the flour is not a food and it does not imbibe.
sent1: if something is an amputation that either it masters Botrychium or it is not spineless or both is false. sent2: if the patina is not a kind of an amputation then the polymerase is a kind of a bilabial. sent3: the sequestration conceals if the fact that it is not uniovular and it does not master polymerase is not true. sent4: the flour is not a food and it does not imbibe if the arethusa does not imbibe. sent5: the sequestration does not brad sport and is not a Utopian. sent6: the fact that the patina is not a kind of an amputation is correct if something is not uniovular and does not master polymerase. sent7: the flour does not conceal and is not a food. sent8: that the patina is not an amputation is not incorrect if something that is not uniovular masters polymerase. sent9: the polymerase is a kind of a bilabial. sent10: the fact that the sequestration is a hosteller is correct. sent11: the arethusa is not a food. sent12: the flour is not a kind of a food if that the arethusa does not imbibe is right. sent13: if the sequestration does not brad sport and it is not a kind of a Utopian it does not conceal. sent14: there is something such that it is a kind of uniovular thing that does not master polymerase. sent15: the sequestration does not brad sport. sent16: that the polymerase is a resettlement and/or it is not a bilabial does not hold if that the patina is not an amputation is right. sent17: if the fact that the polymerase is a resettlement or bilabial or both does not hold then the arethusa does not imbibe. sent18: the flour is not a food. sent19: the flour is not a kind of a Sauk. sent20: something does not master polymerase. sent21: that the sequestration is non-uniovular but it does master polymerase does not hold. sent22: if the sequestration masters polymerase it conceals. sent23: the sequestration does not master polymerase. sent24: the sequestration does not conceal if it does brad sport and it is not a Utopian. sent25: the fact that the arethusa does not imbibe is correct if the fact that the polymerase is a kind of a resettlement or it is not a bilabial or both is false.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the sequestration is a kind of non-uniovular thing that does not master polymerase is incorrect.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the sequestration does conceal.; sent13 & sent5 -> int2: the sequestration does not conceal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the sequestration is not uniovular and it does not master polymerase.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that it is not uniovular and it does not master polymerase.; int5 & sent6 -> int6: the patina is not an amputation.; int6 & sent16 -> int7: the fact that the polymerase is a resettlement or it is not a bilabial or both is not right.; int7 & sent25 -> int8: the arethusa does not imbibe.; int8 & sent4 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the polymerase does master Botrychium and/or it is vertebrate does not hold.
sent1 -> int9: the fact that the polymerase masters Botrychium and/or is not spineless does not hold if it is an amputation.;
$hypothesis$ = the flour is not a food and it does not imbibe. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is an amputation that either it masters Botrychium or it is not spineless or both is false. sent2: if the patina is not a kind of an amputation then the polymerase is a kind of a bilabial. sent3: the sequestration conceals if the fact that it is not uniovular and it does not master polymerase is not true. sent4: the flour is not a food and it does not imbibe if the arethusa does not imbibe. sent5: the sequestration does not brad sport and is not a Utopian. sent6: the fact that the patina is not a kind of an amputation is correct if something is not uniovular and does not master polymerase. sent7: the flour does not conceal and is not a food. sent8: that the patina is not an amputation is not incorrect if something that is not uniovular masters polymerase. sent9: the polymerase is a kind of a bilabial. sent10: the fact that the sequestration is a hosteller is correct. sent11: the arethusa is not a food. sent12: the flour is not a kind of a food if that the arethusa does not imbibe is right. sent13: if the sequestration does not brad sport and it is not a kind of a Utopian it does not conceal. sent14: there is something such that it is a kind of uniovular thing that does not master polymerase. sent15: the sequestration does not brad sport. sent16: that the polymerase is a resettlement and/or it is not a bilabial does not hold if that the patina is not an amputation is right. sent17: if the fact that the polymerase is a resettlement or bilabial or both does not hold then the arethusa does not imbibe. sent18: the flour is not a food. sent19: the flour is not a kind of a Sauk. sent20: something does not master polymerase. sent21: that the sequestration is non-uniovular but it does master polymerase does not hold. sent22: if the sequestration masters polymerase it conceals. sent23: the sequestration does not master polymerase. sent24: the sequestration does not conceal if it does brad sport and it is not a Utopian. sent25: the fact that the arethusa does not imbibe is correct if the fact that the polymerase is a kind of a resettlement or it is not a bilabial or both is false. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the sequestration is a kind of non-uniovular thing that does not master polymerase is incorrect.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the sequestration does conceal.; sent13 & sent5 -> int2: the sequestration does not conceal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the sequestration is not uniovular and it does not master polymerase.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that it is not uniovular and it does not master polymerase.; int5 & sent6 -> int6: the patina is not an amputation.; int6 & sent16 -> int7: the fact that the polymerase is a resettlement or it is not a bilabial or both is not right.; int7 & sent25 -> int8: the arethusa does not imbibe.; int8 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__