the frontiersman is a arduousness.
sent1: if there exists something such that it is not transitive the bryanthus does not top. sent2: that the bunghole is generational hold. sent3: the flour tops. sent4: that the flour is a kind of topping thing that is uricosuric is not correct if the bryanthus is not uricosuric. sent5: the fact that that the fact that something is not a Canute but it rids flour is correct is not correct if it is generational is not wrong. sent6: if something rids flour the fact that it is a catmint and it is uricosuric is wrong. sent7: the flour does not rid flour. sent8: the frontiersman is a kind of a arduousness if the fact that the bryanthus is a kind of a intransitive and is not uricosuric does not hold. sent9: the fact that the Lucite is not a catmint and is a topping does not hold. sent10: if the Lucite is not uricosuric then the bryanthus is uricosuric but it is not generational. sent11: the flour is a Canute. sent12: the Lucite is a whippersnapper. sent13: the flour is a arduousness. sent14: if the laborer is not generational the Lucite is both generational and not a catmint. sent15: that something is non-generational and is a arduousness does not hold if it rids flour. sent16: the bryanthus is not a catmint if the Lucite is a kind of uricosuric thing that is not generational. sent17: the spastic is not uricosuric if the Lucite is generational but it is not a kind of a catmint. sent18: the mat is not a arduousness. sent19: if there exists something such that it tops the laborer is not a Canute and does rid flour. sent20: if the Lucite is a catmint the fact that it is non-generational a arduousness does not hold. sent21: the spastic is not a exponentiation but it is a kind of a haploidy.
sent5 -> int1: if the laborer is generational the fact that it is not a kind of a Canute and it rids flour is not true.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the laborer is generational.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the fact that the laborer is not a kind of a Canute and does rid flour is incorrect.; sent3 -> int3: something is topping.; int3 & sent19 -> int4: the laborer is not a Canute but it does rid flour.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the laborer is not generational.; int6 & sent14 -> int7: the Lucite is both generational and not a catmint.; int7 & sent17 -> int8: the spastic is not uricosuric.;
$hypothesis$ = the frontiersman is a arduousness. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it is not transitive the bryanthus does not top. sent2: that the bunghole is generational hold. sent3: the flour tops. sent4: that the flour is a kind of topping thing that is uricosuric is not correct if the bryanthus is not uricosuric. sent5: the fact that that the fact that something is not a Canute but it rids flour is correct is not correct if it is generational is not wrong. sent6: if something rids flour the fact that it is a catmint and it is uricosuric is wrong. sent7: the flour does not rid flour. sent8: the frontiersman is a kind of a arduousness if the fact that the bryanthus is a kind of a intransitive and is not uricosuric does not hold. sent9: the fact that the Lucite is not a catmint and is a topping does not hold. sent10: if the Lucite is not uricosuric then the bryanthus is uricosuric but it is not generational. sent11: the flour is a Canute. sent12: the Lucite is a whippersnapper. sent13: the flour is a arduousness. sent14: if the laborer is not generational the Lucite is both generational and not a catmint. sent15: that something is non-generational and is a arduousness does not hold if it rids flour. sent16: the bryanthus is not a catmint if the Lucite is a kind of uricosuric thing that is not generational. sent17: the spastic is not uricosuric if the Lucite is generational but it is not a kind of a catmint. sent18: the mat is not a arduousness. sent19: if there exists something such that it tops the laborer is not a Canute and does rid flour. sent20: if the Lucite is a catmint the fact that it is non-generational a arduousness does not hold. sent21: the spastic is not a exponentiation but it is a kind of a haploidy. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 -> int1: if the laborer is generational the fact that it is not a kind of a Canute and it rids flour is not true.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the laborer is generational.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the fact that the laborer is not a kind of a Canute and does rid flour is incorrect.; sent3 -> int3: something is topping.; int3 & sent19 -> int4: the laborer is not a Canute but it does rid flour.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the laborer is not generational.; int6 & sent14 -> int7: the Lucite is both generational and not a catmint.; int7 & sent17 -> int8: the spastic is not uricosuric.; __UNKNOWN__