the quay is fungal and incorporates mailbox.
sent1: the octopus does defrost and it incorporates sufferer. sent2: that the consumption is a Pongo but it is not a mess is wrong. sent3: that the quay is not a malposition and not exegetic does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the consumption is not a kind of a Pongo and it is not a mess is not correct then the satyr is not rocky. sent5: if that the quay does not incorporate sufferer and is not .22-caliber does not hold then the consumption does not retract. sent6: the quay incorporates mailbox if the consumption is a kind of a militarist. sent7: that the quay is not .22-caliber or it is not an aspersion or both is right. sent8: the satyr does incorporate sufferer and it is fungal if it does not retract. sent9: something is not a kind of an aspersion if it is Numidian. sent10: the quay is fungal if it is not .22-caliber and/or is not an aspersion. sent11: if the quay is not .22-caliber it is fungal. sent12: the eutrophication is a sou'-sou'-west. sent13: the consumption is not a kind of an aspersion if there exists something such that it is a mess. sent14: that the satyr is not palingenetic and does tinsel saprophyte is wrong. sent15: the consumption is a militarist if it does not mess and does not incorporate sufferer. sent16: the satyr is an impress that infuses if it does not tinsel saprophyte. sent17: if something is an impress the fact that it is a sou'-sou'-west is correct. sent18: if there exists something such that it does retract then that the consumption does not incorporate sufferer hold. sent19: if something is not an aspersion the fact that it does not retract and it is .22-caliber is not incorrect. sent20: the quay either is not non-.22-caliber or is not an aspersion or both. sent21: if the satyr does not retract the consumption is a kind of a militarist and/or it is rocky. sent22: the eutrophication is .22-caliber. sent23: the satyr does not tinsel saprophyte if that it is not palingenetic and it does tinsel saprophyte is wrong. sent24: the satyr is rocky and it is a Numidian. sent25: that something is fungal and incorporates mailbox is incorrect if it does not incorporate sufferer. sent26: the eutrophication is a sou'-sou'-west that does retract. sent27: that the consumption is not a Pongo and is a mess is wrong. sent28: the satyr is a Numidian.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the consumption is not a kind of a Pongo and it is not a mess is not right.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the satyr is not rocky.; sent24 -> int2: the satyr is rocky.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the consumption is not a Pongo and is not a mess.; int4 -> int5: that the consumption is not a kind of a mess is true.; sent26 -> int6: the eutrophication retracts.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that it retracts.; int7 & sent18 -> int8: the fact that the consumption does not incorporate sufferer is not false.; int5 & int8 -> int9: the consumption does not mess and it does not incorporate sufferer.; int9 & sent15 -> int10: the consumption is a kind of a militarist.; int10 & sent6 -> int11: that the quay incorporates mailbox is correct.; sent10 & sent7 -> int12: the quay is fungal.; int11 & int12 -> hypothesis;
that the quay is fungal and it incorporates mailbox is incorrect.
sent25 -> int13: the fact that the quay is fungal and it incorporates mailbox is not true if it does not incorporate sufferer.; sent19 -> int14: if that the satyr is not an aspersion is not wrong then it does not retract and is .22-caliber.; sent9 -> int15: the satyr is not an aspersion if that it is a Numidian is not wrong.; sent17 -> int16: the satyr is a sou'-sou'-west if it does impress.; sent23 & sent14 -> int17: the satyr does not tinsel saprophyte.; sent16 & int17 -> int18: the satyr does impress and infuses.; int18 -> int19: the satyr is an impress.; int16 & int19 -> int20: the fact that the satyr is a sou'-sou'-west hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the quay is fungal and incorporates mailbox. ; $context$ = sent1: the octopus does defrost and it incorporates sufferer. sent2: that the consumption is a Pongo but it is not a mess is wrong. sent3: that the quay is not a malposition and not exegetic does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the consumption is not a kind of a Pongo and it is not a mess is not correct then the satyr is not rocky. sent5: if that the quay does not incorporate sufferer and is not .22-caliber does not hold then the consumption does not retract. sent6: the quay incorporates mailbox if the consumption is a kind of a militarist. sent7: that the quay is not .22-caliber or it is not an aspersion or both is right. sent8: the satyr does incorporate sufferer and it is fungal if it does not retract. sent9: something is not a kind of an aspersion if it is Numidian. sent10: the quay is fungal if it is not .22-caliber and/or is not an aspersion. sent11: if the quay is not .22-caliber it is fungal. sent12: the eutrophication is a sou'-sou'-west. sent13: the consumption is not a kind of an aspersion if there exists something such that it is a mess. sent14: that the satyr is not palingenetic and does tinsel saprophyte is wrong. sent15: the consumption is a militarist if it does not mess and does not incorporate sufferer. sent16: the satyr is an impress that infuses if it does not tinsel saprophyte. sent17: if something is an impress the fact that it is a sou'-sou'-west is correct. sent18: if there exists something such that it does retract then that the consumption does not incorporate sufferer hold. sent19: if something is not an aspersion the fact that it does not retract and it is .22-caliber is not incorrect. sent20: the quay either is not non-.22-caliber or is not an aspersion or both. sent21: if the satyr does not retract the consumption is a kind of a militarist and/or it is rocky. sent22: the eutrophication is .22-caliber. sent23: the satyr does not tinsel saprophyte if that it is not palingenetic and it does tinsel saprophyte is wrong. sent24: the satyr is rocky and it is a Numidian. sent25: that something is fungal and incorporates mailbox is incorrect if it does not incorporate sufferer. sent26: the eutrophication is a sou'-sou'-west that does retract. sent27: that the consumption is not a Pongo and is a mess is wrong. sent28: the satyr is a Numidian. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the consumption is not a kind of a Pongo and it is not a mess is not right.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the satyr is not rocky.; sent24 -> int2: the satyr is rocky.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the consumption is not a Pongo and is not a mess.; int4 -> int5: that the consumption is not a kind of a mess is true.; sent26 -> int6: the eutrophication retracts.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that it retracts.; int7 & sent18 -> int8: the fact that the consumption does not incorporate sufferer is not false.; int5 & int8 -> int9: the consumption does not mess and it does not incorporate sufferer.; int9 & sent15 -> int10: the consumption is a kind of a militarist.; int10 & sent6 -> int11: that the quay incorporates mailbox is correct.; sent10 & sent7 -> int12: the quay is fungal.; int11 & int12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__