the segregation jumbles epoch and/or it is virological.
sent1: the jassid is distinguishable and/or is a kind of a ruler. sent2: The cutthroat jumbles clown. sent3: if the clown jumbles cutthroat then the fact that it does personify eponym and is indistinguishable is not true. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is not distinguishable and it jumbles epoch is not right the jassid is not a magnification. sent5: the segregation jumbles epoch if the jassid is a ruler. sent6: either the flavorer is a ruler or it interlocks succubus or both if there is something such that it is not a magnification. sent7: if the clown is distinguishable then the fact that the ascoma does interlock succubus and is not a magnification is incorrect. sent8: the ascoma is not a kind of a boysenberry. sent9: if the jassid is not a kind of a ruler it is Greek and it is not a kind of a spa. sent10: the ascoma is not a magnification if it is not a kind of a boysenberry. sent11: if the clown is a boysenberry that is not a dripping the segregation does not jumble cutthroat. sent12: if something does not jumble cutthroat then the ascoma does not personify eponym. sent13: the clown jumbles cutthroat. sent14: the clown is an eel. sent15: if something does not personify eponym then that it is a kind of indistinguishable thing that does jumble epoch is false. sent16: if the fact that the ascoma is a kind of distinguishable thing that does not interlock succubus is wrong the jassid does interlock succubus. sent17: if something is not a ruler the fact that it does jumble epoch and/or it is virological is not true. sent18: something is not non-virological if it is a ruler. sent19: the clown is distinguishable if that it does personify eponym and is not distinguishable is false. sent20: if the jassid is a Greek but it is not a spa then the ascoma interlocks succubus. sent21: if the clown is an eel it is a boysenberry and not a dripping.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the jassid is not a ruler.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the jassid is a Greek that is not a spa.; int1 & sent20 -> int2: the ascoma interlocks succubus.; sent10 & sent8 -> int3: the ascoma is not a magnification.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the ascoma interlocks succubus and is not a kind of a magnification.; sent3 & sent13 -> int5: the fact that the clown does personify eponym and is not distinguishable is wrong.; sent19 & int5 -> int6: the clown is distinguishable.; sent7 & int6 -> int7: that the ascoma interlocks succubus but it is not a magnification is not true.; int4 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the jassid is a kind of a ruler.; int9 & sent5 -> int10: the segregation does jumble epoch.; int10 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the segregation does jumble epoch and/or is virological is not right.
sent17 -> int11: if the segregation is not a ruler that it does jumble epoch or it is virological or both is not right.;
$hypothesis$ = the segregation jumbles epoch and/or it is virological. ; $context$ = sent1: the jassid is distinguishable and/or is a kind of a ruler. sent2: The cutthroat jumbles clown. sent3: if the clown jumbles cutthroat then the fact that it does personify eponym and is indistinguishable is not true. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is not distinguishable and it jumbles epoch is not right the jassid is not a magnification. sent5: the segregation jumbles epoch if the jassid is a ruler. sent6: either the flavorer is a ruler or it interlocks succubus or both if there is something such that it is not a magnification. sent7: if the clown is distinguishable then the fact that the ascoma does interlock succubus and is not a magnification is incorrect. sent8: the ascoma is not a kind of a boysenberry. sent9: if the jassid is not a kind of a ruler it is Greek and it is not a kind of a spa. sent10: the ascoma is not a magnification if it is not a kind of a boysenberry. sent11: if the clown is a boysenberry that is not a dripping the segregation does not jumble cutthroat. sent12: if something does not jumble cutthroat then the ascoma does not personify eponym. sent13: the clown jumbles cutthroat. sent14: the clown is an eel. sent15: if something does not personify eponym then that it is a kind of indistinguishable thing that does jumble epoch is false. sent16: if the fact that the ascoma is a kind of distinguishable thing that does not interlock succubus is wrong the jassid does interlock succubus. sent17: if something is not a ruler the fact that it does jumble epoch and/or it is virological is not true. sent18: something is not non-virological if it is a ruler. sent19: the clown is distinguishable if that it does personify eponym and is not distinguishable is false. sent20: if the jassid is a Greek but it is not a spa then the ascoma interlocks succubus. sent21: if the clown is an eel it is a boysenberry and not a dripping. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the jassid is not a ruler.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the jassid is a Greek that is not a spa.; int1 & sent20 -> int2: the ascoma interlocks succubus.; sent10 & sent8 -> int3: the ascoma is not a magnification.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the ascoma interlocks succubus and is not a kind of a magnification.; sent3 & sent13 -> int5: the fact that the clown does personify eponym and is not distinguishable is wrong.; sent19 & int5 -> int6: the clown is distinguishable.; sent7 & int6 -> int7: that the ascoma interlocks succubus but it is not a magnification is not true.; int4 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the jassid is a kind of a ruler.; int9 & sent5 -> int10: the segregation does jumble epoch.; int10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__