the crewelwork is bronchial.
sent1: if the mandrill is a kind of a Vermeer and it is a Kahn then the sutler is not a kind of a Vermeer. sent2: the crewelwork is an aphorism if that the waffle is bronchial is not false. sent3: if the sutler is not a Vermeer the fact that it respects Belarus and it is infallible does not hold. sent4: if something is not a revolutionism it does not align. sent5: the fact that the sutler is not bronchial is correct. sent6: that the sutler is not a revolutionism does not hold if the ladle is not an aphorism and does not align. sent7: the sutler is not a kind of a wrench. sent8: the waffle does align and it is bronchial if it does not respect Belarus. sent9: the waffle does not respect Belarus. sent10: the polyfoam is an aphorism. sent11: the sutler is a kind of an aphorism if the ladle is a revolutionism but it does not align. sent12: the ladle is not a kind of an aphorism and does not align if the waffle is not an aphorism. sent13: the mandrill is a kind of a Vermeer. sent14: the rainstorm is not an aphorism and it is not a wrench if the waffle does align. sent15: if the ladle is an aphorism then the waffle either does not wrench or is bronchial or both. sent16: the fact that something is not a kind of a wrench or it is an aphorism or both is true if it does not align. sent17: if something that is not an aphorism is not a wrench it does not subscribe. sent18: the crewelwork is bronchial if the sutler is a revolutionism. sent19: the waffle is not a kind of a wrench. sent20: the exile is a wrench. sent21: the sutler is a revolutionism if the ladle is an aphorism and does not align. sent22: the ladle is not a revolutionism if that the sutler does respect Belarus and is infallible does not hold. sent23: the sutler is a kind of a revolutionism if the ladle is not an aphorism but it aligns. sent24: the waffle is a wrench if it is an aphorism.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the waffle is an aphorism is correct.; sent24 & assump1 -> int1: the waffle is a kind of a wrench.; int1 & sent19 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the waffle is not a kind of an aphorism.; int3 & sent12 -> int4: the ladle is not an aphorism and it does not align.; int4 & sent6 -> int5: the sutler is a revolutionism.; int5 & sent18 -> hypothesis;
the crewelwork is not bronchial.
$hypothesis$ = the crewelwork is bronchial. ; $context$ = sent1: if the mandrill is a kind of a Vermeer and it is a Kahn then the sutler is not a kind of a Vermeer. sent2: the crewelwork is an aphorism if that the waffle is bronchial is not false. sent3: if the sutler is not a Vermeer the fact that it respects Belarus and it is infallible does not hold. sent4: if something is not a revolutionism it does not align. sent5: the fact that the sutler is not bronchial is correct. sent6: that the sutler is not a revolutionism does not hold if the ladle is not an aphorism and does not align. sent7: the sutler is not a kind of a wrench. sent8: the waffle does align and it is bronchial if it does not respect Belarus. sent9: the waffle does not respect Belarus. sent10: the polyfoam is an aphorism. sent11: the sutler is a kind of an aphorism if the ladle is a revolutionism but it does not align. sent12: the ladle is not a kind of an aphorism and does not align if the waffle is not an aphorism. sent13: the mandrill is a kind of a Vermeer. sent14: the rainstorm is not an aphorism and it is not a wrench if the waffle does align. sent15: if the ladle is an aphorism then the waffle either does not wrench or is bronchial or both. sent16: the fact that something is not a kind of a wrench or it is an aphorism or both is true if it does not align. sent17: if something that is not an aphorism is not a wrench it does not subscribe. sent18: the crewelwork is bronchial if the sutler is a revolutionism. sent19: the waffle is not a kind of a wrench. sent20: the exile is a wrench. sent21: the sutler is a revolutionism if the ladle is an aphorism and does not align. sent22: the ladle is not a revolutionism if that the sutler does respect Belarus and is infallible does not hold. sent23: the sutler is a kind of a revolutionism if the ladle is not an aphorism but it aligns. sent24: the waffle is a wrench if it is an aphorism. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the waffle is an aphorism is correct.; sent24 & assump1 -> int1: the waffle is a kind of a wrench.; int1 & sent19 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the waffle is not a kind of an aphorism.; int3 & sent12 -> int4: the ladle is not an aphorism and it does not align.; int4 & sent6 -> int5: the sutler is a revolutionism.; int5 & sent18 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__