the thaw is not bloodless.
sent1: the pharmaceutical is not medieval. sent2: the pharmaceutical does not geyser avenger. sent3: that the neophyte geysers avenger hold. sent4: something is medieval thing that is descriptive. sent5: that the bitter is a kind of descriptive thing that is not ceric is not right if it does not talc indignity. sent6: the bitter is not a Paton but it is a lockage. sent7: the fact that the mandible geysers avenger is correct. sent8: the pharmaceutical is not medieval and talcs indignity. sent9: the thaw is not bloodless if the bitter does not geyser avenger or is not bloodless or both. sent10: the bitter is descriptive if it does not geyser avenger. sent11: there exists something such that it does talc indignity. sent12: if the pharmaceutical is medieval and does talc indignity then the fact that the bitter does talc indignity is right. sent13: the workaholic does not geyser avenger. sent14: the pharmaceutical is descriptive if something does talc indignity and it is bloodless. sent15: if something is descriptive then it is not ceric. sent16: the bitter is ceric. sent17: something is non-ceric but it is bloodless if it is not a waterspout. sent18: the thaw is descriptive. sent19: the fact that the pharmaceutical is descriptive is not false. sent20: the fact that the thaw does not talc indignity is not false if something geysers avenger and is descriptive. sent21: there is something such that the fact that it does geyser avenger hold. sent22: that the bitter talcs indignity if the pharmaceutical is not medieval and talcs indignity is right. sent23: the pharmaceutical does talc indignity if something is medieval and it is bloodless. sent24: that the pharmaceutical is not a kind of a waterspout is not wrong if that that the pad is a waterspout or is a kind of a Ophisaurus or both is false is right. sent25: the pharmaceutical does talc indignity if it is not a waterspout. sent26: if something that geysers avenger does talc indignity the thaw is bloodless.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bitter does not geyser avenger.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the bitter is descriptive.; sent15 -> int2: if that the bitter is descriptive is not wrong then it is not ceric.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the bitter is not ceric.; int3 & sent16 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the bitter does geyser avenger.; sent22 & sent8 -> int6: the bitter does talc indignity.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the bitter geysers avenger and does talc indignity.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that it geysers avenger and it talcs indignity.; int8 & sent26 -> hypothesis;
the thaw is not bloodless.
$hypothesis$ = the thaw is not bloodless. ; $context$ = sent1: the pharmaceutical is not medieval. sent2: the pharmaceutical does not geyser avenger. sent3: that the neophyte geysers avenger hold. sent4: something is medieval thing that is descriptive. sent5: that the bitter is a kind of descriptive thing that is not ceric is not right if it does not talc indignity. sent6: the bitter is not a Paton but it is a lockage. sent7: the fact that the mandible geysers avenger is correct. sent8: the pharmaceutical is not medieval and talcs indignity. sent9: the thaw is not bloodless if the bitter does not geyser avenger or is not bloodless or both. sent10: the bitter is descriptive if it does not geyser avenger. sent11: there exists something such that it does talc indignity. sent12: if the pharmaceutical is medieval and does talc indignity then the fact that the bitter does talc indignity is right. sent13: the workaholic does not geyser avenger. sent14: the pharmaceutical is descriptive if something does talc indignity and it is bloodless. sent15: if something is descriptive then it is not ceric. sent16: the bitter is ceric. sent17: something is non-ceric but it is bloodless if it is not a waterspout. sent18: the thaw is descriptive. sent19: the fact that the pharmaceutical is descriptive is not false. sent20: the fact that the thaw does not talc indignity is not false if something geysers avenger and is descriptive. sent21: there is something such that the fact that it does geyser avenger hold. sent22: that the bitter talcs indignity if the pharmaceutical is not medieval and talcs indignity is right. sent23: the pharmaceutical does talc indignity if something is medieval and it is bloodless. sent24: that the pharmaceutical is not a kind of a waterspout is not wrong if that that the pad is a waterspout or is a kind of a Ophisaurus or both is false is right. sent25: the pharmaceutical does talc indignity if it is not a waterspout. sent26: if something that geysers avenger does talc indignity the thaw is bloodless. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bitter does not geyser avenger.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the bitter is descriptive.; sent15 -> int2: if that the bitter is descriptive is not wrong then it is not ceric.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the bitter is not ceric.; int3 & sent16 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the bitter does geyser avenger.; sent22 & sent8 -> int6: the bitter does talc indignity.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the bitter geysers avenger and does talc indignity.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that it geysers avenger and it talcs indignity.; int8 & sent26 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__