the Californian is a jonquil.
sent1: if the pursuer is an affidavit then it is not a cutter and does not citify Hexanchus. sent2: if the Californian is not a jonquil the fact that the pursuer is not a cutter and does not citify Hexanchus is not true. sent3: if something builds Brazil then it is an affidavit. sent4: the fact that the pursuer is an affidavit hold.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Californian is not a jonquil.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the fact that the pursuer is not a cutter and does not citify Hexanchus hold is not true.; sent1 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the pursuer is not a cutter and does not citify Hexanchus hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;
the rioter does citify Hexanchus.
sent3 -> int4: that if the rioter builds Brazil then the rioter is an affidavit hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the Californian is a jonquil. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pursuer is an affidavit then it is not a cutter and does not citify Hexanchus. sent2: if the Californian is not a jonquil the fact that the pursuer is not a cutter and does not citify Hexanchus is not true. sent3: if something builds Brazil then it is an affidavit. sent4: the fact that the pursuer is an affidavit hold. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Californian is not a jonquil.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the fact that the pursuer is not a cutter and does not citify Hexanchus hold is not true.; sent1 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the pursuer is not a cutter and does not citify Hexanchus hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__