there is something such that if it is naturistic then it is a kind of an evil.
sent1: the ostrich is not an evil. sent2: the beachball is a glyptography. sent3: if there are clonal things then the pinguecula is a kind of a Maoist. sent4: if the pinguecula is a Maoist and it is a prescription that it is naturistic is not false. sent5: the VLDL is naturistic if the vantage is naturistic. sent6: the fact that the pinguecula is not attributive and ensconces bourn is incorrect if the VLDL is not a Maoist. sent7: the fact that the beachball does not fish adviser and is empyreal is incorrect if it is a kind of a glyptography. sent8: the fact that either the checkerboard is an evil or it is metallurgical or both is incorrect if the scilla is not empyreal. sent9: there exists something such that it is not clonal and it is nonmodern. sent10: if there exists something such that the fact that it is evil or metallurgical or both is incorrect the vantage is naturistic. sent11: if that something is Maoist and it is prescription is right then it is not naturistic. sent12: that the adviser is not clonal but it is not modern is wrong. sent13: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not clonal but nonmodern does not hold then the pinguecula is a Maoist. sent14: if there is something such that that it does not fish adviser and it is empyreal is false the scilla is not empyreal.
sent12 -> int1: there is something such that the fact that it is both not clonal and nonmodern does not hold.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: the pinguecula is a Maoist.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pinguecula is prescription.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the pinguecula is both Maoist and a prescription.; sent11 -> int4: if the pinguecula is a Maoist and it is a kind of a prescription it is not naturistic.; int3 & int4 -> int5: that the pinguecula is non-naturistic hold.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the pinguecula is naturistic.; int5 & assump2 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the pinguecula is not a kind of a prescription.;
there is something such that that it is not attributive and it ensconces bourn is not true.
sent7 & sent2 -> int8: that the beachball does not fish adviser but it is empyreal does not hold.; int8 -> int9: that there is something such that that it does not fish adviser and it is empyreal does not hold is true.; int9 & sent14 -> int10: the scilla is non-empyreal.; sent8 & int10 -> int11: the fact that the checkerboard is an evil and/or it is metallurgical is incorrect.; int11 -> int12: there is something such that the fact that it is an evil or it is metallurgical or both is incorrect.; int12 & sent10 -> int13: the vantage is naturistic.; sent5 & int13 -> int14: the fact that the VLDL is naturistic hold.;
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is naturistic then it is a kind of an evil. ; $context$ = sent1: the ostrich is not an evil. sent2: the beachball is a glyptography. sent3: if there are clonal things then the pinguecula is a kind of a Maoist. sent4: if the pinguecula is a Maoist and it is a prescription that it is naturistic is not false. sent5: the VLDL is naturistic if the vantage is naturistic. sent6: the fact that the pinguecula is not attributive and ensconces bourn is incorrect if the VLDL is not a Maoist. sent7: the fact that the beachball does not fish adviser and is empyreal is incorrect if it is a kind of a glyptography. sent8: the fact that either the checkerboard is an evil or it is metallurgical or both is incorrect if the scilla is not empyreal. sent9: there exists something such that it is not clonal and it is nonmodern. sent10: if there exists something such that the fact that it is evil or metallurgical or both is incorrect the vantage is naturistic. sent11: if that something is Maoist and it is prescription is right then it is not naturistic. sent12: that the adviser is not clonal but it is not modern is wrong. sent13: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not clonal but nonmodern does not hold then the pinguecula is a Maoist. sent14: if there is something such that that it does not fish adviser and it is empyreal is false the scilla is not empyreal. ; $proof$ = 
sent12 -> int1: there is something such that the fact that it is both not clonal and nonmodern does not hold.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: the pinguecula is a Maoist.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pinguecula is prescription.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the pinguecula is both Maoist and a prescription.; sent11 -> int4: if the pinguecula is a Maoist and it is a kind of a prescription it is not naturistic.; int3 & int4 -> int5: that the pinguecula is non-naturistic hold.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the pinguecula is naturistic.; int5 & assump2 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the pinguecula is not a kind of a prescription.; __UNKNOWN__