that the Zen is not alimentative and scrams Talmud is not correct.
sent1: the fact that something is a toe and/or is not mechanistic is incorrect if it does not reshuffle. sent2: if the supplement does not outsail adolescence the Cakchiquel is thermostatic. sent3: the Zen is a kind of non-alimentative thing that does scram Talmud if there is something such that it is thermostatic. sent4: if there are non-thermostatic things the fact that the Cakchiquel does not outsail adolescence and is anthracitic is incorrect. sent5: if there exists something such that it is a toe then that the Zen is a kind of non-alimentative thing that scrams Talmud is false. sent6: there exists something such that it is not alimentative. sent7: something does not outsail adolescence or it is not anthracitic or both if it is inconsolable. sent8: the fact that the supplement is inconsolable is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is a toe and/or not mechanistic is wrong. sent9: something is not thermostatic. sent10: if there is something such that that it does not outsail adolescence and is anthracitic does not hold the fact that the supplement is not inconsolable is right. sent11: that if the supplement is not inconsolable then the fact that the feedback is a toe and is mechanistic is right is not wrong.
sent9 & sent4 -> int1: that the Cakchiquel does not outsail adolescence but it is not non-anthracitic is false.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it does not outsail adolescence and is anthracitic is incorrect.; int2 & sent10 -> int3: the supplement is not inconsolable.; sent11 & int3 -> int4: the feedback is a kind of a toe and it is mechanistic.; int4 -> int5: the feedback toes.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it toes.; int6 & sent5 -> hypothesis;
the Zen is not alimentative and scrams Talmud.
sent7 -> int7: if the supplement is inconsolable then it does not outsail adolescence and/or is not anthracitic.; sent1 -> int8: that the adenovirus is a toe and/or is not mechanistic is wrong if it does not reshuffle.;
$hypothesis$ = that the Zen is not alimentative and scrams Talmud is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is a toe and/or is not mechanistic is incorrect if it does not reshuffle. sent2: if the supplement does not outsail adolescence the Cakchiquel is thermostatic. sent3: the Zen is a kind of non-alimentative thing that does scram Talmud if there is something such that it is thermostatic. sent4: if there are non-thermostatic things the fact that the Cakchiquel does not outsail adolescence and is anthracitic is incorrect. sent5: if there exists something such that it is a toe then that the Zen is a kind of non-alimentative thing that scrams Talmud is false. sent6: there exists something such that it is not alimentative. sent7: something does not outsail adolescence or it is not anthracitic or both if it is inconsolable. sent8: the fact that the supplement is inconsolable is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is a toe and/or not mechanistic is wrong. sent9: something is not thermostatic. sent10: if there is something such that that it does not outsail adolescence and is anthracitic does not hold the fact that the supplement is not inconsolable is right. sent11: that if the supplement is not inconsolable then the fact that the feedback is a toe and is mechanistic is right is not wrong. ; $proof$ = 
sent9 & sent4 -> int1: that the Cakchiquel does not outsail adolescence but it is not non-anthracitic is false.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it does not outsail adolescence and is anthracitic is incorrect.; int2 & sent10 -> int3: the supplement is not inconsolable.; sent11 & int3 -> int4: the feedback is a kind of a toe and it is mechanistic.; int4 -> int5: the feedback toes.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it toes.; int6 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__