is wrong. sent23: the raven clouts tobogganing if it is a inscrutability and it frames. sent24: the fact that the polymath is not a inscrutability is not wrong if there exists something such that it is not granulocytic. sent25: the hoper is not equestrian. sent26: there exists something such that it is granulocytic and it is a inscrutability. ; $proof$ = 
sent13 & sent3 -> int1: the scrimshaw is equestrian but it is not obtrusive.; sent4 -> int2: if the scrimshaw is equestrian and is not obtrusive then it is perinatal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the scrimshaw is perinatal.; int3 & sent15 -> int4: the polymath is a framing.; sent17 -> int5: the polymath clouts tobogganing if it does frame.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the polymath does clout tobogganing.; sent8 -> int7: there exists something such that that it is granulocytic thing that is a inscrutability is wrong.; int7 & sent22 -> int8: the polymath is not a inscrutability.; int6 & int8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__