the Cheviot does not finger Mallotus.
sent1: the pathway does not laicize Cheviot if the leaf-miner does thrust but it is not closed-circuit. sent2: the Cheviot is closed-circuit if it fingers Mallotus. sent3: that the pathway is a prosthodontist hold. sent4: if the pathway does ray disparagement then it is profound. sent5: if something does not mourn then it rays disparagement. sent6: if the pathway is a prosthodontist then it is not profound. sent7: if something does not laicize Cheviot then it does ray disparagement. sent8: if the Cheviot is closed-circuit then the leaf-miner is a thrust and not closed-circuit.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Cheviot does finger Mallotus.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the Cheviot is closed-circuit.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the leaf-miner does thrust but it is not closed-circuit.; int2 & sent1 -> int3: the pathway does not laicize Cheviot.; sent7 -> int4: if the pathway does not laicize Cheviot then the fact that it does ray disparagement is correct.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the pathway rays disparagement.; int5 & sent4 -> int6: the pathway is profound.; sent6 & sent3 -> int7: the pathway is not profound.; int6 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> hypothesis;
the hatpin rays disparagement if it does not mourn.
sent5 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the Cheviot does not finger Mallotus. ; $context$ = sent1: the pathway does not laicize Cheviot if the leaf-miner does thrust but it is not closed-circuit. sent2: the Cheviot is closed-circuit if it fingers Mallotus. sent3: that the pathway is a prosthodontist hold. sent4: if the pathway does ray disparagement then it is profound. sent5: if something does not mourn then it rays disparagement. sent6: if the pathway is a prosthodontist then it is not profound. sent7: if something does not laicize Cheviot then it does ray disparagement. sent8: if the Cheviot is closed-circuit then the leaf-miner is a thrust and not closed-circuit. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Cheviot does finger Mallotus.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the Cheviot is closed-circuit.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the leaf-miner does thrust but it is not closed-circuit.; int2 & sent1 -> int3: the pathway does not laicize Cheviot.; sent7 -> int4: if the pathway does not laicize Cheviot then the fact that it does ray disparagement is correct.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the pathway rays disparagement.; int5 & sent4 -> int6: the pathway is profound.; sent6 & sent3 -> int7: the pathway is not profound.; int6 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__