that the backlog is not a Ocyurus is not incorrect.
sent1: the sap is a abnegator if that the fact that the production does not hitch snowboarding and is not non-rationalistic is wrong is true. sent2: the fact that the sap is rationalistic and is a stewpan is false. sent3: something is both rationalistic and a Ocyurus if it is not casuistic. sent4: the backlog hitches snowboarding. sent5: the sap is casuistic if the fact that the production does not hitch snowboarding but it is a stewpan is not true. sent6: if the sap is not rationalistic then the backlog is a kind of a abnegator. sent7: if the production is not a stewpan the sap is casuistic. sent8: the backlog is a abnegator and/or does hitch snowboarding. sent9: if the sap is casuistic and/or it is not rationalistic the backlog is a abnegator. sent10: the sap does hitch snowboarding if that the production is casuistic hold. sent11: if the production is not a abnegator the backlog is a stewpan. sent12: that the production does not hitch snowboarding and is a stewpan is incorrect. sent13: if the backlog is a abnegator it is not a Ocyurus.
sent5 & sent12 -> int1: the sap is not non-casuistic.; int1 -> int2: the sap is casuistic and/or it is not rationalistic.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the backlog is a abnegator.; int3 & sent13 -> hypothesis;
the backlog is a Ocyurus.
sent3 -> int4: if the backlog is not casuistic it is rationalistic a Ocyurus.;
$hypothesis$ = that the backlog is not a Ocyurus is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the sap is a abnegator if that the fact that the production does not hitch snowboarding and is not non-rationalistic is wrong is true. sent2: the fact that the sap is rationalistic and is a stewpan is false. sent3: something is both rationalistic and a Ocyurus if it is not casuistic. sent4: the backlog hitches snowboarding. sent5: the sap is casuistic if the fact that the production does not hitch snowboarding but it is a stewpan is not true. sent6: if the sap is not rationalistic then the backlog is a kind of a abnegator. sent7: if the production is not a stewpan the sap is casuistic. sent8: the backlog is a abnegator and/or does hitch snowboarding. sent9: if the sap is casuistic and/or it is not rationalistic the backlog is a abnegator. sent10: the sap does hitch snowboarding if that the production is casuistic hold. sent11: if the production is not a abnegator the backlog is a stewpan. sent12: that the production does not hitch snowboarding and is a stewpan is incorrect. sent13: if the backlog is a abnegator it is not a Ocyurus. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 & sent12 -> int1: the sap is not non-casuistic.; int1 -> int2: the sap is casuistic and/or it is not rationalistic.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the backlog is a abnegator.; int3 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__