the fact that the gallfly is conventional but it is not an investigator is wrong.
sent1: if the Tarzan does refrain switchblade then the authoress is starry. sent2: the SACLANT is a Paraclete. sent3: the Tarzan does scowl and it refrains switchblade. sent4: the slum is a lieutenant if the SACLANT is side-to-side. sent5: that the gallfly is conventional but it is not an investigator does not hold if the pricket is not a kind of an investigator. sent6: something is conventional but it is not an investigator if it does scowl. sent7: if that the Tarzan is obligational hold then the fact that it does not refrain switchblade and is not starry is incorrect. sent8: if the fact that the SACLANT is a Paraclete hold then it is an arm. sent9: if something arms then it is side-to-side. sent10: if the Tarzan does not refrain switchblade the gallfly is unbroken thing that scowls. sent11: there exists nothing such that it is a lieutenant and is non-side-to-side. sent12: something does scowl if it does not refrain switchblade. sent13: the slum is not a lieutenant if the authoress is both starry and obligational. sent14: if the authoress is non-obligational the pricket is not an investigator.
sent3 -> int1: the Tarzan does refrain switchblade.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the authoress is starry.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the authoress is obligational.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the authoress is starry and is obligational.; int3 & sent13 -> int4: the slum is not a lieutenant.; sent9 -> int5: the SACLANT is side-to-side if it is a kind of an arm.; sent8 & sent2 -> int6: the SACLANT is an arm.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the SACLANT is not side-to-side is false.; sent4 & int7 -> int8: the slum is a lieutenant.; int4 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> int10: the authoress is not obligational.; int10 & sent14 -> int11: the pricket is not an investigator.; int11 & sent5 -> hypothesis;
the gallfly is unbroken.
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the gallfly is conventional but it is not an investigator is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Tarzan does refrain switchblade then the authoress is starry. sent2: the SACLANT is a Paraclete. sent3: the Tarzan does scowl and it refrains switchblade. sent4: the slum is a lieutenant if the SACLANT is side-to-side. sent5: that the gallfly is conventional but it is not an investigator does not hold if the pricket is not a kind of an investigator. sent6: something is conventional but it is not an investigator if it does scowl. sent7: if that the Tarzan is obligational hold then the fact that it does not refrain switchblade and is not starry is incorrect. sent8: if the fact that the SACLANT is a Paraclete hold then it is an arm. sent9: if something arms then it is side-to-side. sent10: if the Tarzan does not refrain switchblade the gallfly is unbroken thing that scowls. sent11: there exists nothing such that it is a lieutenant and is non-side-to-side. sent12: something does scowl if it does not refrain switchblade. sent13: the slum is not a lieutenant if the authoress is both starry and obligational. sent14: if the authoress is non-obligational the pricket is not an investigator. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 -> int1: the Tarzan does refrain switchblade.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the authoress is starry.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the authoress is obligational.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the authoress is starry and is obligational.; int3 & sent13 -> int4: the slum is not a lieutenant.; sent9 -> int5: the SACLANT is side-to-side if it is a kind of an arm.; sent8 & sent2 -> int6: the SACLANT is an arm.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the SACLANT is not side-to-side is false.; sent4 & int7 -> int8: the slum is a lieutenant.; int4 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> int10: the authoress is not obligational.; int10 & sent14 -> int11: the pricket is not an investigator.; int11 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__