the disturber blues nodule.
sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it memorializes Ozawa and it does accompany is not true. sent2: that the Mauritanian is both not ascosporic and not a blank is false if there exists something such that that it is semantics is right. sent3: the fact that the highway does memorialize Ozawa and does not accompany is false. sent4: if the powderer is not semantics the disturber does blue nodule. sent5: the highway does blue nodule. sent6: if something is ascosporic it is semantics. sent7: the Mauritanian is a Konqueror if the disturber is semantics. sent8: the highway does not accompany but it does blank if it does blue nodule. sent9: if the fact that the Mauritanian is not ascosporic and is not a blank is not correct then the cards does not accompany. sent10: that the powderer does accompany and is not semantics is not true. sent11: that something is not ascosporic is right if the fact that it accompanies and is ascosporic is false. sent12: that the cards accompanies is not incorrect if there exists something such that the fact that it memorializes Ozawa and does not accompanies is not right.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the powderer is not non-semantics.; assump1 -> int1: there is something such that it is semantics.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the fact that the Mauritanian is not ascosporic and it does not blank is false.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the cards does not accompany.; sent3 -> int4: there is something such that that it memorializes Ozawa and it does not accompany is false.; int4 & sent12 -> int5: the cards does accompany.; int3 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the powderer is not semantics.; int7 & sent4 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the cards is heartless and is not a kind of a Konqueror is not right.
sent6 -> int8: the disturber is semantics if it is ascosporic.; sent8 & sent5 -> int9: the highway does not accompany and blanks.; int9 -> int10: the highway is a blank.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that it blanks.;
$hypothesis$ = the disturber blues nodule. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it memorializes Ozawa and it does accompany is not true. sent2: that the Mauritanian is both not ascosporic and not a blank is false if there exists something such that that it is semantics is right. sent3: the fact that the highway does memorialize Ozawa and does not accompany is false. sent4: if the powderer is not semantics the disturber does blue nodule. sent5: the highway does blue nodule. sent6: if something is ascosporic it is semantics. sent7: the Mauritanian is a Konqueror if the disturber is semantics. sent8: the highway does not accompany but it does blank if it does blue nodule. sent9: if the fact that the Mauritanian is not ascosporic and is not a blank is not correct then the cards does not accompany. sent10: that the powderer does accompany and is not semantics is not true. sent11: that something is not ascosporic is right if the fact that it accompanies and is ascosporic is false. sent12: that the cards accompanies is not incorrect if there exists something such that the fact that it memorializes Ozawa and does not accompanies is not right. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the powderer is not non-semantics.; assump1 -> int1: there is something such that it is semantics.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the fact that the Mauritanian is not ascosporic and it does not blank is false.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the cards does not accompany.; sent3 -> int4: there is something such that that it memorializes Ozawa and it does not accompany is false.; int4 & sent12 -> int5: the cards does accompany.; int3 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the powderer is not semantics.; int7 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__