the senior does not correct.
sent1: if that something is a high-muck-a-muck and is not a Orly does not hold then it is not angelic. sent2: the fact that the senior does not reinforce manipulability and it is not a high-muck-a-muck is false. sent3: the brave is not a kind of a drilled. sent4: the senior does not correct if it does not reinforce manipulability and it is not angelic. sent5: the backwater is not a kind of a drilled and is not a kind of a packer if that the brave is illegible is right. sent6: that the senior is not a high-muck-a-muck and it is not angelic is not correct if the backwater is not a packer. sent7: the fact that the backwater is both not a drilled and not a packer does not hold. sent8: the senior does correct if the reformer does correct. sent9: if the fact that the senior does not reinforce manipulability and it is not angelic is not correct then the reformer is not a kind of a high-muck-a-muck. sent10: the fact that the brave is a kind of non-intrauterine thing that is not a kind of a Orly is not right if the reformer is not a high-muck-a-muck. sent11: the brave is illegible if that it is a kind of non-intrauterine thing that is not a Orly is not true.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the senior does not reinforce manipulability and is not angelic is wrong.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the reformer is not a high-muck-a-muck.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: that the brave is not intrauterine and it is not a kind of a Orly is not right.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: the brave is illegible.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: the backwater is not a drilled and it is not a kind of a packer.; int4 & sent7 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the senior does not reinforce manipulability and is not angelic.; int6 & sent4 -> hypothesis;
the reticulation is not angelic.
sent1 -> int7: if the fact that the reticulation is a high-muck-a-muck and not a Orly is not true then it is not angelic.;
$hypothesis$ = the senior does not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is a high-muck-a-muck and is not a Orly does not hold then it is not angelic. sent2: the fact that the senior does not reinforce manipulability and it is not a high-muck-a-muck is false. sent3: the brave is not a kind of a drilled. sent4: the senior does not correct if it does not reinforce manipulability and it is not angelic. sent5: the backwater is not a kind of a drilled and is not a kind of a packer if that the brave is illegible is right. sent6: that the senior is not a high-muck-a-muck and it is not angelic is not correct if the backwater is not a packer. sent7: the fact that the backwater is both not a drilled and not a packer does not hold. sent8: the senior does correct if the reformer does correct. sent9: if the fact that the senior does not reinforce manipulability and it is not angelic is not correct then the reformer is not a kind of a high-muck-a-muck. sent10: the fact that the brave is a kind of non-intrauterine thing that is not a kind of a Orly is not right if the reformer is not a high-muck-a-muck. sent11: the brave is illegible if that it is a kind of non-intrauterine thing that is not a Orly is not true. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the senior does not reinforce manipulability and is not angelic is wrong.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the reformer is not a high-muck-a-muck.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: that the brave is not intrauterine and it is not a kind of a Orly is not right.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: the brave is illegible.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: the backwater is not a drilled and it is not a kind of a packer.; int4 & sent7 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the senior does not reinforce manipulability and is not angelic.; int6 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__