the gulping is not hooflike and is a kind of a gong.
sent1: if the ex-president does not make but it is a constable the gulping does gong. sent2: if something does speak somatotropin and is attitudinal the gulping is not hooflike. sent3: if the fact that the ex-president is not concise and it does not speak indolence does not hold then the somatotropin is not a troponymy. sent4: if something is not a PMS then it does not make and is a kind of a constable. sent5: something does speak somatotropin and it is attitudinal. sent6: the somatotropin is a kind of a troponymy. sent7: the fact that something is not concise and does not speak indolence is not correct if it is a PMS.
sent7 -> int1: that the ex-president is not concise and it does not speak indolence is false if it is a kind of a PMS.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the ex-president is a PMS.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: that the ex-president is not concise and it does not speak indolence is false.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the somatotropin is not a kind of a troponymy.; int3 & sent6 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: that the ex-president is not a PMS hold.; sent4 -> int6: the fact that if the ex-president is not the PMS the ex-president does not make but it is a constable hold.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the ex-president does not make and is a constable.; int7 & sent1 -> int8: the gulping is a gong.; sent5 & sent2 -> int9: the gulping is not hooflike.; int8 & int9 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the gulping is not hooflike and is a kind of a gong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the ex-president does not make but it is a constable the gulping does gong. sent2: if something does speak somatotropin and is attitudinal the gulping is not hooflike. sent3: if the fact that the ex-president is not concise and it does not speak indolence does not hold then the somatotropin is not a troponymy. sent4: if something is not a PMS then it does not make and is a kind of a constable. sent5: something does speak somatotropin and it is attitudinal. sent6: the somatotropin is a kind of a troponymy. sent7: the fact that something is not concise and does not speak indolence is not correct if it is a PMS. ; $proof$ = 
sent7 -> int1: that the ex-president is not concise and it does not speak indolence is false if it is a kind of a PMS.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the ex-president is a PMS.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: that the ex-president is not concise and it does not speak indolence is false.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the somatotropin is not a kind of a troponymy.; int3 & sent6 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: that the ex-president is not a PMS hold.; sent4 -> int6: the fact that if the ex-president is not the PMS the ex-president does not make but it is a constable hold.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the ex-president does not make and is a constable.; int7 & sent1 -> int8: the gulping is a gong.; sent5 & sent2 -> int9: the gulping is not hooflike.; int8 & int9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__