there is something such that it does not promise spatter and it does jam overturned.
sent1: the fact that the ragout is a candlemaker but it does not jam animosity is not right if the ophthalmologist is a candlemaker. sent2: if the mayfish does not promise spatter then the headful promise spatter. sent3: the headful is not a candlemaker but it does jam overturned. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a candlemaker and it does jam overturned is not correct. sent5: the fact that the ragout is not Aboriginal hold if the fact that it is a candlemaker and does not promise spatter is wrong. sent6: that the fact that the buckthorn is Aboriginal but it does not promise spatter is incorrect is not false. sent7: there is something such that the fact that it does not jam overturned and is a candlemaker is not correct. sent8: something does not trepan updating and is an orgy. sent9: the comestible is not a Priestley. sent10: if the mayfish is not a kind of a candlemaker the ragout is a candlemaker. sent11: if the buckthorn is not Aboriginal then the fact that the comestible is Aboriginal but it is not Gauguinesque is not correct. sent12: the ophthalmologist is Gauguinesque. sent13: the comestible is not coccal. sent14: the ragout is not Gauguinesque. sent15: the comestible is a clunch. sent16: the buckthorn is not Aboriginal if it does jam overturned. sent17: if there is something such that that it is not a Priestley but bibliotic is not right then the ragout does not jam animosity. sent18: if the mayfish does not jam overturned then that the headful does jam overturned and is a candlemaker does not hold. sent19: if the comestible does not jam overturned then the headful does not promise spatter but it jam overturned. sent20: the fact that the mayfish is a choc-ice and Aboriginal does not hold. sent21: the ophthalmologist is a candlemaker if the buckthorn is Aboriginal. sent22: there is something such that the fact that it is not a Priestley and is bibliotic is wrong. sent23: something does not jam overturned if the fact that it is Aboriginal and it is not Gauguinesque does not hold. sent24: if there is something such that the fact that it is not Aboriginal and it is a candlemaker is wrong the ophthalmologist does not jam animosity. sent25: the mayfish is not a kind of a candlemaker. sent26: that the mayfish is both a candlemaker and not Aboriginal is wrong. sent27: the fact that the buckthorn is not Aboriginal but it is a kind of a candlemaker is not correct if the ophthalmologist does not jam overturned. sent28: the comestible is not a kind of a candlemaker but it is Aboriginal.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the buckthorn is Aboriginal.; sent21 & assump1 -> int1: the ophthalmologist is a candlemaker.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: that the ragout is a kind of a candlemaker and does not jam animosity is wrong.; sent10 & sent25 -> int3: the ragout is a candlemaker.; sent22 & sent17 -> int4: the ragout does not jam animosity.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the ragout is a kind of a candlemaker that does not jam animosity.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the buckthorn is not Aboriginal.; int7 & sent11 -> int8: that the comestible is Aboriginal and is not Gauguinesque does not hold.; sent23 -> int9: if the fact that the comestible is Aboriginal but it is not Gauguinesque does not hold the fact that it does not jam overturned is not wrong.; int8 & int9 -> int10: that the comestible does not jam overturned is right.; int10 & sent19 -> int11: the headful does not promise spatter and jams overturned.; int11 -> hypothesis;
the headful is not coccal.
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it does not promise spatter and it does jam overturned. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the ragout is a candlemaker but it does not jam animosity is not right if the ophthalmologist is a candlemaker. sent2: if the mayfish does not promise spatter then the headful promise spatter. sent3: the headful is not a candlemaker but it does jam overturned. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a candlemaker and it does jam overturned is not correct. sent5: the fact that the ragout is not Aboriginal hold if the fact that it is a candlemaker and does not promise spatter is wrong. sent6: that the fact that the buckthorn is Aboriginal but it does not promise spatter is incorrect is not false. sent7: there is something such that the fact that it does not jam overturned and is a candlemaker is not correct. sent8: something does not trepan updating and is an orgy. sent9: the comestible is not a Priestley. sent10: if the mayfish is not a kind of a candlemaker the ragout is a candlemaker. sent11: if the buckthorn is not Aboriginal then the fact that the comestible is Aboriginal but it is not Gauguinesque is not correct. sent12: the ophthalmologist is Gauguinesque. sent13: the comestible is not coccal. sent14: the ragout is not Gauguinesque. sent15: the comestible is a clunch. sent16: the buckthorn is not Aboriginal if it does jam overturned. sent17: if there is something such that that it is not a Priestley but bibliotic is not right then the ragout does not jam animosity. sent18: if the mayfish does not jam overturned then that the headful does jam overturned and is a candlemaker does not hold. sent19: if the comestible does not jam overturned then the headful does not promise spatter but it jam overturned. sent20: the fact that the mayfish is a choc-ice and Aboriginal does not hold. sent21: the ophthalmologist is a candlemaker if the buckthorn is Aboriginal. sent22: there is something such that the fact that it is not a Priestley and is bibliotic is wrong. sent23: something does not jam overturned if the fact that it is Aboriginal and it is not Gauguinesque does not hold. sent24: if there is something such that the fact that it is not Aboriginal and it is a candlemaker is wrong the ophthalmologist does not jam animosity. sent25: the mayfish is not a kind of a candlemaker. sent26: that the mayfish is both a candlemaker and not Aboriginal is wrong. sent27: the fact that the buckthorn is not Aboriginal but it is a kind of a candlemaker is not correct if the ophthalmologist does not jam overturned. sent28: the comestible is not a kind of a candlemaker but it is Aboriginal. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the buckthorn is Aboriginal.; sent21 & assump1 -> int1: the ophthalmologist is a candlemaker.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: that the ragout is a kind of a candlemaker and does not jam animosity is wrong.; sent10 & sent25 -> int3: the ragout is a candlemaker.; sent22 & sent17 -> int4: the ragout does not jam animosity.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the ragout is a kind of a candlemaker that does not jam animosity.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the buckthorn is not Aboriginal.; int7 & sent11 -> int8: that the comestible is Aboriginal and is not Gauguinesque does not hold.; sent23 -> int9: if the fact that the comestible is Aboriginal but it is not Gauguinesque does not hold the fact that it does not jam overturned is not wrong.; int8 & int9 -> int10: that the comestible does not jam overturned is right.; int10 & sent19 -> int11: the headful does not promise spatter and jams overturned.; int11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__