either the whiffletree is not a wallow or it is non-confrontational or both.
sent1: the lightwood is catarrhal if the afterdeck is not catarrhal. sent2: the neckerchief does heel toothache. sent3: that the neckerchief heels expert is not wrong. sent4: there is something such that it is not a wallow. sent5: the neckerchief either is not catarrhal or does not heel expert or both if there are catarrhal things. sent6: That the expert heels neckerchief is not wrong. sent7: if the afterdeck does not wallow the fact that the whiffletree does heel toothache and is not a kind of a groundsheet does not hold. sent8: if there exists something such that it is compliant thing that does heel expert that the afterdeck is not catarrhal is not false. sent9: there exists something such that it is catarrhal. sent10: if that something does not heel toothache is correct the fact that it is not a kind of a wallow or is not confrontational or both is not correct. sent11: if something that is catarrhal does not sophisticate then the whiffletree is not a wallow. sent12: that the lightwood is a kind of catarrhal thing that does not heel expert hold. sent13: if the afterdeck is not catarrhal the lightwood is catarrhal and not a sophisticate. sent14: the fact that the whiffletree is either not a wallow or confrontational or both is right. sent15: that there exists something such that it is compliant is right. sent16: if a confrontational thing is not catarrhal then the lightwood is not compliant. sent17: the lightwood is not a kind of a wallow. sent18: if the neckerchief is not catarrhal or it does not heel expert or both then the whiffletree is compliant. sent19: that the lightwood is catarrhal is not incorrect. sent20: something does heel expert. sent21: something is a kind of a guide if it is compliant. sent22: the neckerchief is compliant if it heels toothache. sent23: The toothache does heel neckerchief. sent24: the neckerchief is alluvial. sent25: something is a kind of a groundsheet if the fact that it does heel toothache and it is not a groundsheet is not correct.
sent22 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the neckerchief is compliant is not incorrect.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the neckerchief is compliant and does heel expert.; int2 -> int3: there is something such that it is compliant and heels expert.; int3 & sent8 -> int4: the afterdeck is non-catarrhal.; int4 & sent13 -> int5: the lightwood is catarrhal but it is not a sophisticate.; int5 -> int6: something is catarrhal but it does not sophisticate.; int6 & sent11 -> int7: the whiffletree is not a wallow.; int7 -> hypothesis;
that either the whiffletree does not wallow or it is not confrontational or both does not hold.
sent10 -> int8: that either the whiffletree does not wallow or it is not confrontational or both is incorrect if it does not heel toothache.;
$hypothesis$ = either the whiffletree is not a wallow or it is non-confrontational or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the lightwood is catarrhal if the afterdeck is not catarrhal. sent2: the neckerchief does heel toothache. sent3: that the neckerchief heels expert is not wrong. sent4: there is something such that it is not a wallow. sent5: the neckerchief either is not catarrhal or does not heel expert or both if there are catarrhal things. sent6: That the expert heels neckerchief is not wrong. sent7: if the afterdeck does not wallow the fact that the whiffletree does heel toothache and is not a kind of a groundsheet does not hold. sent8: if there exists something such that it is compliant thing that does heel expert that the afterdeck is not catarrhal is not false. sent9: there exists something such that it is catarrhal. sent10: if that something does not heel toothache is correct the fact that it is not a kind of a wallow or is not confrontational or both is not correct. sent11: if something that is catarrhal does not sophisticate then the whiffletree is not a wallow. sent12: that the lightwood is a kind of catarrhal thing that does not heel expert hold. sent13: if the afterdeck is not catarrhal the lightwood is catarrhal and not a sophisticate. sent14: the fact that the whiffletree is either not a wallow or confrontational or both is right. sent15: that there exists something such that it is compliant is right. sent16: if a confrontational thing is not catarrhal then the lightwood is not compliant. sent17: the lightwood is not a kind of a wallow. sent18: if the neckerchief is not catarrhal or it does not heel expert or both then the whiffletree is compliant. sent19: that the lightwood is catarrhal is not incorrect. sent20: something does heel expert. sent21: something is a kind of a guide if it is compliant. sent22: the neckerchief is compliant if it heels toothache. sent23: The toothache does heel neckerchief. sent24: the neckerchief is alluvial. sent25: something is a kind of a groundsheet if the fact that it does heel toothache and it is not a groundsheet is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent22 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the neckerchief is compliant is not incorrect.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the neckerchief is compliant and does heel expert.; int2 -> int3: there is something such that it is compliant and heels expert.; int3 & sent8 -> int4: the afterdeck is non-catarrhal.; int4 & sent13 -> int5: the lightwood is catarrhal but it is not a sophisticate.; int5 -> int6: something is catarrhal but it does not sophisticate.; int6 & sent11 -> int7: the whiffletree is not a wallow.; int7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__