the rail-splitter is a kind of a ophiolatry.
sent1: the resorcinol is a kind of a Sardinian if it does not exhale exoneration. sent2: the resorcinol does not exhale exoneration. sent3: if something is actinic it does smite rabbet and it is not a jabiru. sent4: if something that smites rabbet is not a kind of a jabiru the fact that it is a intermittence is not wrong. sent5: the fact that if the resorcinol does smite rabbet and is the jabiru the resorcinol is a intermittence hold. sent6: the spicule is a refractoriness. sent7: something does brunch. sent8: if something is actinic then that it is not a jabiru is true. sent9: the resorcinol is a brunch and it is a Sardinian if it does not exhale exoneration. sent10: if something does smite rabbet and is a jabiru it is a intermittence. sent11: the resorcinol is not a jabiru if it is actinic. sent12: if a intermittence is a brunch the rail-splitter is a refractoriness. sent13: that something is a kind of a ophiolatry is right if that it is a kind of a refractoriness is right. sent14: the resorcinol is a kind of a Sardinian. sent15: The exoneration does not exhale resorcinol. sent16: the resorcinol is not a kind of a jabiru. sent17: there is something such that it is a kind of a intermittence. sent18: the Pomo is not a intermittence or it is non-actinic or both if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a refractoriness. sent19: that the biologist is not a refractoriness hold if something is a ophiolatry that is not a Sardinian. sent20: the resorcinol dreams excursion and it is actinic. sent21: that the resorcinol dreams excursion hold. sent22: if that the rail-splitter is not actinic is not false then the julienne is Rembrandtesque and it is a brunch.
sent3 -> int1: if the resorcinol is actinic then it smites rabbet and it is not a jabiru.; sent20 -> int2: that the resorcinol is actinic is not incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the resorcinol smites rabbet and is not a kind of a jabiru.; sent4 -> int4: the resorcinol is a intermittence if it does smite rabbet and is not a jabiru.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the resorcinol is a kind of a intermittence.; sent9 & sent2 -> int6: the resorcinol is a brunch and it is a Sardinian.; int6 -> int7: the resorcinol is a brunch.; int5 & int7 -> int8: the resorcinol is a intermittence and it does brunch.; int8 -> int9: there exists something such that it is a kind of a intermittence that does brunch.; int9 & sent12 -> int10: the rail-splitter is a kind of a refractoriness.; sent13 -> int11: the rail-splitter is a kind of a ophiolatry if it is a refractoriness.; int10 & int11 -> hypothesis;
the julienne is Rembrandtesque and it is a brunch.
$hypothesis$ = the rail-splitter is a kind of a ophiolatry. ; $context$ = sent1: the resorcinol is a kind of a Sardinian if it does not exhale exoneration. sent2: the resorcinol does not exhale exoneration. sent3: if something is actinic it does smite rabbet and it is not a jabiru. sent4: if something that smites rabbet is not a kind of a jabiru the fact that it is a intermittence is not wrong. sent5: the fact that if the resorcinol does smite rabbet and is the jabiru the resorcinol is a intermittence hold. sent6: the spicule is a refractoriness. sent7: something does brunch. sent8: if something is actinic then that it is not a jabiru is true. sent9: the resorcinol is a brunch and it is a Sardinian if it does not exhale exoneration. sent10: if something does smite rabbet and is a jabiru it is a intermittence. sent11: the resorcinol is not a jabiru if it is actinic. sent12: if a intermittence is a brunch the rail-splitter is a refractoriness. sent13: that something is a kind of a ophiolatry is right if that it is a kind of a refractoriness is right. sent14: the resorcinol is a kind of a Sardinian. sent15: The exoneration does not exhale resorcinol. sent16: the resorcinol is not a kind of a jabiru. sent17: there is something such that it is a kind of a intermittence. sent18: the Pomo is not a intermittence or it is non-actinic or both if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a refractoriness. sent19: that the biologist is not a refractoriness hold if something is a ophiolatry that is not a Sardinian. sent20: the resorcinol dreams excursion and it is actinic. sent21: that the resorcinol dreams excursion hold. sent22: if that the rail-splitter is not actinic is not false then the julienne is Rembrandtesque and it is a brunch. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 -> int1: if the resorcinol is actinic then it smites rabbet and it is not a jabiru.; sent20 -> int2: that the resorcinol is actinic is not incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the resorcinol smites rabbet and is not a kind of a jabiru.; sent4 -> int4: the resorcinol is a intermittence if it does smite rabbet and is not a jabiru.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the resorcinol is a kind of a intermittence.; sent9 & sent2 -> int6: the resorcinol is a brunch and it is a Sardinian.; int6 -> int7: the resorcinol is a brunch.; int5 & int7 -> int8: the resorcinol is a intermittence and it does brunch.; int8 -> int9: there exists something such that it is a kind of a intermittence that does brunch.; int9 & sent12 -> int10: the rail-splitter is a kind of a refractoriness.; sent13 -> int11: the rail-splitter is a kind of a ophiolatry if it is a refractoriness.; int10 & int11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__