the flytrap is propagative.
sent1: if something is not many that it does not iridesce and it is a kind of a carnelian is not correct. sent2: there exists something such that that it boils and it is not uncooperative does not hold. sent3: the putamen is astronomic but it is not a tree-frog if the importer is astronomic. sent4: if that the meal does not iridesce but it is a carnelian is not correct then that the flytrap is propagative hold. sent5: if the importer is not a tree-frog the meal is astronomic and iridesces. sent6: that the flytrap is not propagative hold if the meal does iridesce. sent7: the meal does not iridesce if that the fact that the importer is a tree-frog that is a carnelian is right is not correct. sent8: if that the meal is not many and it is not a survivor is not true the importer is not astronomic. sent9: the prince is not a kind of a tree-frog if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a boil and it is cooperative is incorrect. sent10: if the prince is not a tree-frog the fact that the putamen is a tree-frog is not false. sent11: the Labour is not astronomic and it is not a Morone if the meal does not iridesce. sent12: that the putamen is not a boil and is not a kind of a carnelian is incorrect if the prince is uncooperative. sent13: if the fact that the fact that the flytrap does not boil and it is not uncooperative is true is wrong then the fact that it is not propagative is not wrong. sent14: if that something does not dive prince and hurtles is not incorrect then it is uncooperative. sent15: if the prince hurtles the fact that the flytrap is not a kind of a boil and is not uncooperative is not right. sent16: there is something such that that it boils and it is uncooperative does not hold. sent17: the prince does not dive prince but it does hurtle if the pacer is not opposite.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the meal is non-many and is not a survivor does not hold.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the importer is not astronomic.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the putamen is astronomic but it is not a kind of a tree-frog.; int2 -> int3: the putamen is not a kind of a tree-frog.; sent2 & sent9 -> int4: the prince is not a tree-frog.; sent10 & int4 -> int5: the putamen is a tree-frog.; int3 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the meal is not many and it is not a survivor.; int7 -> int8: the meal is not many.; sent1 -> int9: if the meal is not many that the fact that it does not iridesce and it is a kind of a carnelian is correct is not right.; int8 & int9 -> int10: that the meal does not iridesce but it is a carnelian does not hold.; int10 & sent4 -> hypothesis;
that the Labour is a kind of non-astronomic thing that is not a Morone is correct.
$hypothesis$ = the flytrap is propagative. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not many that it does not iridesce and it is a kind of a carnelian is not correct. sent2: there exists something such that that it boils and it is not uncooperative does not hold. sent3: the putamen is astronomic but it is not a tree-frog if the importer is astronomic. sent4: if that the meal does not iridesce but it is a carnelian is not correct then that the flytrap is propagative hold. sent5: if the importer is not a tree-frog the meal is astronomic and iridesces. sent6: that the flytrap is not propagative hold if the meal does iridesce. sent7: the meal does not iridesce if that the fact that the importer is a tree-frog that is a carnelian is right is not correct. sent8: if that the meal is not many and it is not a survivor is not true the importer is not astronomic. sent9: the prince is not a kind of a tree-frog if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a boil and it is cooperative is incorrect. sent10: if the prince is not a tree-frog the fact that the putamen is a tree-frog is not false. sent11: the Labour is not astronomic and it is not a Morone if the meal does not iridesce. sent12: that the putamen is not a boil and is not a kind of a carnelian is incorrect if the prince is uncooperative. sent13: if the fact that the fact that the flytrap does not boil and it is not uncooperative is true is wrong then the fact that it is not propagative is not wrong. sent14: if that something does not dive prince and hurtles is not incorrect then it is uncooperative. sent15: if the prince hurtles the fact that the flytrap is not a kind of a boil and is not uncooperative is not right. sent16: there is something such that that it boils and it is uncooperative does not hold. sent17: the prince does not dive prince but it does hurtle if the pacer is not opposite. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the meal is non-many and is not a survivor does not hold.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the importer is not astronomic.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the putamen is astronomic but it is not a kind of a tree-frog.; int2 -> int3: the putamen is not a kind of a tree-frog.; sent2 & sent9 -> int4: the prince is not a tree-frog.; sent10 & int4 -> int5: the putamen is a tree-frog.; int3 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the meal is not many and it is not a survivor.; int7 -> int8: the meal is not many.; sent1 -> int9: if the meal is not many that the fact that it does not iridesce and it is a kind of a carnelian is correct is not right.; int8 & int9 -> int10: that the meal does not iridesce but it is a carnelian does not hold.; int10 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__