the tomalley is non-rh-positive and a saccharinity.
sent1: if there exists something such that the fact that it copes nosh and it is a cytologist is false the pear is orthotropous. sent2: if that the servitor is not a Penstemon is not false that it copes nosh and is a cytologist is not right. sent3: the fact that something copes nosh and is a cytologist is not incorrect. sent4: the fact that the pear is both ergotropic and a Honduran is not right. sent5: the pear is not orthotropous if it is ergotropic. sent6: the fact that the pear is a kind of ergotropic a Honduran is incorrect if the tomalley is not non-orthodontics. sent7: the tomalley is orthodontics if it is a blinks. sent8: if the fact that something is non-rh-positive and a saccharinity is not right then it is a kind of an offense. sent9: something does blink if it is an offense. sent10: if the pear is a blinks the fact that the tomalley is non-rh-positive a saccharinity is not correct. sent11: if the pear is not orthodontics then that it is a blinks and it is not an offense is wrong. sent12: if something is non-ergotropic and non-Honduran it is not orthodontics. sent13: the tomalley is not rh-positive. sent14: if there is something such that it is orthotropous then the fact that the servitor is ergotropic and not a Honduran is false. sent15: the servitor is not a Penstemon. sent16: the ageratum is orthotropous. sent17: something is sisterly and a maltose. sent18: the tomalley is an offense if it is rh-positive. sent19: that the pear is not ergotropic but it is a kind of a Honduran is not correct if that the tomalley is orthodontics is not incorrect. sent20: the pear is a rubato. sent21: a rh-positive thing is an offense. sent22: the fact that the tomalley is rh-positive and is a kind of a saccharinity does not hold. sent23: something is a cytologist if it is a kind of a Penstemon. sent24: the servitor is not a cytologist if that it is both not ergotropic and orthotropous is not correct. sent25: if that the pear is not ergotropic but it is a Honduran does not hold it is not orthotropous. sent26: if something does not cope nosh then the pear is orthotropous.
sent8 -> int1: if that the fact that the tomalley is non-rh-positive a saccharinity is false is right then it is an offense.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the tomalley is not rh-positive but it is a saccharinity does not hold.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the tomalley is an offense.; sent9 -> int3: if the tomalley is an offense then it blinks.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the tomalley blinks.; int4 & sent7 -> int5: the tomalley is orthodontics.; int5 & sent19 -> int6: the fact that the pear is a kind of non-ergotropic a Honduran is not correct.; int6 & sent25 -> int7: the pear is not orthotropous.; sent2 & sent15 -> int8: that the servitor copes nosh and is a cytologist is not correct.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that that it copes nosh and is a cytologist does not hold.; int9 & sent1 -> int10: the pear is not non-orthotropous.; int7 & int10 -> int11: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int11 -> hypothesis;
that that the tomalley is not rh-positive but a saccharinity is wrong is not false.
sent16 -> int12: there exists something such that it is orthotropous.; int12 & sent14 -> int13: that the servitor is both ergotropic and non-Honduran is incorrect.; int13 -> int14: there is something such that the fact that it is ergotropic and it is not Honduran is not right.;
$hypothesis$ = the tomalley is non-rh-positive and a saccharinity. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that the fact that it copes nosh and it is a cytologist is false the pear is orthotropous. sent2: if that the servitor is not a Penstemon is not false that it copes nosh and is a cytologist is not right. sent3: the fact that something copes nosh and is a cytologist is not incorrect. sent4: the fact that the pear is both ergotropic and a Honduran is not right. sent5: the pear is not orthotropous if it is ergotropic. sent6: the fact that the pear is a kind of ergotropic a Honduran is incorrect if the tomalley is not non-orthodontics. sent7: the tomalley is orthodontics if it is a blinks. sent8: if the fact that something is non-rh-positive and a saccharinity is not right then it is a kind of an offense. sent9: something does blink if it is an offense. sent10: if the pear is a blinks the fact that the tomalley is non-rh-positive a saccharinity is not correct. sent11: if the pear is not orthodontics then that it is a blinks and it is not an offense is wrong. sent12: if something is non-ergotropic and non-Honduran it is not orthodontics. sent13: the tomalley is not rh-positive. sent14: if there is something such that it is orthotropous then the fact that the servitor is ergotropic and not a Honduran is false. sent15: the servitor is not a Penstemon. sent16: the ageratum is orthotropous. sent17: something is sisterly and a maltose. sent18: the tomalley is an offense if it is rh-positive. sent19: that the pear is not ergotropic but it is a kind of a Honduran is not correct if that the tomalley is orthodontics is not incorrect. sent20: the pear is a rubato. sent21: a rh-positive thing is an offense. sent22: the fact that the tomalley is rh-positive and is a kind of a saccharinity does not hold. sent23: something is a cytologist if it is a kind of a Penstemon. sent24: the servitor is not a cytologist if that it is both not ergotropic and orthotropous is not correct. sent25: if that the pear is not ergotropic but it is a Honduran does not hold it is not orthotropous. sent26: if something does not cope nosh then the pear is orthotropous. ; $proof$ = 
sent8 -> int1: if that the fact that the tomalley is non-rh-positive a saccharinity is false is right then it is an offense.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the tomalley is not rh-positive but it is a saccharinity does not hold.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the tomalley is an offense.; sent9 -> int3: if the tomalley is an offense then it blinks.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the tomalley blinks.; int4 & sent7 -> int5: the tomalley is orthodontics.; int5 & sent19 -> int6: the fact that the pear is a kind of non-ergotropic a Honduran is not correct.; int6 & sent25 -> int7: the pear is not orthotropous.; sent2 & sent15 -> int8: that the servitor copes nosh and is a cytologist is not correct.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that that it copes nosh and is a cytologist does not hold.; int9 & sent1 -> int10: the pear is not non-orthotropous.; int7 & int10 -> int11: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__