there is something such that if it does not subject melena it does narrate nerd and it does narrate consequence.
sent1: the bunker is technophilic if the tetrafluoroethylene is technophilic. sent2: if the bunker is technophilic it does narrate consequence. sent3: a caddis-fly does narrate nerd. sent4: the consequence is not technophilic. sent5: the bunker subjects melena if it is a kind of a tartar. sent6: the tetrafluoroethylene is technophilic if that the consequence is not technophilic is correct. sent7: if the tetrafluoroethylene does not deprive ozonosphere then it is nonfatal. sent8: something that is not a kind of a tartar is a kind of a caddis-fly.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the bunker is a kind of a tartar is right.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: that the bunker does subject melena is right.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the bunker does not subject melena.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the bunker is not a tartar.; sent8 -> int4: the bunker is a kind of a caddis-fly if it is not a kind of a tartar.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the bunker is a kind of a caddis-fly.; sent3 -> int6: if the bunker is a caddis-fly it does narrate nerd.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the bunker does narrate nerd.; sent6 & sent4 -> int8: the tetrafluoroethylene is technophilic.; sent1 & int8 -> int9: the bunker is technophilic.; sent2 & int9 -> int10: the bunker does narrate consequence.; int7 & int10 -> int11: the bunker narrates nerd and does narrate consequence.; [assump2] & int11 -> int12: if the bunker does not subject melena it does narrate nerd and does narrate consequence.; int12 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not subject melena it does narrate nerd and it does narrate consequence. ; $context$ = sent1: the bunker is technophilic if the tetrafluoroethylene is technophilic. sent2: if the bunker is technophilic it does narrate consequence. sent3: a caddis-fly does narrate nerd. sent4: the consequence is not technophilic. sent5: the bunker subjects melena if it is a kind of a tartar. sent6: the tetrafluoroethylene is technophilic if that the consequence is not technophilic is correct. sent7: if the tetrafluoroethylene does not deprive ozonosphere then it is nonfatal. sent8: something that is not a kind of a tartar is a kind of a caddis-fly. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the bunker is a kind of a tartar is right.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: that the bunker does subject melena is right.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the bunker does not subject melena.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the bunker is not a tartar.; sent8 -> int4: the bunker is a kind of a caddis-fly if it is not a kind of a tartar.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the bunker is a kind of a caddis-fly.; sent3 -> int6: if the bunker is a caddis-fly it does narrate nerd.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the bunker does narrate nerd.; sent6 & sent4 -> int8: the tetrafluoroethylene is technophilic.; sent1 & int8 -> int9: the bunker is technophilic.; sent2 & int9 -> int10: the bunker does narrate consequence.; int7 & int10 -> int11: the bunker narrates nerd and does narrate consequence.; [assump2] & int11 -> int12: if the bunker does not subject melena it does narrate nerd and does narrate consequence.; int12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__