either something does walk Kruger or it firebombs Cistus or both.
sent1: the fact that if the Komi is not a conchologist the secretion either is a conchologist or is accessional or both is not incorrect. sent2: something is a kind of a cross and/or is not a birdie. sent3: the firelighter is not non-promissory. sent4: if the secretion is a conchologist then the scaphopod firebombs Cistus. sent5: if there exists something such that the fact that it does firebomb Cistus is right then the Komi is a conchologist and/or it walks Kruger. sent6: something is incomparable and/or it is a kind of a crinoid. sent7: the firelighter is incomparable and/or it is a crinoid. sent8: if there is something such that it is conjunctive then that either the firelighter is not comparable or it is a crinoid or both is true. sent9: there exists something such that it is incomparable and/or it is not accessional. sent10: there exists something such that it is conjunctive. sent11: if something is incomparable and/or it is non-crinoid then the Komi is not a conchologist. sent12: either the scaphopod is accessional or it does walk Kruger or both. sent13: if the secretion is accessional then the scaphopod firebombs Cistus. sent14: the Komi is not incomparable. sent15: if something is not a crinoid the Komi is not a kind of a conchologist. sent16: if there exists something such that it is conjunctive the firelighter is incomparable and/or it is non-crinoid.
sent10 & sent16 -> int1: the firelighter is incomparable and/or it is not crinoid.; int1 -> int2: something is not comparable or non-crinoid or both.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: the Komi is not a kind of a conchologist.; sent1 & int3 -> int4: the secretion is a conchologist and/or is accessional.; int4 & sent4 & sent13 -> int5: the scaphopod firebombs Cistus.; int5 -> int6: the scaphopod does walk Kruger or it firebombs Cistus or both.; int6 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = either something does walk Kruger or it firebombs Cistus or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that if the Komi is not a conchologist the secretion either is a conchologist or is accessional or both is not incorrect. sent2: something is a kind of a cross and/or is not a birdie. sent3: the firelighter is not non-promissory. sent4: if the secretion is a conchologist then the scaphopod firebombs Cistus. sent5: if there exists something such that the fact that it does firebomb Cistus is right then the Komi is a conchologist and/or it walks Kruger. sent6: something is incomparable and/or it is a kind of a crinoid. sent7: the firelighter is incomparable and/or it is a crinoid. sent8: if there is something such that it is conjunctive then that either the firelighter is not comparable or it is a crinoid or both is true. sent9: there exists something such that it is incomparable and/or it is not accessional. sent10: there exists something such that it is conjunctive. sent11: if something is incomparable and/or it is non-crinoid then the Komi is not a conchologist. sent12: either the scaphopod is accessional or it does walk Kruger or both. sent13: if the secretion is accessional then the scaphopod firebombs Cistus. sent14: the Komi is not incomparable. sent15: if something is not a crinoid the Komi is not a kind of a conchologist. sent16: if there exists something such that it is conjunctive the firelighter is incomparable and/or it is non-crinoid. ; $proof$ = 
sent10 & sent16 -> int1: the firelighter is incomparable and/or it is not crinoid.; int1 -> int2: something is not comparable or non-crinoid or both.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: the Komi is not a kind of a conchologist.; sent1 & int3 -> int4: the secretion is a conchologist and/or is accessional.; int4 & sent4 & sent13 -> int5: the scaphopod firebombs Cistus.; int5 -> int6: the scaphopod does walk Kruger or it firebombs Cistus or both.; int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__