the francium is efficacious if the client is a usurpation.
sent1: the client is efficacious if the francium is branchial. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it is not a sachem and it uplifts is incorrect. sent3: if the client does jumble discoloration it is not a proof and is a TCP/IP. sent4: if something is a sachem then it is a kind of a preservationist. sent5: something is not a sachem and/or it is not efficacious if it is not a proof. sent6: if there exists something such that that it is not a sachem and it uplifts is wrong then that the revenuer is a kind of a sachem is correct. sent7: the client does interlock aspirant. sent8: if something is not a kind of a usurpation then that it is non-branchial but not an uplifted is not right. sent9: there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a sachem and specialistic does not hold. sent10: if the fact that something is non-branchial thing that is not an uplifted is not true it is a kind of an uplifted. sent11: the revenuer is not a preservationist and is specialistic if the fact that the client is branchial is not false. sent12: something does jumble discoloration if it does interlock aspirant. sent13: if the client is a kind of non-branchial thing that is a usurpation then the francium is efficacious.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the client is branchial.; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the revenuer is not a preservationist but it is specialistic hold.; int1 -> int2: the revenuer is not a preservationist.; sent4 -> int3: if the revenuer is a sachem it is a preservationist.; sent2 & sent6 -> int4: the revenuer is a kind of a sachem.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the revenuer is a preservationist is not incorrect.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the client is not branchial.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the client is a usurpation.; int7 & assump2 -> int8: the client is non-branchial thing that is a usurpation.; int8 & sent13 -> int9: the francium is efficacious.; [assump2] & int9 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the francium is an uplifted is right.
sent10 -> int10: if that the francium is both not branchial and not an uplifted is incorrect it is a kind of an uplifted.; sent8 -> int11: that the francium is not branchial and it is not a kind of an uplifted does not hold if it is not a kind of a usurpation.; sent5 -> int12: if the client is not a proof then that it is not a sachem and/or it is not efficacious hold.; sent12 -> int13: if the client interlocks aspirant then it jumbles discoloration.; int13 & sent7 -> int14: the client does jumble discoloration.; sent3 & int14 -> int15: the client is not a proof but it is a TCP/IP.; int15 -> int16: the client is not a proof.; int12 & int16 -> int17: the client is not a sachem or is not efficacious or both.;
$hypothesis$ = the francium is efficacious if the client is a usurpation. ; $context$ = sent1: the client is efficacious if the francium is branchial. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it is not a sachem and it uplifts is incorrect. sent3: if the client does jumble discoloration it is not a proof and is a TCP/IP. sent4: if something is a sachem then it is a kind of a preservationist. sent5: something is not a sachem and/or it is not efficacious if it is not a proof. sent6: if there exists something such that that it is not a sachem and it uplifts is wrong then that the revenuer is a kind of a sachem is correct. sent7: the client does interlock aspirant. sent8: if something is not a kind of a usurpation then that it is non-branchial but not an uplifted is not right. sent9: there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a sachem and specialistic does not hold. sent10: if the fact that something is non-branchial thing that is not an uplifted is not true it is a kind of an uplifted. sent11: the revenuer is not a preservationist and is specialistic if the fact that the client is branchial is not false. sent12: something does jumble discoloration if it does interlock aspirant. sent13: if the client is a kind of non-branchial thing that is a usurpation then the francium is efficacious. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the client is branchial.; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the revenuer is not a preservationist but it is specialistic hold.; int1 -> int2: the revenuer is not a preservationist.; sent4 -> int3: if the revenuer is a sachem it is a preservationist.; sent2 & sent6 -> int4: the revenuer is a kind of a sachem.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the revenuer is a preservationist is not incorrect.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the client is not branchial.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the client is a usurpation.; int7 & assump2 -> int8: the client is non-branchial thing that is a usurpation.; int8 & sent13 -> int9: the francium is efficacious.; [assump2] & int9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__