the cirque is not nice and/or is a kind of a counterproposal.
sent1: something is not nice or is a kind of a counterproposal or both if it limps. sent2: if that the toby does not follow and it does not sign watercannon does not hold the mounter is not exhaustible. sent3: the mounter is exhaustible if the vernix is a Blitzstein. sent4: if that the cirque does not limp is true then the fact that it is a kind of non-indecisive thing that is onomastics is not false. sent5: if something that is not indecisive is onomastics then it is not a acetal. sent6: that the cirque is not a kind of a counterproposal and it does not sign watercannon is incorrect. sent7: the vernix is percussive. sent8: the vernix is a kind of a Blitzstein if it is percussive. sent9: that the toby does not follow and does not sign watercannon is wrong if the cirque is not a acetal.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cirque does not limp.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the cirque is a kind of decisive thing that is onomastics.; sent5 -> int2: the cirque is not a acetal if it is a kind of non-indecisive thing that is onomastics.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the cirque is not a acetal.; int3 & sent9 -> int4: that the toby does not follow and does not sign watercannon is not right.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: the mounter is not exhaustible.; sent8 & sent7 -> int6: the vernix is a Blitzstein.; sent3 & int6 -> int7: the mounter is exhaustible.; int5 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the cirque does limp.; sent1 -> int10: if the cirque limps then it is not nice or is a kind of a counterproposal or both.; int9 & int10 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the cirque is not nice and/or is a kind of a counterproposal. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not nice or is a kind of a counterproposal or both if it limps. sent2: if that the toby does not follow and it does not sign watercannon does not hold the mounter is not exhaustible. sent3: the mounter is exhaustible if the vernix is a Blitzstein. sent4: if that the cirque does not limp is true then the fact that it is a kind of non-indecisive thing that is onomastics is not false. sent5: if something that is not indecisive is onomastics then it is not a acetal. sent6: that the cirque is not a kind of a counterproposal and it does not sign watercannon is incorrect. sent7: the vernix is percussive. sent8: the vernix is a kind of a Blitzstein if it is percussive. sent9: that the toby does not follow and does not sign watercannon is wrong if the cirque is not a acetal. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cirque does not limp.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the cirque is a kind of decisive thing that is onomastics.; sent5 -> int2: the cirque is not a acetal if it is a kind of non-indecisive thing that is onomastics.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the cirque is not a acetal.; int3 & sent9 -> int4: that the toby does not follow and does not sign watercannon is not right.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: the mounter is not exhaustible.; sent8 & sent7 -> int6: the vernix is a Blitzstein.; sent3 & int6 -> int7: the mounter is exhaustible.; int5 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the cirque does limp.; sent1 -> int10: if the cirque limps then it is not nice or is a kind of a counterproposal or both.; int9 & int10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__