the watchman is not recessionary.
sent1: if the fact that something suborns diffuser and is unreportable does not hold then it does not suborns diffuser. sent2: if the tinware is not an annotation then the stage lobs roisterer but it does not process. sent3: the watchman does not lob roisterer and is not a process if the poinsettia is not immunological. sent4: there is something such that it does not suborn diffuser. sent5: the eponymy is a couplet if there is something such that that it does not dribble and it does lob synapse is false. sent6: if the lumpsucker is both a Aristotelian and vigesimal then the leporid is not nonassociative. sent7: the fact that the linocut is a dribble is right if the ornithine does dribble. sent8: if the stage lobs roisterer and is not a process the ornithine does not lobs roisterer. sent9: the linocut is not a kind of an annotation. sent10: the tinware is not an annotation if something is not a rise. sent11: something is an annotation. sent12: if the ornithine does not lob roisterer then the fact that the linocut is not a dribble and does lob synapse is not correct. sent13: the lumpsucker is a peripatetic. sent14: the linocut is not a dribble if the fact that the eponymy is a kind of a couplet that lobs synapse is false. sent15: if something is not a kind of a dribble and does not process then it is not a couplet. sent16: the fact that the eponymy is a couplet and lobs synapse does not hold if the poinsettia is not a kind of a couplet. sent17: if that something does not suborn diffuser hold that the leporid suborn diffuser and it is unreportable is wrong. sent18: something is not recessionary if it does not lob roisterer and it is not a process. sent19: the poinsettia is not a kind of an annotation. sent20: if the roisterer does lob eponymy the lumpsucker is Aristotelian. sent21: the poinsettia is not a couplet if it is anaphoric and it is immunological. sent22: that the lumpsucker is vigesimal is correct if it is a kind of a peripatetic. sent23: the poinsettia is not non-anaphoric. sent24: the roisterer propitiates and it lobs eponymy. sent25: the watchman is not immunological if it is not a process and is not recessionary. sent26: if there is something such that it is not nonassociative and does not suborn diffuser then the numbat is not a rise. sent27: the ornithine dribbles if there exists something such that it is an annotation.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the poinsettia is immunological.; sent23 & assump1 -> int1: the poinsettia is anaphoric and immunological.; int1 & sent21 -> int2: the poinsettia is not a kind of a couplet.; int2 & sent16 -> int3: the fact that the eponymy is a kind of a couplet and it does lob synapse does not hold.; int3 & sent14 -> int4: the linocut is not a dribble.; sent11 & sent27 -> int5: that the ornithine is a dribble hold.; sent7 & int5 -> int6: the linocut is a kind of a dribble.; int4 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the poinsettia is not immunological.; int8 & sent3 -> int9: the watchman does not lob roisterer and it is not a process.; sent18 -> int10: the watchman is not recessionary if it does not lob roisterer and it does not process.; int9 & int10 -> hypothesis;
the watchman is recessionary.
sent24 -> int11: the roisterer lobs eponymy.; sent20 & int11 -> int12: the lumpsucker is a kind of a Aristotelian.; sent22 & sent13 -> int13: the lumpsucker is vigesimal.; int12 & int13 -> int14: the lumpsucker is a Aristotelian and is vigesimal.; sent6 & int14 -> int15: the leporid is not nonassociative.; sent1 -> int16: the leporid does not suborn diffuser if the fact that it does suborn diffuser and is unreportable is not correct.; sent4 & sent17 -> int17: that the leporid suborns diffuser and is unreportable is not right.; int16 & int17 -> int18: the leporid does not suborn diffuser.; int15 & int18 -> int19: the leporid is a kind of non-nonassociative thing that does not suborn diffuser.; int19 -> int20: there exists something such that it is not nonassociative and does not suborn diffuser.; int20 & sent26 -> int21: the numbat does not rise.; int21 -> int22: there is something such that it is not a rise.; int22 & sent10 -> int23: the tinware is not a kind of an annotation.; sent2 & int23 -> int24: the stage lobs roisterer but it does not process.; sent8 & int24 -> int25: the ornithine does not lob roisterer.; sent12 & int25 -> int26: the fact that the linocut is not a dribble but it does lob synapse does not hold.; int26 -> int27: there is something such that that it is not a dribble and it does lob synapse is wrong.; int27 & sent5 -> int28: the eponymy is a couplet.; int28 -> int29: there exists something such that it is a couplet.;
$hypothesis$ = the watchman is not recessionary. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something suborns diffuser and is unreportable does not hold then it does not suborns diffuser. sent2: if the tinware is not an annotation then the stage lobs roisterer but it does not process. sent3: the watchman does not lob roisterer and is not a process if the poinsettia is not immunological. sent4: there is something such that it does not suborn diffuser. sent5: the eponymy is a couplet if there is something such that that it does not dribble and it does lob synapse is false. sent6: if the lumpsucker is both a Aristotelian and vigesimal then the leporid is not nonassociative. sent7: the fact that the linocut is a dribble is right if the ornithine does dribble. sent8: if the stage lobs roisterer and is not a process the ornithine does not lobs roisterer. sent9: the linocut is not a kind of an annotation. sent10: the tinware is not an annotation if something is not a rise. sent11: something is an annotation. sent12: if the ornithine does not lob roisterer then the fact that the linocut is not a dribble and does lob synapse is not correct. sent13: the lumpsucker is a peripatetic. sent14: the linocut is not a dribble if the fact that the eponymy is a kind of a couplet that lobs synapse is false. sent15: if something is not a kind of a dribble and does not process then it is not a couplet. sent16: the fact that the eponymy is a couplet and lobs synapse does not hold if the poinsettia is not a kind of a couplet. sent17: if that something does not suborn diffuser hold that the leporid suborn diffuser and it is unreportable is wrong. sent18: something is not recessionary if it does not lob roisterer and it is not a process. sent19: the poinsettia is not a kind of an annotation. sent20: if the roisterer does lob eponymy the lumpsucker is Aristotelian. sent21: the poinsettia is not a couplet if it is anaphoric and it is immunological. sent22: that the lumpsucker is vigesimal is correct if it is a kind of a peripatetic. sent23: the poinsettia is not non-anaphoric. sent24: the roisterer propitiates and it lobs eponymy. sent25: the watchman is not immunological if it is not a process and is not recessionary. sent26: if there is something such that it is not nonassociative and does not suborn diffuser then the numbat is not a rise. sent27: the ornithine dribbles if there exists something such that it is an annotation. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the poinsettia is immunological.; sent23 & assump1 -> int1: the poinsettia is anaphoric and immunological.; int1 & sent21 -> int2: the poinsettia is not a kind of a couplet.; int2 & sent16 -> int3: the fact that the eponymy is a kind of a couplet and it does lob synapse does not hold.; int3 & sent14 -> int4: the linocut is not a dribble.; sent11 & sent27 -> int5: that the ornithine is a dribble hold.; sent7 & int5 -> int6: the linocut is a kind of a dribble.; int4 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the poinsettia is not immunological.; int8 & sent3 -> int9: the watchman does not lob roisterer and it is not a process.; sent18 -> int10: the watchman is not recessionary if it does not lob roisterer and it does not process.; int9 & int10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__