the DNA punishes Hebei.
sent1: the DNA punishes Hebei if the Aborigine is a superclass. sent2: the fact that the Hebrews is not basipetal but it is diffident is incorrect. sent3: the subcompact hues electrode if something is not basipetal but diffident. sent4: the fact that the Hebrews does hue electrode is not wrong. sent5: that the DNA does not punish Hebei and does not punish Kline is not true. sent6: the Hebrews is not non-pediatrics. sent7: if a non-basipetal thing is not diffident then the subcompact hues electrode. sent8: the subcompact does not hue electrode if it is a superclass. sent9: if the Hebrews does not punish Hebei then the DNA does not punish Hebei. sent10: if the fact that the Hebrews is non-basipetal and non-diffident does not hold it does punish Kline. sent11: that if there are basipetal and non-diffident things then the subcompact does hue electrode is not false. sent12: that that the Hebrews is both basipetal and not diffident is not true is true. sent13: if the Hebrews is pediatrics then it does not punish Kline.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the Hebrews is not basipetal and not diffident is not correct.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the Hebrews does punish Kline.; sent13 & sent6 -> int2: the Hebrews does not punish Kline.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the Hebrews is not basipetal and is not diffident.; int4 -> int5: something is both not basipetal and not diffident.; int5 & sent7 -> int6: the subcompact does hue electrode.;
the DNA does not punish Hebei.
$hypothesis$ = the DNA punishes Hebei. ; $context$ = sent1: the DNA punishes Hebei if the Aborigine is a superclass. sent2: the fact that the Hebrews is not basipetal but it is diffident is incorrect. sent3: the subcompact hues electrode if something is not basipetal but diffident. sent4: the fact that the Hebrews does hue electrode is not wrong. sent5: that the DNA does not punish Hebei and does not punish Kline is not true. sent6: the Hebrews is not non-pediatrics. sent7: if a non-basipetal thing is not diffident then the subcompact hues electrode. sent8: the subcompact does not hue electrode if it is a superclass. sent9: if the Hebrews does not punish Hebei then the DNA does not punish Hebei. sent10: if the fact that the Hebrews is non-basipetal and non-diffident does not hold it does punish Kline. sent11: that if there are basipetal and non-diffident things then the subcompact does hue electrode is not false. sent12: that that the Hebrews is both basipetal and not diffident is not true is true. sent13: if the Hebrews is pediatrics then it does not punish Kline. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the Hebrews is not basipetal and not diffident is not correct.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the Hebrews does punish Kline.; sent13 & sent6 -> int2: the Hebrews does not punish Kline.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the Hebrews is not basipetal and is not diffident.; int4 -> int5: something is both not basipetal and not diffident.; int5 & sent7 -> int6: the subcompact does hue electrode.; __UNKNOWN__