the wisp is a vitiation if the fact that the acidification is a commuter is not wrong.
sent1: if something that does not patronize acidification is not a modern then the fact that the wisp is a vitiation is right. sent2: if either something does lock or it is not a commuter or both the acidification does not snuff crazed. sent3: there is something such that it does lock or it is not a commuter or both. sent4: if something is a vitiation then that it patronizes acidification and is not modern is not true. sent5: there is something such that that it is not a Minnesotan and it does not totter is false. sent6: if there is something such that it is a locking then the wonderer is not a kind of a modern. sent7: the wonderer is a commuter. sent8: that the acidification is a locking hold if the fact that it is a commuter is true. sent9: if the wonderer is not a Iridoprocne the fact that it does snuff esker and it is a vitiation is not wrong.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the acidification is a commuter.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the acidification is a locking.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it is a locking.;
that there exists something such that it does not snuff crazed and it is not a sandbar hold.
sent3 & sent2 -> int3: the acidification does not snuff crazed.; sent4 -> int4: the fact that the wonderer does patronize acidification and is not a modern is wrong if it is a kind of a vitiation.;
$hypothesis$ = the wisp is a vitiation if the fact that the acidification is a commuter is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if something that does not patronize acidification is not a modern then the fact that the wisp is a vitiation is right. sent2: if either something does lock or it is not a commuter or both the acidification does not snuff crazed. sent3: there is something such that it does lock or it is not a commuter or both. sent4: if something is a vitiation then that it patronizes acidification and is not modern is not true. sent5: there is something such that that it is not a Minnesotan and it does not totter is false. sent6: if there is something such that it is a locking then the wonderer is not a kind of a modern. sent7: the wonderer is a commuter. sent8: that the acidification is a locking hold if the fact that it is a commuter is true. sent9: if the wonderer is not a Iridoprocne the fact that it does snuff esker and it is a vitiation is not wrong. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the acidification is a commuter.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the acidification is a locking.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it is a locking.; __UNKNOWN__