the paca preys guarantee.
sent1: something does prey guarantee if it is neuroglial. sent2: if the paca preys Adige it is neuroglial. sent3: the fact that that the capon is not a kind of a resumption and is a kind of a zeal is not right is right if the shrike is not peritoneal. sent4: the brainwave is not a kind of a Eugene. sent5: something is a Eugene if that it is not a settle and it does not prey actinometer is not correct. sent6: if the shrike is peritoneal the fact that the brainwave is not a settle and it does not prey actinometer does not hold. sent7: if the fact that the capon is not a resumption but a zeal is not correct the paca does prey Adige.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the shrike is not non-peritoneal.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the fact that the brainwave does not settle and it does not prey actinometer is incorrect hold.; sent5 -> int2: if that the brainwave is not a settle and does not prey actinometer is false then it is a Eugene.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the brainwave is a Eugene.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the shrike is not peritoneal.; int5 & sent3 -> int6: the fact that the capon is not a resumption and is a kind of a zeal is not right.; int6 & sent7 -> int7: the paca does prey Adige.; int7 & sent2 -> int8: the paca is neuroglial.; sent1 -> int9: the fact that the paca does prey guarantee is true if it is neuroglial.; int8 & int9 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the paca preys guarantee. ; $context$ = sent1: something does prey guarantee if it is neuroglial. sent2: if the paca preys Adige it is neuroglial. sent3: the fact that that the capon is not a kind of a resumption and is a kind of a zeal is not right is right if the shrike is not peritoneal. sent4: the brainwave is not a kind of a Eugene. sent5: something is a Eugene if that it is not a settle and it does not prey actinometer is not correct. sent6: if the shrike is peritoneal the fact that the brainwave is not a settle and it does not prey actinometer does not hold. sent7: if the fact that the capon is not a resumption but a zeal is not correct the paca does prey Adige. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the shrike is not non-peritoneal.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the fact that the brainwave does not settle and it does not prey actinometer is incorrect hold.; sent5 -> int2: if that the brainwave is not a settle and does not prey actinometer is false then it is a Eugene.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the brainwave is a Eugene.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the shrike is not peritoneal.; int5 & sent3 -> int6: the fact that the capon is not a resumption and is a kind of a zeal is not right.; int6 & sent7 -> int7: the paca does prey Adige.; int7 & sent2 -> int8: the paca is neuroglial.; sent1 -> int9: the fact that the paca does prey guarantee is true if it is neuroglial.; int8 & int9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__