the paperclip is a kind of a salesman.
sent1: the fact that the accompaniment does not experience is not wrong if it persists smoker and it palls. sent2: everything is a kind of a pall. sent3: the paperclip is not a salesman if the tutu is not a salesman. sent4: if the watermark is not a pall but it persists smoker then it is not a kind of an experience. sent5: there exists something such that it persists smoker. sent6: the accompaniment does not levitate. sent7: the paperclip is a borage and is a kind of a salesman if something does not persist smoker. sent8: if something does prioritize doxepin it is an experience. sent9: that the accompaniment does not pall does not hold if it is not a kind of a borage. sent10: if the accompaniment does not levitate then it prioritizes doxepin and is a kind of a largemouth.
sent2 -> int1: the accompaniment is a kind of a pall.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the accompaniment persists smoker.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the accompaniment does persist smoker and is a pall.; int2 & sent1 -> int3: the accompaniment is not an experience.; sent8 -> int4: if the accompaniment does prioritize doxepin it is an experience.; sent10 & sent6 -> int5: the accompaniment does prioritize doxepin and is a largemouth.; int5 -> int6: the accompaniment does prioritize doxepin.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the accompaniment is an experience.; int3 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the accompaniment does not persist smoker.; int9 -> int10: there is something such that that it does not persist smoker is right.; int10 & sent7 -> int11: the fact that the paperclip is a borage and it is a salesman is not incorrect.; int11 -> hypothesis;
the watermark is not an experience.
$hypothesis$ = the paperclip is a kind of a salesman. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the accompaniment does not experience is not wrong if it persists smoker and it palls. sent2: everything is a kind of a pall. sent3: the paperclip is not a salesman if the tutu is not a salesman. sent4: if the watermark is not a pall but it persists smoker then it is not a kind of an experience. sent5: there exists something such that it persists smoker. sent6: the accompaniment does not levitate. sent7: the paperclip is a borage and is a kind of a salesman if something does not persist smoker. sent8: if something does prioritize doxepin it is an experience. sent9: that the accompaniment does not pall does not hold if it is not a kind of a borage. sent10: if the accompaniment does not levitate then it prioritizes doxepin and is a kind of a largemouth. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 -> int1: the accompaniment is a kind of a pall.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the accompaniment persists smoker.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the accompaniment does persist smoker and is a pall.; int2 & sent1 -> int3: the accompaniment is not an experience.; sent8 -> int4: if the accompaniment does prioritize doxepin it is an experience.; sent10 & sent6 -> int5: the accompaniment does prioritize doxepin and is a largemouth.; int5 -> int6: the accompaniment does prioritize doxepin.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the accompaniment is an experience.; int3 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the accompaniment does not persist smoker.; int9 -> int10: there is something such that that it does not persist smoker is right.; int10 & sent7 -> int11: the fact that the paperclip is a borage and it is a salesman is not incorrect.; int11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__