the fact that the speedskater slices audiology and is not postmodernist is incorrect.
sent1: if that the combatant is epicyclic is true then the fact that the autopilot corrodes is not incorrect. sent2: the fact that the antheridiophore is not non-epicyclic and it does slice Milvus does not hold if there exists something such that it is not fruitful. sent3: the speedskater corrodes if the autopilot does slice audiology. sent4: if there is something such that the fact that it either slices audiology or is not non-postmodernist or both does not hold then the speedskater is not fruitful. sent5: the autopilot is not epicyclic if there is something such that that it is a kind of epicyclic thing that slices Milvus is false. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it does slice audiology and/or it is postmodernist is not right. sent7: the antheridiophore either does slice Milvus or is epicyclic or both. sent8: something is not postmodernist. sent9: the speedskater slices audiology and is epicyclic if the autopilot does not slice Milvus. sent10: that the speedskater does slice audiology and is not postmodernist is false if there is something such that it does not slice Milvus. sent11: if something is not epicyclic the fact that it does corrode and it is a kind of a chamberpot is incorrect. sent12: the combatant is epicyclic. sent13: the fact that the ring is nonsyllabic but it is not postmodernist does not hold. sent14: there exists something such that the fact that it is not fruitful is not false. sent15: if the autopilot is fruitful and/or it corrodes the antheridiophore does not slice Milvus.
sent1 & sent12 -> int1: the autopilot does corrode.; int1 -> int2: the autopilot either is fruitful or corrodes or both.; sent15 & int2 -> int3: the antheridiophore does not slice Milvus.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that it does not slice Milvus.; int4 & sent10 -> hypothesis;
the speedskater slices audiology but it is not postmodernist.
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the speedskater slices audiology and is not postmodernist is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the combatant is epicyclic is true then the fact that the autopilot corrodes is not incorrect. sent2: the fact that the antheridiophore is not non-epicyclic and it does slice Milvus does not hold if there exists something such that it is not fruitful. sent3: the speedskater corrodes if the autopilot does slice audiology. sent4: if there is something such that the fact that it either slices audiology or is not non-postmodernist or both does not hold then the speedskater is not fruitful. sent5: the autopilot is not epicyclic if there is something such that that it is a kind of epicyclic thing that slices Milvus is false. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it does slice audiology and/or it is postmodernist is not right. sent7: the antheridiophore either does slice Milvus or is epicyclic or both. sent8: something is not postmodernist. sent9: the speedskater slices audiology and is epicyclic if the autopilot does not slice Milvus. sent10: that the speedskater does slice audiology and is not postmodernist is false if there is something such that it does not slice Milvus. sent11: if something is not epicyclic the fact that it does corrode and it is a kind of a chamberpot is incorrect. sent12: the combatant is epicyclic. sent13: the fact that the ring is nonsyllabic but it is not postmodernist does not hold. sent14: there exists something such that the fact that it is not fruitful is not false. sent15: if the autopilot is fruitful and/or it corrodes the antheridiophore does not slice Milvus. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 & sent12 -> int1: the autopilot does corrode.; int1 -> int2: the autopilot either is fruitful or corrodes or both.; sent15 & int2 -> int3: the antheridiophore does not slice Milvus.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that it does not slice Milvus.; int4 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__