that the pro-lifer is a kind of an alternator but it does not affiliate is not incorrect.
sent1: if something is a viewers and it is caulescent the tub-thumper is an alternator. sent2: the brachycephalic is a viewers if that it is not a viewers and it does resent illogicality does not hold. sent3: the fact that if that the SOB is not caulescent is not false then the brachycephalic is not a reign and is not a wanter is not incorrect. sent4: if the tub-thumper is an alternator the pro-lifer is an alternator that is not an affiliate. sent5: the brachycephalic does reign.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the SOB is not caulescent.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the brachycephalic is not a reign and it is not a wanter.; int1 -> int2: the brachycephalic does not reign.; int2 & sent5 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the SOB is caulescent.;
that the pro-lifer is a kind of an alternator but it is not an affiliate is not right.
$hypothesis$ = that the pro-lifer is a kind of an alternator but it does not affiliate is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a viewers and it is caulescent the tub-thumper is an alternator. sent2: the brachycephalic is a viewers if that it is not a viewers and it does resent illogicality does not hold. sent3: the fact that if that the SOB is not caulescent is not false then the brachycephalic is not a reign and is not a wanter is not incorrect. sent4: if the tub-thumper is an alternator the pro-lifer is an alternator that is not an affiliate. sent5: the brachycephalic does reign. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the SOB is not caulescent.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the brachycephalic is not a reign and it is not a wanter.; int1 -> int2: the brachycephalic does not reign.; int2 & sent5 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the SOB is caulescent.; __UNKNOWN__