the alprazolam is a carotenoid.
sent1: the loupe is not bumpy if there exists something such that that it is denotative and it is not a rofecoxib is false. sent2: if the salvinorin does not roll pudding-face the fact that it is a kind of divisional thing that does truck barbecuing is false. sent3: if there exists something such that that it is ascomycetous and is not a puncture is false the U is non-analytic. sent4: that the U is not analytic hold if there is something such that it is a puncture. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is a sac and it is not unsystematic does not hold. sent6: if something is not isothermic then the coelenteron is not a roundsman but it is noticeable. sent7: if the salvinorin is not divisional then the fact that the undesirable is divisional is correct. sent8: there is something such that it is a kind of ascomycetous thing that does not puncture. sent9: that if something is noticeable it is a rofecoxib is not false. sent10: if something is a rofecoxib then it is a carotenoid. sent11: if something that is not a roundsman is noticeable then it is not analytic. sent12: something does taper if it does not camber misdemeanor or it is a tapir or both. sent13: the fact that if the U is not analytic the alprazolam is not analytic or noticeable or both is not wrong. sent14: something is a rofecoxib if it is not analytic and/or it is noticeable. sent15: the salvinorin does not roll pudding-face. sent16: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not daydream and is isothermic is false then the pudding-face is not isothermic. sent17: the panhandle is not a kind of a Russian if there exists something such that that it is a nameko and is not a carotenoid is not true. sent18: if that something is divisional and it does truck barbecuing is false then that it is not divisional is right. sent19: there exists something such that that it is ascomycetous and is a puncture is not right. sent20: there is something such that the fact that it cambers truncation and it is not a twilight does not hold. sent21: the alprazolam is a kind of a rofecoxib if it is noticeable. sent22: there is something such that that it is both ascomycetous and not a puncture is not right. sent23: if something is divisional then it is aneuploid. sent24: that something is a kind of analytic thing that is not a rofecoxib is false if it is noticeable. sent25: that the undesirable does not daydream and is isothermic is incorrect if it is aneuploid.
sent22 & sent3 -> int1: the U is not analytic.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: the alprazolam is either not analytic or not unnoticeable or both.; sent14 -> int3: the alprazolam is a kind of a rofecoxib if it is not analytic and/or it is noticeable.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the alprazolam is a rofecoxib.; sent10 -> int5: if the alprazolam is a rofecoxib it is a carotenoid.; int4 & int5 -> hypothesis;
the alprazolam is not a carotenoid.
sent24 -> int6: if the coelenteron is noticeable then the fact that it is not non-analytic and it is not a rofecoxib does not hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the alprazolam is a carotenoid. ; $context$ = sent1: the loupe is not bumpy if there exists something such that that it is denotative and it is not a rofecoxib is false. sent2: if the salvinorin does not roll pudding-face the fact that it is a kind of divisional thing that does truck barbecuing is false. sent3: if there exists something such that that it is ascomycetous and is not a puncture is false the U is non-analytic. sent4: that the U is not analytic hold if there is something such that it is a puncture. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is a sac and it is not unsystematic does not hold. sent6: if something is not isothermic then the coelenteron is not a roundsman but it is noticeable. sent7: if the salvinorin is not divisional then the fact that the undesirable is divisional is correct. sent8: there is something such that it is a kind of ascomycetous thing that does not puncture. sent9: that if something is noticeable it is a rofecoxib is not false. sent10: if something is a rofecoxib then it is a carotenoid. sent11: if something that is not a roundsman is noticeable then it is not analytic. sent12: something does taper if it does not camber misdemeanor or it is a tapir or both. sent13: the fact that if the U is not analytic the alprazolam is not analytic or noticeable or both is not wrong. sent14: something is a rofecoxib if it is not analytic and/or it is noticeable. sent15: the salvinorin does not roll pudding-face. sent16: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not daydream and is isothermic is false then the pudding-face is not isothermic. sent17: the panhandle is not a kind of a Russian if there exists something such that that it is a nameko and is not a carotenoid is not true. sent18: if that something is divisional and it does truck barbecuing is false then that it is not divisional is right. sent19: there exists something such that that it is ascomycetous and is a puncture is not right. sent20: there is something such that the fact that it cambers truncation and it is not a twilight does not hold. sent21: the alprazolam is a kind of a rofecoxib if it is noticeable. sent22: there is something such that that it is both ascomycetous and not a puncture is not right. sent23: if something is divisional then it is aneuploid. sent24: that something is a kind of analytic thing that is not a rofecoxib is false if it is noticeable. sent25: that the undesirable does not daydream and is isothermic is incorrect if it is aneuploid. ; $proof$ = 
sent22 & sent3 -> int1: the U is not analytic.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: the alprazolam is either not analytic or not unnoticeable or both.; sent14 -> int3: the alprazolam is a kind of a rofecoxib if it is not analytic and/or it is noticeable.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the alprazolam is a rofecoxib.; sent10 -> int5: if the alprazolam is a rofecoxib it is a carotenoid.; int4 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__