the fact that the optometrist is a kind of a fig-bird but it does not deplore anthozoan is not correct.
sent1: the squelch tails if it does bask platen. sent2: the deckhand is not abstemious if that it does swelter and it defects is true. sent3: the fact that the deckhand is not protrusive is true if the squelch tails and is a Noguchi. sent4: the squelch is a Noguchi if it is a Numidian. sent5: the equerry is both not irreversible and not exegetic if the squelch does not bask platen. sent6: if the deckhand does swelter but it is not a defect then it is not abstemious. sent7: the fact that the fact that the optometrist is a fig-bird that does not deplore anthozoan is not correct if the entrecote is not a canton is not wrong. sent8: the entrecote is not a canton if the equerry is a kind of a reversible but it is not exegetic. sent9: the deckhand swelters and is not a defect. sent10: something is not non-protrusive and it is categorial if it is not abstemious.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the squelch does bask platen.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the squelch does tail.; sent10 -> int2: if the deckhand is non-abstemious it is protrusive thing that is categorial.; sent6 & sent9 -> int3: the fact that the deckhand is not abstemious is not wrong.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the deckhand is a kind of protrusive thing that is categorial.; int4 -> int5: the deckhand is protrusive.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the optometrist is a kind of a fig-bird but it does not deplore anthozoan is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the squelch tails if it does bask platen. sent2: the deckhand is not abstemious if that it does swelter and it defects is true. sent3: the fact that the deckhand is not protrusive is true if the squelch tails and is a Noguchi. sent4: the squelch is a Noguchi if it is a Numidian. sent5: the equerry is both not irreversible and not exegetic if the squelch does not bask platen. sent6: if the deckhand does swelter but it is not a defect then it is not abstemious. sent7: the fact that the fact that the optometrist is a fig-bird that does not deplore anthozoan is not correct if the entrecote is not a canton is not wrong. sent8: the entrecote is not a canton if the equerry is a kind of a reversible but it is not exegetic. sent9: the deckhand swelters and is not a defect. sent10: something is not non-protrusive and it is categorial if it is not abstemious. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the squelch does bask platen.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the squelch does tail.; sent10 -> int2: if the deckhand is non-abstemious it is protrusive thing that is categorial.; sent6 & sent9 -> int3: the fact that the deckhand is not abstemious is not wrong.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the deckhand is a kind of protrusive thing that is categorial.; int4 -> int5: the deckhand is protrusive.; __UNKNOWN__