the platitudinarian is gastroduodenal.
sent1: the aquavit does subtract Pollock if the fact that the retiree does subtract Pollock is true. sent2: if something does not snow lightwood then that it is intractable but not non-auricular is not true. sent3: if there exists something such that that it is not actual and it is inflectional is not correct then the aquavit is not inflectional. sent4: the platitudinarian is gastroduodenal if something that snows lightwood is inflectional. sent5: the greenwood does snow lightwood if it is auricular. sent6: if the fact that the retiree is not tractable and is auricular is incorrect then the platitudinarian is not gastroduodenal. sent7: something is a clothesline and it is auricular if it is not inflectional. sent8: if that the greenwood is actual is correct it is inflectional. sent9: the Luger does subtract Luger. sent10: if the Luger subtracts Luger the greenwood is actual. sent11: the Pollock is not tractable. sent12: The Luger does subtract Luger. sent13: there exists something such that that it is non-actual thing that is inflectional is not correct. sent14: if the retiree does not federalize respects and is not immanent the Pollock is tractable.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the retiree does not federalize respects and is not immanent.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: the Pollock is tractable.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the retiree does not federalize respects and is not immanent is not right.; int3 -> int4: there exists something such that the fact that it does not federalize respects and it is not immanent is not correct.; sent10 & sent9 -> int5: the greenwood is actual.; sent8 & int5 -> int6: the greenwood is inflectional.;
the platitudinarian is non-gastroduodenal.
sent2 -> int7: that the retiree is not tractable but it is auricular is incorrect if it does not snow lightwood.;
$hypothesis$ = the platitudinarian is gastroduodenal. ; $context$ = sent1: the aquavit does subtract Pollock if the fact that the retiree does subtract Pollock is true. sent2: if something does not snow lightwood then that it is intractable but not non-auricular is not true. sent3: if there exists something such that that it is not actual and it is inflectional is not correct then the aquavit is not inflectional. sent4: the platitudinarian is gastroduodenal if something that snows lightwood is inflectional. sent5: the greenwood does snow lightwood if it is auricular. sent6: if the fact that the retiree is not tractable and is auricular is incorrect then the platitudinarian is not gastroduodenal. sent7: something is a clothesline and it is auricular if it is not inflectional. sent8: if that the greenwood is actual is correct it is inflectional. sent9: the Luger does subtract Luger. sent10: if the Luger subtracts Luger the greenwood is actual. sent11: the Pollock is not tractable. sent12: The Luger does subtract Luger. sent13: there exists something such that that it is non-actual thing that is inflectional is not correct. sent14: if the retiree does not federalize respects and is not immanent the Pollock is tractable. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the retiree does not federalize respects and is not immanent.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: the Pollock is tractable.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the retiree does not federalize respects and is not immanent is not right.; int3 -> int4: there exists something such that the fact that it does not federalize respects and it is not immanent is not correct.; sent10 & sent9 -> int5: the greenwood is actual.; sent8 & int5 -> int6: the greenwood is inflectional.; __UNKNOWN__