the photomicrograph is not alar.
sent1: a self-preservation is alar. sent2: everything flumps and it is not consolable. sent3: if something is a self-preservation the fact that it does not luminesce and it does not catalyze retreatant does not hold. sent4: if the photomicrograph is not a self-preservation then that it is not a gnathostome and it does not recover is false. sent5: something is not alar if the fact that it is not a gnathostome and does not recover is wrong. sent6: the photomicrograph is not a kind of a self-preservation.
sent5 -> int1: if the fact that the photomicrograph is not a gnathostome and it does not recover is not correct it is non-alar.; sent4 & sent6 -> int2: that that the photomicrograph is not a kind of a gnathostome and it does not recover does not hold is true.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;
that the photomicrograph is alar is correct.
sent1 -> int3: the fact that the photomicrograph is alar if the photomicrograph is a self-preservation is right.;
$hypothesis$ = the photomicrograph is not alar. ; $context$ = sent1: a self-preservation is alar. sent2: everything flumps and it is not consolable. sent3: if something is a self-preservation the fact that it does not luminesce and it does not catalyze retreatant does not hold. sent4: if the photomicrograph is not a self-preservation then that it is not a gnathostome and it does not recover is false. sent5: something is not alar if the fact that it is not a gnathostome and does not recover is wrong. sent6: the photomicrograph is not a kind of a self-preservation. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 -> int1: if the fact that the photomicrograph is not a gnathostome and it does not recover is not correct it is non-alar.; sent4 & sent6 -> int2: that that the photomicrograph is not a kind of a gnathostome and it does not recover does not hold is true.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__