the millerite congratulates sympathy and it is stemmatic.
sent1: if the effacement is a kind of an accusative then that the time-fuse is sarcolemmic is correct. sent2: the millerite is stemmatic if it is not gravitational. sent3: the fact that if the compilation is not a quack then the fact that the effacement is not accusative but it is a quack is wrong is not wrong. sent4: the compilation is not a sawfish and it is not pacific if it is not non-propagative. sent5: if the time-fuse is sarcolemmic the millerite is not gravitational. sent6: the compilation is not pacific if that it is propagative hold. sent7: the fact that the compilation is not a sawfish but it is pacific is false if that it does quack is true. sent8: that the compilation is not a sawfish and it is not pacific is not true if it does quack. sent9: the compilation is propagative. sent10: the fact that that the millerite congratulates sympathy and it is stemmatic hold if the millerite is not gravitational hold. sent11: that the compilation is not a sawfish and is pacific is wrong. sent12: if that that the effacement is non-accusative but it does quack is false is right the time-fuse is not non-sarcolemmic.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the compilation is a kind of a quack.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the compilation is not a kind of a sawfish and it is not pacific is not correct.; sent4 & sent9 -> int2: the fact that the compilation is not a sawfish and it is not pacific is right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the compilation is not a quack.; int4 & sent3 -> int5: the fact that the effacement is not accusative but it does quack is wrong.; int5 & sent12 -> int6: the time-fuse is sarcolemmic.; int6 & sent5 -> int7: the millerite is not gravitational.; int7 & sent10 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the millerite congratulates sympathy and it is stemmatic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the effacement is a kind of an accusative then that the time-fuse is sarcolemmic is correct. sent2: the millerite is stemmatic if it is not gravitational. sent3: the fact that if the compilation is not a quack then the fact that the effacement is not accusative but it is a quack is wrong is not wrong. sent4: the compilation is not a sawfish and it is not pacific if it is not non-propagative. sent5: if the time-fuse is sarcolemmic the millerite is not gravitational. sent6: the compilation is not pacific if that it is propagative hold. sent7: the fact that the compilation is not a sawfish but it is pacific is false if that it does quack is true. sent8: that the compilation is not a sawfish and it is not pacific is not true if it does quack. sent9: the compilation is propagative. sent10: the fact that that the millerite congratulates sympathy and it is stemmatic hold if the millerite is not gravitational hold. sent11: that the compilation is not a sawfish and is pacific is wrong. sent12: if that that the effacement is non-accusative but it does quack is false is right the time-fuse is not non-sarcolemmic. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the compilation is a kind of a quack.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the compilation is not a kind of a sawfish and it is not pacific is not correct.; sent4 & sent9 -> int2: the fact that the compilation is not a sawfish and it is not pacific is right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the compilation is not a quack.; int4 & sent3 -> int5: the fact that the effacement is not accusative but it does quack is wrong.; int5 & sent12 -> int6: the time-fuse is sarcolemmic.; int6 & sent5 -> int7: the millerite is not gravitational.; int7 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__