that the tropopause does not tweet desertification but it is wheelless is not correct.
sent1: if the neuroscientist is not isolationist then the fact that the tropopause is not isolationist hold. sent2: the fact that the tropopause does not tweet desertification and is wheelless is not correct if the resonator does not tweet desertification. sent3: the neuroscientist is not hilar. sent4: if the neuroscientist is not a kind of a vanilla then it is characteristic and is hilar. sent5: something that is vanilla is isolationist. sent6: if there is something such that it does not tweet restlessness then the low is not incongruent. sent7: if there exists something such that it is not incongruent then that the resonator is a kind of non-apothegmatic thing that is not microeconomics is not correct. sent8: something does not tweet desertification and is wheelless if it is a vanilla. sent9: the goatsfoot does not tweet restlessness. sent10: something is vanilla if it is isolationist.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the neuroscientist is not a kind of a vanilla.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the neuroscientist is both not uncharacteristic and not non-hilar.; int1 -> int2: the neuroscientist is hilar.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the neuroscientist is a vanilla is not false.; sent5 -> int5: if the neuroscientist is a vanilla then it is a kind of an isolationist.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the neuroscientist is isolationist.;
the fact that the tropopause does not tweet desertification but it is wheelless is correct.
sent8 -> int7: the tropopause does not tweet desertification but it is wheelless if it is a vanilla.; sent10 -> int8: the tropopause is not non-vanilla if it is a kind of an isolationist.; sent9 -> int9: there is something such that it does not tweet restlessness.; int9 & sent6 -> int10: the fact that the low is not incongruent is not false.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that it is congruent.; int11 & sent7 -> int12: that the resonator is not apothegmatic and not microeconomics does not hold.; int12 -> int13: there is something such that that it is not apothegmatic and it is non-microeconomics is incorrect.;
$hypothesis$ = that the tropopause does not tweet desertification but it is wheelless is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the neuroscientist is not isolationist then the fact that the tropopause is not isolationist hold. sent2: the fact that the tropopause does not tweet desertification and is wheelless is not correct if the resonator does not tweet desertification. sent3: the neuroscientist is not hilar. sent4: if the neuroscientist is not a kind of a vanilla then it is characteristic and is hilar. sent5: something that is vanilla is isolationist. sent6: if there is something such that it does not tweet restlessness then the low is not incongruent. sent7: if there exists something such that it is not incongruent then that the resonator is a kind of non-apothegmatic thing that is not microeconomics is not correct. sent8: something does not tweet desertification and is wheelless if it is a vanilla. sent9: the goatsfoot does not tweet restlessness. sent10: something is vanilla if it is isolationist. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the neuroscientist is not a kind of a vanilla.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the neuroscientist is both not uncharacteristic and not non-hilar.; int1 -> int2: the neuroscientist is hilar.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the neuroscientist is a vanilla is not false.; sent5 -> int5: if the neuroscientist is a vanilla then it is a kind of an isolationist.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the neuroscientist is isolationist.; __UNKNOWN__