the linecut does sidetrack.
sent1: the fact that the conidium does not syllogize Vaishnavism and it is not drinkable is false. sent2: if the fact that the conidium does not syllogize Vaishnavism and it is not drinkable is false it syllogize Vaishnavism. sent3: if the interrupt is a drone the linecut does syllogize scalpel. sent4: the conidium does not syllogize scalpel. sent5: something is a syllabary if it is not a kind of a drone. sent6: if the fact that something is both not a technical and a syllabary is false it does not syllogize Vaishnavism. sent7: if the interrupt is a kind of a syllabary then that the conidium is not a kind of a technical and is a syllabary is incorrect. sent8: if something does syllogize scalpel then it sidetracks.
sent5 -> int1: the interrupt is a kind of a syllabary if it does not drone.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the interrupt is not a drone.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the interrupt is a kind of a syllabary.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the fact that the conidium is not a technical and is a syllabary is incorrect.; sent6 -> int4: the conidium does not syllogize Vaishnavism if that it is not a technical and it is a syllabary is false.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the conidium does not syllogize Vaishnavism.; sent2 & sent1 -> int6: the conidium syllogizes Vaishnavism.; int5 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the interrupt drones.; int8 & sent3 -> int9: the linecut syllogizes scalpel.; sent8 -> int10: the linecut sidetracks if it does syllogize scalpel.; int9 & int10 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the linecut does sidetrack. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the conidium does not syllogize Vaishnavism and it is not drinkable is false. sent2: if the fact that the conidium does not syllogize Vaishnavism and it is not drinkable is false it syllogize Vaishnavism. sent3: if the interrupt is a drone the linecut does syllogize scalpel. sent4: the conidium does not syllogize scalpel. sent5: something is a syllabary if it is not a kind of a drone. sent6: if the fact that something is both not a technical and a syllabary is false it does not syllogize Vaishnavism. sent7: if the interrupt is a kind of a syllabary then that the conidium is not a kind of a technical and is a syllabary is incorrect. sent8: if something does syllogize scalpel then it sidetracks. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 -> int1: the interrupt is a kind of a syllabary if it does not drone.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the interrupt is not a drone.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the interrupt is a kind of a syllabary.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the fact that the conidium is not a technical and is a syllabary is incorrect.; sent6 -> int4: the conidium does not syllogize Vaishnavism if that it is not a technical and it is a syllabary is false.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the conidium does not syllogize Vaishnavism.; sent2 & sent1 -> int6: the conidium syllogizes Vaishnavism.; int5 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the interrupt drones.; int8 & sent3 -> int9: the linecut syllogizes scalpel.; sent8 -> int10: the linecut sidetracks if it does syllogize scalpel.; int9 & int10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__