the calpac is a kind of a indinavir.
sent1: the calpac is a kind of a indinavir if that the fact that the Mullah is not handmade but it is a bible is wrong is correct. sent2: if the hunter-gatherer is not a bible then that the Mullah is handmade and it is a bible is incorrect. sent3: that the hunter-gatherer is handmade is correct if the Mullah aberrates. sent4: that the discussant does aberrate or it is not a kind of a balagan or both is incorrect. sent5: the oligarch is a balagan if there is something such that it is not actinomorphic. sent6: the Mullah aberrates if the discussant is a kind of a balagan. sent7: if something is both a speech and actinomorphic then the fact that the hunter-gatherer is not a bible hold. sent8: the discussant is not a arrester. sent9: something either is not non-alimentative or is a Braun or both. sent10: if either something is not alimentative or it is a Braun or both the oligarch is actinomorphic. sent11: if something is not a speech then it is not a indinavir and is actinomorphic. sent12: if something is not handmade or it is not non-actinomorphic or both then the Mullah is a balagan. sent13: if the discussant is not a arrester it is a kind of a balagan and/or aberrates. sent14: if the fact that either the discussant aberrates or it is a balagan or both is not correct the oligarch is a kind of a speech. sent15: the fact that the oligarch is not a indinavir and it is not a speech does not hold if the hunter-gatherer is not actinomorphic. sent16: the discussant is a balagan. sent17: the oligarch is actinomorphic if something is a Braun. sent18: there exists something such that it is non-alimentative or a Braun or both. sent19: if the hunter-gatherer is not a bible the fact that the Mullah is both not handmade and a bible does not hold.
sent18 & sent10 -> int1: the oligarch is actinomorphic.;
the bursar is a indinavir.
$hypothesis$ = the calpac is a kind of a indinavir. ; $context$ = sent1: the calpac is a kind of a indinavir if that the fact that the Mullah is not handmade but it is a bible is wrong is correct. sent2: if the hunter-gatherer is not a bible then that the Mullah is handmade and it is a bible is incorrect. sent3: that the hunter-gatherer is handmade is correct if the Mullah aberrates. sent4: that the discussant does aberrate or it is not a kind of a balagan or both is incorrect. sent5: the oligarch is a balagan if there is something such that it is not actinomorphic. sent6: the Mullah aberrates if the discussant is a kind of a balagan. sent7: if something is both a speech and actinomorphic then the fact that the hunter-gatherer is not a bible hold. sent8: the discussant is not a arrester. sent9: something either is not non-alimentative or is a Braun or both. sent10: if either something is not alimentative or it is a Braun or both the oligarch is actinomorphic. sent11: if something is not a speech then it is not a indinavir and is actinomorphic. sent12: if something is not handmade or it is not non-actinomorphic or both then the Mullah is a balagan. sent13: if the discussant is not a arrester it is a kind of a balagan and/or aberrates. sent14: if the fact that either the discussant aberrates or it is a balagan or both is not correct the oligarch is a kind of a speech. sent15: the fact that the oligarch is not a indinavir and it is not a speech does not hold if the hunter-gatherer is not actinomorphic. sent16: the discussant is a balagan. sent17: the oligarch is actinomorphic if something is a Braun. sent18: there exists something such that it is non-alimentative or a Braun or both. sent19: if the hunter-gatherer is not a bible the fact that the Mullah is both not handmade and a bible does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
sent18 & sent10 -> int1: the oligarch is actinomorphic.; __UNKNOWN__