the syphilitic hoards Neolentinus if the demister is a kind of a Skinnerian.
sent1: if something is isotopic and is postprandial it is not a Skinnerian. sent2: if something is not isotopic but it is postprandial it is prejudicial. sent3: the plonk is cerebrospinal and it does hoard Neolentinus. sent4: the syphilitic does hoard Neolentinus if that the taster is prejudicial and/or not lacrimatory is false. sent5: if that the taster is not prejudicial and/or it is not lacrimatory is not right the syphilitic does hoard Neolentinus. sent6: the taster is prejudicial. sent7: the demister is isotopic. sent8: if something is not non-isotopic and not non-postprandial then it is a kind of a Skinnerian. sent9: the demister is a Skinnerian if it is not non-isotopic and not non-postprandial. sent10: if the demister is not postprandial the fact that the taster is not prejudicial or not lacrimatory or both is not correct. sent11: the taster is prejudicial if the demister is not postprandial.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the demister is postprandial.; sent7 & assump2 -> int1: the demister is isotopic and it is postprandial.; sent1 -> int2: if the demister is a kind of isotopic thing that is postprandial then it is not a kind of a Skinnerian.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the demister is not a Skinnerian hold.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the demister is a kind of a Skinnerian.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int4 -> int5: the demister is not postprandial.; int5 & sent10 -> int6: the fact that the taster is not prejudicial and/or it is not lacrimatory does not hold.; int6 & sent5 -> int7: the syphilitic hoards Neolentinus.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis;
the coquette is prejudicial.
sent2 -> int8: if the coquette is not isotopic and is postprandial then it is prejudicial.;
$hypothesis$ = the syphilitic hoards Neolentinus if the demister is a kind of a Skinnerian. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is isotopic and is postprandial it is not a Skinnerian. sent2: if something is not isotopic but it is postprandial it is prejudicial. sent3: the plonk is cerebrospinal and it does hoard Neolentinus. sent4: the syphilitic does hoard Neolentinus if that the taster is prejudicial and/or not lacrimatory is false. sent5: if that the taster is not prejudicial and/or it is not lacrimatory is not right the syphilitic does hoard Neolentinus. sent6: the taster is prejudicial. sent7: the demister is isotopic. sent8: if something is not non-isotopic and not non-postprandial then it is a kind of a Skinnerian. sent9: the demister is a Skinnerian if it is not non-isotopic and not non-postprandial. sent10: if the demister is not postprandial the fact that the taster is not prejudicial or not lacrimatory or both is not correct. sent11: the taster is prejudicial if the demister is not postprandial. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the demister is postprandial.; sent7 & assump2 -> int1: the demister is isotopic and it is postprandial.; sent1 -> int2: if the demister is a kind of isotopic thing that is postprandial then it is not a kind of a Skinnerian.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the demister is not a Skinnerian hold.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the demister is a kind of a Skinnerian.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int4 -> int5: the demister is not postprandial.; int5 & sent10 -> int6: the fact that the taster is not prejudicial and/or it is not lacrimatory does not hold.; int6 & sent5 -> int7: the syphilitic hoards Neolentinus.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__