the fact that the couchette does not liquidize but it is a fluency is not correct.
sent1: if the couchette is not anaphoric then it is Hasidic and is not inertial. sent2: something does not curvet southernness and it is not a refractoriness if it does not liquidize. sent3: there exists something such that that it curvets southernness and is a kind of a fluency is incorrect. sent4: the manganese is a refractoriness if there exists something such that that it sights Kamia and it is not a produce is incorrect. sent5: if the cargo curvets southernness the fact that the couchette does not liquidize and is a kind of a fluency is wrong. sent6: something is a refractoriness and is not Hasidic if it does curvet southernness. sent7: if the couchette is a kind of a fluency then that the manganese does not liquidize and is a kind of a refractoriness is false. sent8: the fact that the couchette does liquidize and is a fluency is incorrect if the cargo does curvet southernness. sent9: there exists something such that that it sights Kamia and does not produce is not right. sent10: if the manganese is a kind of a refractoriness but it is not Hasidic then the couchette is a refractoriness. sent11: the fact that the cargo is not Hasidic is not incorrect if the couchette is Hasidic but it is not inertial.
sent9 & sent4 -> int1: the manganese is a refractoriness.;
the couchette does not liquidize but it is a kind of a fluency.
sent6 -> int2: if the manganese does curvet southernness then it is a kind of a refractoriness and is non-Hasidic.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the couchette does not liquidize but it is a fluency is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the couchette is not anaphoric then it is Hasidic and is not inertial. sent2: something does not curvet southernness and it is not a refractoriness if it does not liquidize. sent3: there exists something such that that it curvets southernness and is a kind of a fluency is incorrect. sent4: the manganese is a refractoriness if there exists something such that that it sights Kamia and it is not a produce is incorrect. sent5: if the cargo curvets southernness the fact that the couchette does not liquidize and is a kind of a fluency is wrong. sent6: something is a refractoriness and is not Hasidic if it does curvet southernness. sent7: if the couchette is a kind of a fluency then that the manganese does not liquidize and is a kind of a refractoriness is false. sent8: the fact that the couchette does liquidize and is a fluency is incorrect if the cargo does curvet southernness. sent9: there exists something such that that it sights Kamia and does not produce is not right. sent10: if the manganese is a kind of a refractoriness but it is not Hasidic then the couchette is a refractoriness. sent11: the fact that the cargo is not Hasidic is not incorrect if the couchette is Hasidic but it is not inertial. ; $proof$ = 
sent9 & sent4 -> int1: the manganese is a refractoriness.; __UNKNOWN__