the Martin is essential.
sent1: something is a kind of a inessential and is a kind of an activity if it is not arborical. sent2: if something is not a kind of an activity the fact that it is not contrasty and it is a inessential is not true. sent3: the rester is contrasty if the nasion is arborical thing that is not contrasty. sent4: the Martin is not a inessential if that the nasion is diastolic and is not fissionable is not true. sent5: if something is contrasty then the fact that it is both diastolic and fissionable is false. sent6: the fact that the nasion is not arborical hold. sent7: that the Martin is a kind of a inessential if the fact that the rester is not contrasty but it is a inessential does not hold is not incorrect. sent8: the rester is a kind of non-arborical thing that is not contrasty. sent9: that the nasion is both inessential and not contrasty does not hold if it is fissionable. sent10: that something is diastolic and is nonfissionable is not correct if it is contrasty.
sent10 -> int1: the fact that the nasion is not non-diastolic but it is not fissionable is not correct if it is contrasty.;
the Martin is inessential.
sent2 -> int2: that the rester is non-contrasty a inessential is incorrect if it is not an activity.;
$hypothesis$ = the Martin is essential. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a kind of a inessential and is a kind of an activity if it is not arborical. sent2: if something is not a kind of an activity the fact that it is not contrasty and it is a inessential is not true. sent3: the rester is contrasty if the nasion is arborical thing that is not contrasty. sent4: the Martin is not a inessential if that the nasion is diastolic and is not fissionable is not true. sent5: if something is contrasty then the fact that it is both diastolic and fissionable is false. sent6: the fact that the nasion is not arborical hold. sent7: that the Martin is a kind of a inessential if the fact that the rester is not contrasty but it is a inessential does not hold is not incorrect. sent8: the rester is a kind of non-arborical thing that is not contrasty. sent9: that the nasion is both inessential and not contrasty does not hold if it is fissionable. sent10: that something is diastolic and is nonfissionable is not correct if it is contrasty. ; $proof$ = 
sent10 -> int1: the fact that the nasion is not non-diastolic but it is not fissionable is not correct if it is contrasty.; __UNKNOWN__