the Pamlico is not ecclesiastical.
sent1: that the heathfowl is a kind of a immunohistochemistry is not incorrect. sent2: the Pamlico exalts hadrosaur but it does not perceive Sciaenidae if it is not ecclesiastical. sent3: if the g is a sorrow the fact that it is both alkahestic and not a Geronimo is not correct. sent4: if the heathfowl is a kind of a tetrasaccharide it is ecclesiastical. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that it is not alkahestic and/or it is not a tetrasaccharide is not wrong. sent6: something is neurotic if it perceives Sciaenidae. sent7: the neodymium is not a kind of a doxepin. sent8: that the Pamlico is not ecclesiastical if that the heathfowl is ecclesiastical but not involuntary is not right hold. sent9: the heathfowl is involuntary if the Pamlico does exalt hadrosaur. sent10: something that is neurotic is a tetrasaccharide. sent11: if the fact that the heathfowl is involuntary hold then the fact that it does exalt hadrosaur and is not alkahestic is not correct. sent12: something is not a tetrasaccharide if that it is a kind of a tetrasaccharide that is not a doxepin is incorrect. sent13: the fact that the Pamlico is a tetrasaccharide is right if the heathfowl is ecclesiastical. sent14: something that is involuntary is a kind of a neurotic. sent15: if the heathfowl is alkahestic then the fact that it is a kind of a tetrasaccharide that is not a doxepin is wrong. sent16: the heathfowl is not non-alkahestic. sent17: something does exalt hadrosaur if it does perceive Sciaenidae.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Pamlico is not ecclesiastical.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the Pamlico exalts hadrosaur but it does not perceive Sciaenidae.; int1 -> int2: the Pamlico exalts hadrosaur.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the heathfowl is not voluntary.; sent14 -> int4: the heathfowl is not unneurotic if it is involuntary.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the heathfowl is a kind of a neurotic.; sent10 -> int6: if the heathfowl is a neurotic it is a kind of a tetrasaccharide.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the heathfowl is a tetrasaccharide.; sent12 -> int8: the heathfowl is not a tetrasaccharide if the fact that it is a tetrasaccharide and it is not a kind of a doxepin is not right.; sent15 & sent16 -> int9: that the heathfowl is a tetrasaccharide but it is not a kind of a doxepin is incorrect.; int8 & int9 -> int10: that the heathfowl is not a tetrasaccharide is true.; int7 & int10 -> int11: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int11 -> hypothesis;
the abstainer is ecclesiastical.
$hypothesis$ = the Pamlico is not ecclesiastical. ; $context$ = sent1: that the heathfowl is a kind of a immunohistochemistry is not incorrect. sent2: the Pamlico exalts hadrosaur but it does not perceive Sciaenidae if it is not ecclesiastical. sent3: if the g is a sorrow the fact that it is both alkahestic and not a Geronimo is not correct. sent4: if the heathfowl is a kind of a tetrasaccharide it is ecclesiastical. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that it is not alkahestic and/or it is not a tetrasaccharide is not wrong. sent6: something is neurotic if it perceives Sciaenidae. sent7: the neodymium is not a kind of a doxepin. sent8: that the Pamlico is not ecclesiastical if that the heathfowl is ecclesiastical but not involuntary is not right hold. sent9: the heathfowl is involuntary if the Pamlico does exalt hadrosaur. sent10: something that is neurotic is a tetrasaccharide. sent11: if the fact that the heathfowl is involuntary hold then the fact that it does exalt hadrosaur and is not alkahestic is not correct. sent12: something is not a tetrasaccharide if that it is a kind of a tetrasaccharide that is not a doxepin is incorrect. sent13: the fact that the Pamlico is a tetrasaccharide is right if the heathfowl is ecclesiastical. sent14: something that is involuntary is a kind of a neurotic. sent15: if the heathfowl is alkahestic then the fact that it is a kind of a tetrasaccharide that is not a doxepin is wrong. sent16: the heathfowl is not non-alkahestic. sent17: something does exalt hadrosaur if it does perceive Sciaenidae. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Pamlico is not ecclesiastical.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the Pamlico exalts hadrosaur but it does not perceive Sciaenidae.; int1 -> int2: the Pamlico exalts hadrosaur.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the heathfowl is not voluntary.; sent14 -> int4: the heathfowl is not unneurotic if it is involuntary.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the heathfowl is a kind of a neurotic.; sent10 -> int6: if the heathfowl is a neurotic it is a kind of a tetrasaccharide.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the heathfowl is a tetrasaccharide.; sent12 -> int8: the heathfowl is not a tetrasaccharide if the fact that it is a tetrasaccharide and it is not a kind of a doxepin is not right.; sent15 & sent16 -> int9: that the heathfowl is a tetrasaccharide but it is not a kind of a doxepin is incorrect.; int8 & int9 -> int10: that the heathfowl is not a tetrasaccharide is true.; int7 & int10 -> int11: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__