the angle does not throng.
sent1: if the peregrine smashes protology and is not evolutionary then the pendragon does not smashes protology. sent2: if that the decay smashes Soledad is not false the fact that the superhet is a kind of a Tulsa is true. sent3: the fact that the angle does not stale Scandinavian but it is influential is wrong. sent4: something is influential but it does not smash Soledad if it is not an apprehension. sent5: if an influential thing does not smash Soledad then that it does not throng hold. sent6: the oleaster is bioclimatic and it is an antiseptic. sent7: a non-antiseptic thing that is not a kind of a speed does not entertain. sent8: if the angle does not smash Soledad then it does throng. sent9: the pendragon is not an antiseptic. sent10: the pendragon entertains and is a bonanza. sent11: the decay does not stale Scandinavian. sent12: if the decay is not uninfluential and is an apprehension then the pendragon is not a bonanza. sent13: the decay is an apprehension that is not antiseptic. sent14: if the fact that the angle is not fictional and does stale Scandinavian is correct the decay is influential. sent15: the angle is antiseptic if it does not stale Scandinavian. sent16: that the valedictorian stales Scandinavian is not false. sent17: the superhet stales Scandinavian if that the angle does stales Scandinavian is not wrong. sent18: the pendragon is a kind of non-antiseptic thing that is not a speed if it does not smash protology. sent19: the angle is not fictional and does stale Scandinavian if it smashes Soledad. sent20: if the decay does not smash Soledad then it is influential. sent21: the angle is not a bonanza. sent22: the angle is unangry. sent23: if that the decay is an apprehension and/or it is not a kind of a bonanza is not right then the angle is not a kind of an apprehension.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the angle does smash Soledad.; sent19 & assump1 -> int1: the angle is not fictional and stales Scandinavian.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the decay is influential.; sent13 -> int3: the decay is an apprehension.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the decay is influential and it is an apprehension.; int4 & sent12 -> int5: the pendragon is not a bonanza.; sent10 -> int6: the pendragon is a kind of a bonanza.; int5 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the angle does not smash Soledad.; int8 & sent8 -> hypothesis;
the superhet stales Scandinavian and is a Tulsa.
$hypothesis$ = the angle does not throng. ; $context$ = sent1: if the peregrine smashes protology and is not evolutionary then the pendragon does not smashes protology. sent2: if that the decay smashes Soledad is not false the fact that the superhet is a kind of a Tulsa is true. sent3: the fact that the angle does not stale Scandinavian but it is influential is wrong. sent4: something is influential but it does not smash Soledad if it is not an apprehension. sent5: if an influential thing does not smash Soledad then that it does not throng hold. sent6: the oleaster is bioclimatic and it is an antiseptic. sent7: a non-antiseptic thing that is not a kind of a speed does not entertain. sent8: if the angle does not smash Soledad then it does throng. sent9: the pendragon is not an antiseptic. sent10: the pendragon entertains and is a bonanza. sent11: the decay does not stale Scandinavian. sent12: if the decay is not uninfluential and is an apprehension then the pendragon is not a bonanza. sent13: the decay is an apprehension that is not antiseptic. sent14: if the fact that the angle is not fictional and does stale Scandinavian is correct the decay is influential. sent15: the angle is antiseptic if it does not stale Scandinavian. sent16: that the valedictorian stales Scandinavian is not false. sent17: the superhet stales Scandinavian if that the angle does stales Scandinavian is not wrong. sent18: the pendragon is a kind of non-antiseptic thing that is not a speed if it does not smash protology. sent19: the angle is not fictional and does stale Scandinavian if it smashes Soledad. sent20: if the decay does not smash Soledad then it is influential. sent21: the angle is not a bonanza. sent22: the angle is unangry. sent23: if that the decay is an apprehension and/or it is not a kind of a bonanza is not right then the angle is not a kind of an apprehension. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the angle does smash Soledad.; sent19 & assump1 -> int1: the angle is not fictional and stales Scandinavian.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the decay is influential.; sent13 -> int3: the decay is an apprehension.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the decay is influential and it is an apprehension.; int4 & sent12 -> int5: the pendragon is not a bonanza.; sent10 -> int6: the pendragon is a kind of a bonanza.; int5 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the angle does not smash Soledad.; int8 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__