if the beluga does not spoil stardust then the amyloid is not a kind of a rage and it is not hemiparasitic.
sent1: the fact that the amyloid is not hemiparasitic hold if there is something such that it is a kind of a ramekin and it is not psychogenic. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not a secessionism then the evaporite is not a haggle and does not amplify Magadhan. sent3: if the amyloid is not appealable then the chachalaca is both psychogenic and a ramekin. sent4: there exists something such that it is a ramekin. sent5: the evaporite is not psychogenic. sent6: the amyloid is not a rage if there are psychogenic and non-hemiparasitic things. sent7: the beluga spoils stardust if the amyloid is a kind of a rage. sent8: if the beluga is not anodic the amyloid is not appealable. sent9: that that the hibachi does not amplify jay and it does not lean is wrong hold. sent10: if the beluga is not appealable then the amyloid is not appealable. sent11: something that is an accountability is either not appealable or non-anodic or both. sent12: if the fact that there is something such that it does not haggle and does not amplify Magadhan is right then the beluga is an accountability. sent13: if something is not a kind of a carrageen it is not a secessionism. sent14: the evaporite is both a ramekin and not psychogenic. sent15: if the fact that something does not spoil stardust is not false it is non-hemiparasitic. sent16: something does not rage or does not spoil stardust or both if it is psychogenic. sent17: if the fact that something does not amplify jay and it is not leaning does not hold that it is not a carrageen is true.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the amyloid rages.; sent7 & assump2 -> int1: the beluga spoils stardust.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the beluga does not spoil stardust hold.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the amyloid is not a rage.; sent14 -> int4: there is something such that it is a ramekin and it is not psychogenic.; int4 & sent1 -> int5: the amyloid is not hemiparasitic.; int3 & int5 -> int6: the amyloid is not a rage and is not hemiparasitic.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis;
the chachalaca is not hemiparasitic.
sent16 -> int7: the chachalaca does not rage and/or it does not spoil stardust if it is psychogenic.; sent11 -> int8: if the beluga is an accountability it is not appealable and/or it is not anodic.; sent13 -> int9: if the hibachi is not a kind of a carrageen then it is not a secessionism.; sent17 -> int10: the hibachi is not a carrageen if the fact that it does not amplify jay and it is non-leaning is not correct.; int10 & sent9 -> int11: the hibachi is not a carrageen.; int9 & int11 -> int12: the hibachi is not a secessionism.; int12 -> int13: there exists something such that it is not a secessionism.; int13 & sent2 -> int14: the evaporite is not a haggle and does not amplify Magadhan.; int14 -> int15: something is not a haggle and it does not amplify Magadhan.; int15 & sent12 -> int16: the beluga is a kind of an accountability.; int8 & int16 -> int17: the beluga is not appealable and/or it is not anodic.; int17 & sent10 & sent8 -> int18: the amyloid is not appealable.; sent3 & int18 -> int19: the chachalaca is psychogenic and a ramekin.; int19 -> int20: the chachalaca is psychogenic.; int7 & int20 -> int21: the chachalaca is not a rage and/or it does not spoil stardust.; sent15 -> int22: the chachalaca is not hemiparasitic if it does not spoil stardust.;
$hypothesis$ = if the beluga does not spoil stardust then the amyloid is not a kind of a rage and it is not hemiparasitic. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the amyloid is not hemiparasitic hold if there is something such that it is a kind of a ramekin and it is not psychogenic. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not a secessionism then the evaporite is not a haggle and does not amplify Magadhan. sent3: if the amyloid is not appealable then the chachalaca is both psychogenic and a ramekin. sent4: there exists something such that it is a ramekin. sent5: the evaporite is not psychogenic. sent6: the amyloid is not a rage if there are psychogenic and non-hemiparasitic things. sent7: the beluga spoils stardust if the amyloid is a kind of a rage. sent8: if the beluga is not anodic the amyloid is not appealable. sent9: that that the hibachi does not amplify jay and it does not lean is wrong hold. sent10: if the beluga is not appealable then the amyloid is not appealable. sent11: something that is an accountability is either not appealable or non-anodic or both. sent12: if the fact that there is something such that it does not haggle and does not amplify Magadhan is right then the beluga is an accountability. sent13: if something is not a kind of a carrageen it is not a secessionism. sent14: the evaporite is both a ramekin and not psychogenic. sent15: if the fact that something does not spoil stardust is not false it is non-hemiparasitic. sent16: something does not rage or does not spoil stardust or both if it is psychogenic. sent17: if the fact that something does not amplify jay and it is not leaning does not hold that it is not a carrageen is true. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the amyloid rages.; sent7 & assump2 -> int1: the beluga spoils stardust.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the beluga does not spoil stardust hold.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the amyloid is not a rage.; sent14 -> int4: there is something such that it is a ramekin and it is not psychogenic.; int4 & sent1 -> int5: the amyloid is not hemiparasitic.; int3 & int5 -> int6: the amyloid is not a rage and is not hemiparasitic.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__