the fact that the shrub is incompatible is not false.
sent1: something is a peripatetic. sent2: if the dampener does not negotiate then the Aquarius is Delphic. sent3: the Aquarius is Delphic. sent4: that if the Aquarius is not Delphic then the fact that the dampener does clank hold is correct. sent5: the fact that something is incompatible and it is peripatetic is incorrect if it does not lurch Salvadoraceae. sent6: the dampener does not negotiate. sent7: the shrub is incompatible if there is something such that it is not a peripatetic. sent8: the Aquarius does clank and it is Delphic if the dampener does not negotiate. sent9: if something is client-server and it does lurch cerumen then it does not carol exudation. sent10: something does not clank if it does not lurch Salvadoraceae. sent11: something does not lurch Salvadoraceae if it is an efficacy and it is not manageable. sent12: something is not incompatible if that it is incompatible and it is a peripatetic does not hold. sent13: something is not agrypnotic if it is not north. sent14: if the Aquarius is a peripatetic it is an efficacy and is not manageable.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Aquarius is a kind of a peripatetic.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: the Aquarius is a kind of an efficacy that is not manageable.; sent11 -> int2: if the Aquarius is an efficacy that is not manageable then it does not lurch Salvadoraceae.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Aquarius does not lurch Salvadoraceae.; sent10 -> int4: if the Aquarius does not lurch Salvadoraceae then the fact that it does not clank is not incorrect.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the Aquarius does not clank.; sent8 & sent6 -> int6: the Aquarius does clank and is Delphic.; int6 -> int7: the Aquarius does clank.; int5 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the Aquarius is not a peripatetic.; int9 -> int10: something is not a peripatetic.; int10 & sent7 -> hypothesis;
the polemicist is not agrypnotic if it is not a kind of a north.
sent13 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the shrub is incompatible is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a peripatetic. sent2: if the dampener does not negotiate then the Aquarius is Delphic. sent3: the Aquarius is Delphic. sent4: that if the Aquarius is not Delphic then the fact that the dampener does clank hold is correct. sent5: the fact that something is incompatible and it is peripatetic is incorrect if it does not lurch Salvadoraceae. sent6: the dampener does not negotiate. sent7: the shrub is incompatible if there is something such that it is not a peripatetic. sent8: the Aquarius does clank and it is Delphic if the dampener does not negotiate. sent9: if something is client-server and it does lurch cerumen then it does not carol exudation. sent10: something does not clank if it does not lurch Salvadoraceae. sent11: something does not lurch Salvadoraceae if it is an efficacy and it is not manageable. sent12: something is not incompatible if that it is incompatible and it is a peripatetic does not hold. sent13: something is not agrypnotic if it is not north. sent14: if the Aquarius is a peripatetic it is an efficacy and is not manageable. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Aquarius is a kind of a peripatetic.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: the Aquarius is a kind of an efficacy that is not manageable.; sent11 -> int2: if the Aquarius is an efficacy that is not manageable then it does not lurch Salvadoraceae.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Aquarius does not lurch Salvadoraceae.; sent10 -> int4: if the Aquarius does not lurch Salvadoraceae then the fact that it does not clank is not incorrect.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the Aquarius does not clank.; sent8 & sent6 -> int6: the Aquarius does clank and is Delphic.; int6 -> int7: the Aquarius does clank.; int5 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the Aquarius is not a peripatetic.; int9 -> int10: something is not a peripatetic.; int10 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__