that the tonguefish does not watch tetrasaccharide but it is inconspicuous is not right.
sent1: that something does not watch tetrasaccharide and is a kind of a Malthusian is false if it is not an anorexic. sent2: if the adz is inconspicuous the fact that the tonguefish does watch tetrasaccharide and it is inconspicuous is wrong. sent3: something is not a kind of an anorexic if it is a kind of a cartwright. sent4: if that the klaxon does not watch tetrasaccharide but it is Malthusian is not right then the tonguefish does not watch tetrasaccharide. sent5: if the klaxon is a Malthusian then the adz is inconspicuous. sent6: if the adz is a kind of a scent that the lymph does not watch tetrasaccharide and does not hum David is not correct. sent7: the klaxon is a Malthusian and an anorexic. sent8: the tonguefish is cortical and it is imperial. sent9: something is apologetics if the fact that it does not watch tetrasaccharide and it does not hum David does not hold. sent10: that the tonguefish is not the supply if the fact that the tonguefish does supply but it is not a sclerite is wrong is not wrong. sent11: the lymph is inconspicuous if there exists something such that that it is non-Malthusian and it is not an anorexic is not right. sent12: the tonguefish is apogamic. sent13: that the tonguefish does supply but it is not a sclerite is not correct if it is apogamic. sent14: the klaxon is not a cartwright if there is something such that it is not a supply and/or it is not cortical. sent15: the fact that the OD is not a piggery and it does not devein tavern does not hold. sent16: the klaxon is an anorexic. sent17: that the adz is a scent is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a piggery and it does not devein tavern is false. sent18: the klaxon does watch tetrasaccharide and is an anorexic. sent19: the fact that the fact that the tonguefish watches tetrasaccharide and is inconspicuous is true is not right. sent20: the fact that something is not Malthusian and not an anorexic is wrong if it is not a cartwright.
sent7 -> int1: the klaxon is a kind of a Malthusian.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the adz is inconspicuous.;
the lymph is inconspicuous and is apologetics.
sent20 -> int3: that the klaxon is not a kind of a Malthusian and it is not an anorexic is false if it is not a cartwright.; sent13 & sent12 -> int4: the fact that the tonguefish is a supply but it is not a sclerite does not hold.; sent10 & int4 -> int5: the tonguefish is not a supply.; int5 -> int6: either the tonguefish does not supply or it is not cortical or both.; int6 -> int7: something does not supply and/or is not cortical.; int7 & sent14 -> int8: the klaxon is not a cartwright.; int3 & int8 -> int9: that the klaxon is a kind of non-Malthusian thing that is not a kind of an anorexic does not hold.; int9 -> int10: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Malthusian and it is not an anorexic does not hold.; int10 & sent11 -> int11: the lymph is inconspicuous.; sent9 -> int12: if that the lymph does not watch tetrasaccharide and it does not hum David does not hold then the fact that it is not apologetics is not true.; sent15 -> int13: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a piggery and does not devein tavern does not hold.; int13 & sent17 -> int14: the adz is a scent.; sent6 & int14 -> int15: that the lymph does not watch tetrasaccharide and does not hum David is not true.; int12 & int15 -> int16: the lymph is apologetics.; int11 & int16 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that the tonguefish does not watch tetrasaccharide but it is inconspicuous is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: that something does not watch tetrasaccharide and is a kind of a Malthusian is false if it is not an anorexic. sent2: if the adz is inconspicuous the fact that the tonguefish does watch tetrasaccharide and it is inconspicuous is wrong. sent3: something is not a kind of an anorexic if it is a kind of a cartwright. sent4: if that the klaxon does not watch tetrasaccharide but it is Malthusian is not right then the tonguefish does not watch tetrasaccharide. sent5: if the klaxon is a Malthusian then the adz is inconspicuous. sent6: if the adz is a kind of a scent that the lymph does not watch tetrasaccharide and does not hum David is not correct. sent7: the klaxon is a Malthusian and an anorexic. sent8: the tonguefish is cortical and it is imperial. sent9: something is apologetics if the fact that it does not watch tetrasaccharide and it does not hum David does not hold. sent10: that the tonguefish is not the supply if the fact that the tonguefish does supply but it is not a sclerite is wrong is not wrong. sent11: the lymph is inconspicuous if there exists something such that that it is non-Malthusian and it is not an anorexic is not right. sent12: the tonguefish is apogamic. sent13: that the tonguefish does supply but it is not a sclerite is not correct if it is apogamic. sent14: the klaxon is not a cartwright if there is something such that it is not a supply and/or it is not cortical. sent15: the fact that the OD is not a piggery and it does not devein tavern does not hold. sent16: the klaxon is an anorexic. sent17: that the adz is a scent is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a piggery and it does not devein tavern is false. sent18: the klaxon does watch tetrasaccharide and is an anorexic. sent19: the fact that the fact that the tonguefish watches tetrasaccharide and is inconspicuous is true is not right. sent20: the fact that something is not Malthusian and not an anorexic is wrong if it is not a cartwright. ; $proof$ = 
sent7 -> int1: the klaxon is a kind of a Malthusian.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the adz is inconspicuous.; __UNKNOWN__