the charcoal confines unproductiveness if the Cornishman is a kind of a divider.
sent1: the fact that the Cornishman is not a divider if the incubus does not confine apprenticed and is not carbonaceous hold. sent2: the snow is a kind of a divider. sent3: if the parliamentarian is a spat the charcoal does confine unproductiveness. sent4: the Cornishman is not a divider if the incubus does not confine apprenticed and is carbonaceous. sent5: the Cornishman is a Sivapithecus. sent6: the incubus is not carbonaceous if the parliamentarian is not a spat and does not confine apprenticed. sent7: if the incubus does not confine apprenticed and it is not carbonaceous that the Cornishman is a kind of a divider hold. sent8: if the Cornishman is on-site that the incubus does not confine unproductiveness and it is not a kind of a divider is wrong. sent9: the fact that the absentee is a kind of a spat is false. sent10: the parliamentarian is a spat if the fact that the incubus does not confine apprenticed and is not carbonaceous is not right. sent11: the fact that that the incubus does not confine apprenticed and is carbonaceous is false is not false. sent12: that the parliamentarian is not a spat and does not confine unproductiveness is wrong. sent13: the parliamentarian is a spat if the fact that the incubus is not a divider and it is not carbonaceous is not correct. sent14: that the parliamentarian spits hold if the incubus is carbonaceous. sent15: that the reinforcement does magnify and is not a spat is false. sent16: if that the Cornishman confines unproductiveness is not false then the charcoal is a divider. sent17: the incubus is not carbonaceous. sent18: the parliamentarian is a kind of a divider.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the incubus does not confine apprenticed and it is not carbonaceous.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the Cornishman is a divider does not hold.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the Cornishman is a divider.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the incubus does not confine apprenticed and is not carbonaceous does not hold.; int3 & sent10 -> int4: the parliamentarian does spit.; int4 & sent3 -> int5: the charcoal does confine unproductiveness.; [assump2] & int5 -> hypothesis;
the excogitator does confine apprenticed.
$hypothesis$ = the charcoal confines unproductiveness if the Cornishman is a kind of a divider. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Cornishman is not a divider if the incubus does not confine apprenticed and is not carbonaceous hold. sent2: the snow is a kind of a divider. sent3: if the parliamentarian is a spat the charcoal does confine unproductiveness. sent4: the Cornishman is not a divider if the incubus does not confine apprenticed and is carbonaceous. sent5: the Cornishman is a Sivapithecus. sent6: the incubus is not carbonaceous if the parliamentarian is not a spat and does not confine apprenticed. sent7: if the incubus does not confine apprenticed and it is not carbonaceous that the Cornishman is a kind of a divider hold. sent8: if the Cornishman is on-site that the incubus does not confine unproductiveness and it is not a kind of a divider is wrong. sent9: the fact that the absentee is a kind of a spat is false. sent10: the parliamentarian is a spat if the fact that the incubus does not confine apprenticed and is not carbonaceous is not right. sent11: the fact that that the incubus does not confine apprenticed and is carbonaceous is false is not false. sent12: that the parliamentarian is not a spat and does not confine unproductiveness is wrong. sent13: the parliamentarian is a spat if the fact that the incubus is not a divider and it is not carbonaceous is not correct. sent14: that the parliamentarian spits hold if the incubus is carbonaceous. sent15: that the reinforcement does magnify and is not a spat is false. sent16: if that the Cornishman confines unproductiveness is not false then the charcoal is a divider. sent17: the incubus is not carbonaceous. sent18: the parliamentarian is a kind of a divider. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the incubus does not confine apprenticed and it is not carbonaceous.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the Cornishman is a divider does not hold.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the Cornishman is a divider.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the incubus does not confine apprenticed and is not carbonaceous does not hold.; int3 & sent10 -> int4: the parliamentarian does spit.; int4 & sent3 -> int5: the charcoal does confine unproductiveness.; [assump2] & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__