if the nadolol sighs trot then the torero is an elective but it is not adventuristic.
sent1: that the lox is an overhead and it levels Melicoccus is not right. sent2: there is something such that that it is a kind of an overhead and it levels Melicoccus is not true. sent3: if the technophile is a shy the fact that the lox is an overhead that does level Melicoccus is not right. sent4: the nadolol is legislative if there is something such that it is an overhead. sent5: if the torero gambles then it is not adventuristic. sent6: something is legislative. sent7: the technophile is a kind of a shy. sent8: that the torero is an elective that is not adventuristic hold if it is a kind of a gambler. sent9: if there is something such that that it is not an overhead and levels Melicoccus is wrong then the nadolol is legislative. sent10: if the nadolol sighs trot then the torero is not adventuristic. sent11: that the torero is not adventuristic is correct. sent12: the torero gambles if something that is legislative does sigh trot. sent13: if there exists something such that it gambles and sighs trot the nadolol is legislative. sent14: that the lox is not overhead but it does level Melicoccus is wrong if the technophile does shy. sent15: something is not an overhead but it does level Melicoccus.
sent14 & sent7 -> int1: that the lox is not a kind of an overhead but it does level Melicoccus is false.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it is not an overhead and levels Melicoccus is not true.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the nadolol is legislative.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the nadolol sighs trot.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: the nadolol is not non-legislative and it sighs trot.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that it is a kind of legislative thing that sighs trot.; int5 & sent12 -> int6: the torero does gamble.; int6 & sent8 -> int7: the torero is an elective but not adventuristic.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = if the nadolol sighs trot then the torero is an elective but it is not adventuristic. ; $context$ = sent1: that the lox is an overhead and it levels Melicoccus is not right. sent2: there is something such that that it is a kind of an overhead and it levels Melicoccus is not true. sent3: if the technophile is a shy the fact that the lox is an overhead that does level Melicoccus is not right. sent4: the nadolol is legislative if there is something such that it is an overhead. sent5: if the torero gambles then it is not adventuristic. sent6: something is legislative. sent7: the technophile is a kind of a shy. sent8: that the torero is an elective that is not adventuristic hold if it is a kind of a gambler. sent9: if there is something such that that it is not an overhead and levels Melicoccus is wrong then the nadolol is legislative. sent10: if the nadolol sighs trot then the torero is not adventuristic. sent11: that the torero is not adventuristic is correct. sent12: the torero gambles if something that is legislative does sigh trot. sent13: if there exists something such that it gambles and sighs trot the nadolol is legislative. sent14: that the lox is not overhead but it does level Melicoccus is wrong if the technophile does shy. sent15: something is not an overhead but it does level Melicoccus. ; $proof$ = 
sent14 & sent7 -> int1: that the lox is not a kind of an overhead but it does level Melicoccus is false.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it is not an overhead and levels Melicoccus is not true.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the nadolol is legislative.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the nadolol sighs trot.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: the nadolol is not non-legislative and it sighs trot.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that it is a kind of legislative thing that sighs trot.; int5 & sent12 -> int6: the torero does gamble.; int6 & sent8 -> int7: the torero is an elective but not adventuristic.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__