the gynophore is both a arithmancy and not irremovable.
sent1: if the bittern is a arithmancy the gynophore is a arithmancy but it is not irremovable. sent2: the bittern bobs cymule if that the gourd does not mean and it is not immeasurable is not right. sent3: the gynophore is not irremovable. sent4: the cymule is not a kind of a arithmancy. sent5: if something is not unpermissive then the fact that it is not a means and is immeasurable is false. sent6: that the gourd is not a means and is immeasurable is not true. sent7: if the gynophore is not a kind of a arithmancy that it does not bob cymule and it is not irremovable is not right. sent8: that if the bittern is a arithmancy then the gynophore is not irremovable is true. sent9: the fact that something does not bob cymule and is not unpermissive is false if it is not irremovable. sent10: that something does not troop panopticon and does not bob cymule is not right if it is a Mandalay. sent11: if the fact that the gourd does not troop panopticon and it is not a means is not right then the fact that the bittern is immeasurable hold. sent12: if the bittern does bob cymule it does troop panopticon. sent13: if something is not unpermissive then that it does mean and it is not immeasurable is not true. sent14: if the bittern is immeasurable then the gourd is immeasurable thing that does not bob cymule. sent15: the gynophore is unpermissive. sent16: the gynophore does not mean. sent17: the bittern is a arithmancy if it troops panopticon. sent18: the gourd is not unpermissive. sent19: the fact that the gourd means but it is not immeasurable is not true. sent20: if the gourd is unpermissive the gynophore is not unpermissive and is not a arithmancy. sent21: if that the bittern is a Ascension and/or it is not an endosperm is wrong the gynophore is a Mandalay. sent22: if the gourd is not unpermissive then the fact that it is not a means and is immeasurable does not hold. sent23: the fact that something is a kind of a arithmancy but it is not irremovable does not hold if it is not unpermissive. sent24: if something is not unpermissive then that it is not a means and not immeasurable is wrong. sent25: the gourd is immeasurable if the fact that the bittern is not a arithmancy and not irremovable does not hold. sent26: if the gourd is not unpermissive then that it is a kind of a means that is non-immeasurable is not correct.
sent24 -> int1: if the gourd is not unpermissive then the fact that it is both not a means and not immeasurable does not hold.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: that the gourd does not mean and it is not immeasurable is not true.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: the bittern does bob cymule.; int3 & sent12 -> int4: the bittern does troop panopticon.; int4 & sent17 -> int5: the bittern is a kind of a arithmancy.; int5 & sent1 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the gynophore is a arithmancy but it is non-irremovable is not true.
sent23 -> int6: if the gynophore is not unpermissive then that it is a arithmancy and is not irremovable does not hold.; sent10 -> int7: that the gynophore does not troop panopticon and it does not bob cymule is false if the fact that it is a Mandalay hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the gynophore is both a arithmancy and not irremovable. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bittern is a arithmancy the gynophore is a arithmancy but it is not irremovable. sent2: the bittern bobs cymule if that the gourd does not mean and it is not immeasurable is not right. sent3: the gynophore is not irremovable. sent4: the cymule is not a kind of a arithmancy. sent5: if something is not unpermissive then the fact that it is not a means and is immeasurable is false. sent6: that the gourd is not a means and is immeasurable is not true. sent7: if the gynophore is not a kind of a arithmancy that it does not bob cymule and it is not irremovable is not right. sent8: that if the bittern is a arithmancy then the gynophore is not irremovable is true. sent9: the fact that something does not bob cymule and is not unpermissive is false if it is not irremovable. sent10: that something does not troop panopticon and does not bob cymule is not right if it is a Mandalay. sent11: if the fact that the gourd does not troop panopticon and it is not a means is not right then the fact that the bittern is immeasurable hold. sent12: if the bittern does bob cymule it does troop panopticon. sent13: if something is not unpermissive then that it does mean and it is not immeasurable is not true. sent14: if the bittern is immeasurable then the gourd is immeasurable thing that does not bob cymule. sent15: the gynophore is unpermissive. sent16: the gynophore does not mean. sent17: the bittern is a arithmancy if it troops panopticon. sent18: the gourd is not unpermissive. sent19: the fact that the gourd means but it is not immeasurable is not true. sent20: if the gourd is unpermissive the gynophore is not unpermissive and is not a arithmancy. sent21: if that the bittern is a Ascension and/or it is not an endosperm is wrong the gynophore is a Mandalay. sent22: if the gourd is not unpermissive then the fact that it is not a means and is immeasurable does not hold. sent23: the fact that something is a kind of a arithmancy but it is not irremovable does not hold if it is not unpermissive. sent24: if something is not unpermissive then that it is not a means and not immeasurable is wrong. sent25: the gourd is immeasurable if the fact that the bittern is not a arithmancy and not irremovable does not hold. sent26: if the gourd is not unpermissive then that it is a kind of a means that is non-immeasurable is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent24 -> int1: if the gourd is not unpermissive then the fact that it is both not a means and not immeasurable does not hold.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: that the gourd does not mean and it is not immeasurable is not true.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: the bittern does bob cymule.; int3 & sent12 -> int4: the bittern does troop panopticon.; int4 & sent17 -> int5: the bittern is a kind of a arithmancy.; int5 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__