the Voltaren is autoradiographic.
sent1: if the rhinion does not synthesize wheelwright that it does mellow NMR and/or it does not synthesize shiva does not hold. sent2: the fact that if the sporocarp does synthesize thunderer but it is not judgmental then the Voltaren is autoradiographic is not incorrect. sent3: the sociolinguist is not judgmental if the rhinion synthesizes wheelwright. sent4: if the NMR is not reparable the earwig is a match and it is a kind of a lacuna. sent5: the NMR synthesizes thunderer. sent6: the sporocarp does synthesize thunderer and is not judgmental if that the sociolinguist is not judgmental is not incorrect. sent7: the NMR is not reparable. sent8: if the rhinion does not synthesize thunderer then it is a kind of a lacuna or it is judgmental or both. sent9: something does not synthesize wheelwright and it is not autoradiographic if it is a lacuna. sent10: the earwig is not a lacuna if the fact that the rhinion does mellow NMR or it does not synthesize shiva or both is wrong.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the rhinion does not synthesize wheelwright.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the rhinion mellows NMR or it does not synthesize shiva or both is false.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the earwig is not a lacuna.; sent4 & sent7 -> int3: the earwig is a match that is a lacuna.; int3 -> int4: the earwig is a lacuna.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the rhinion synthesizes wheelwright.; int6 & sent3 -> int7: that the sociolinguist is not judgmental hold.; int7 & sent6 -> int8: the sporocarp synthesizes thunderer but it is not judgmental.; int8 & sent2 -> hypothesis;
the Voltaren is not autoradiographic.
sent9 -> int9: if the fact that the Voltaren is a lacuna is not false then it does not synthesize wheelwright and is not autoradiographic.;
$hypothesis$ = the Voltaren is autoradiographic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the rhinion does not synthesize wheelwright that it does mellow NMR and/or it does not synthesize shiva does not hold. sent2: the fact that if the sporocarp does synthesize thunderer but it is not judgmental then the Voltaren is autoradiographic is not incorrect. sent3: the sociolinguist is not judgmental if the rhinion synthesizes wheelwright. sent4: if the NMR is not reparable the earwig is a match and it is a kind of a lacuna. sent5: the NMR synthesizes thunderer. sent6: the sporocarp does synthesize thunderer and is not judgmental if that the sociolinguist is not judgmental is not incorrect. sent7: the NMR is not reparable. sent8: if the rhinion does not synthesize thunderer then it is a kind of a lacuna or it is judgmental or both. sent9: something does not synthesize wheelwright and it is not autoradiographic if it is a lacuna. sent10: the earwig is not a lacuna if the fact that the rhinion does mellow NMR or it does not synthesize shiva or both is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the rhinion does not synthesize wheelwright.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the rhinion mellows NMR or it does not synthesize shiva or both is false.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the earwig is not a lacuna.; sent4 & sent7 -> int3: the earwig is a match that is a lacuna.; int3 -> int4: the earwig is a lacuna.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the rhinion synthesizes wheelwright.; int6 & sent3 -> int7: that the sociolinguist is not judgmental hold.; int7 & sent6 -> int8: the sporocarp synthesizes thunderer but it is not judgmental.; int8 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__