if the arc does not arouse sauce then the fact that the shopkeeper arouses coinsurance but it is not questionable does not hold.
sent1: the shopkeeper arouses sauce if the arc is questionable. sent2: if the arc is not questionable then the shopkeeper arouses sauce but it does not arouse coinsurance. sent3: the decrease is palatoglossal but it does not arouse coinsurance. sent4: if the shopkeeper is not questionable the arc arouses coinsurance but it does not arouse sauce. sent5: if the shopkeeper arouses sauce then that the arc is questionable hold. sent6: something does not barb xerox or it is not questionable or both if the fact that it is nephritic is not incorrect. sent7: the arc does arouse coinsurance and is not questionable if the shopkeeper does not arouse sauce. sent8: the arc arouses sauce if the shopkeeper does arouse coinsurance. sent9: the floss does arouse sauce. sent10: if the arc does not arouse sauce then the shopkeeper arouses coinsurance and is not questionable. sent11: the fact that the shopkeeper does arouse coinsurance and is not questionable is wrong if the arc does arouse sauce. sent12: if the arc is questionable the fact that the shopkeeper does arouse coinsurance is correct. sent13: the fact that the shopkeeper arouses coinsurance and it is questionable does not hold if that the arc does not arouse sauce is right. sent14: that the arc arouses sauce and does not arouse coinsurance is not right if the shopkeeper is not unquestionable. sent15: the shopkeeper arouses sauce. sent16: if the arc is not questionable then the fact that that the shopkeeper arouses sauce but it does not arouse coinsurance is correct is wrong. sent17: that the fact that the shopkeeper is questionable but it does not arouse sauce is not wrong is incorrect. sent18: the shopkeeper is not questionable if there is something such that either it does not barb xerox or it is not questionable or both. sent19: that the workbench arouses anticoagulation and does arouse coinsurance is not right. sent20: the shopkeeper is not non-deductive. sent21: the shopkeeper does arouse coinsurance and does not arouse sauce if the arc is not questionable.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the shopkeeper does arouse coinsurance and is not questionable.; assump1 -> int1: the shopkeeper does arouse coinsurance.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the arc does arouse sauce.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the arc does not arouse sauce.; int2 & assump2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the shopkeeper arouses coinsurance but it is not questionable is wrong.; [assump2] & int4 -> hypothesis;
the grosgrain does arouse sauce.
sent6 -> int5: if the sauce is nephritic then it does not barb xerox or it is not questionable or both.;
$hypothesis$ = if the arc does not arouse sauce then the fact that the shopkeeper arouses coinsurance but it is not questionable does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the shopkeeper arouses sauce if the arc is questionable. sent2: if the arc is not questionable then the shopkeeper arouses sauce but it does not arouse coinsurance. sent3: the decrease is palatoglossal but it does not arouse coinsurance. sent4: if the shopkeeper is not questionable the arc arouses coinsurance but it does not arouse sauce. sent5: if the shopkeeper arouses sauce then that the arc is questionable hold. sent6: something does not barb xerox or it is not questionable or both if the fact that it is nephritic is not incorrect. sent7: the arc does arouse coinsurance and is not questionable if the shopkeeper does not arouse sauce. sent8: the arc arouses sauce if the shopkeeper does arouse coinsurance. sent9: the floss does arouse sauce. sent10: if the arc does not arouse sauce then the shopkeeper arouses coinsurance and is not questionable. sent11: the fact that the shopkeeper does arouse coinsurance and is not questionable is wrong if the arc does arouse sauce. sent12: if the arc is questionable the fact that the shopkeeper does arouse coinsurance is correct. sent13: the fact that the shopkeeper arouses coinsurance and it is questionable does not hold if that the arc does not arouse sauce is right. sent14: that the arc arouses sauce and does not arouse coinsurance is not right if the shopkeeper is not unquestionable. sent15: the shopkeeper arouses sauce. sent16: if the arc is not questionable then the fact that that the shopkeeper arouses sauce but it does not arouse coinsurance is correct is wrong. sent17: that the fact that the shopkeeper is questionable but it does not arouse sauce is not wrong is incorrect. sent18: the shopkeeper is not questionable if there is something such that either it does not barb xerox or it is not questionable or both. sent19: that the workbench arouses anticoagulation and does arouse coinsurance is not right. sent20: the shopkeeper is not non-deductive. sent21: the shopkeeper does arouse coinsurance and does not arouse sauce if the arc is not questionable. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the shopkeeper does arouse coinsurance and is not questionable.; assump1 -> int1: the shopkeeper does arouse coinsurance.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the arc does arouse sauce.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the arc does not arouse sauce.; int2 & assump2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the shopkeeper arouses coinsurance but it is not questionable is wrong.; [assump2] & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__