the fact that the throat is a Fungia is correct.
sent1: if the Morgan is not a Zaragoza it is coccygeal thing that harries pension. sent2: something is a kind of a Fungia if it is upright. sent3: that the throat is dicarboxylic is not wrong. sent4: if that the fact that the Morgan does encrust Adapa and it is a Zaragoza is not right is correct it is not a kind of a Zaragoza. sent5: that the stove is a hijack but it is not a kind of a phytotherapy is false. sent6: the warrior does dimple. sent7: the fact that the throat is a dimple is right if there exists something such that the fact that it is both not upright and not a hijack does not hold. sent8: if something is not a hijack and not a phytotherapy then the paperclip is not a kind of a dimple. sent9: everything is not schismatic. sent10: that the Morgan is a Truffaut is not wrong. sent11: there is something such that it is not a phytotherapy. sent12: if something that is not a kind of a dimple is a kind of an upright then it is not a Fungia. sent13: the paperclip is a dimple if the Morgan is a Truffaut. sent14: if something is not schismatic then that it does encrust Adapa and is a Zaragoza is not true. sent15: if the paperclip is a kind of a hijack it does dimple. sent16: if the paperclip is not an upright then the c is a Fungia and a dimple. sent17: the throat is a Truffaut if the Morgan is coccygeal. sent18: if there exists something such that that it does not hijack and it is not a phytotherapy is incorrect the throat is a kind of an upright. sent19: if something does command then the fact that it is Cappadocian is not false. sent20: the stove does not dimple and is not a Maghreb. sent21: the Morgan is a Fungia. sent22: the stove is not a kind of a hijack.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the stove is not a kind of a hijack and it is not a phytotherapy.; assump1 -> int1: there is something such that it is not a hijack and it is not a kind of a phytotherapy.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the paperclip is not a dimple.; sent13 & sent10 -> int3: the paperclip is a dimple.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the stove is both not a hijack and not a phytotherapy is false.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that the fact that it is both not a hijack and not a phytotherapy does not hold.; int6 & sent18 -> int7: the throat is an upright.; sent2 -> int8: the throat is a Fungia if that it is an upright is true.; int7 & int8 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the throat is not a kind of a Fungia is not false.
sent12 -> int9: if the throat is not a dimple and is upright then it is not a Fungia.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the throat is a Fungia is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Morgan is not a Zaragoza it is coccygeal thing that harries pension. sent2: something is a kind of a Fungia if it is upright. sent3: that the throat is dicarboxylic is not wrong. sent4: if that the fact that the Morgan does encrust Adapa and it is a Zaragoza is not right is correct it is not a kind of a Zaragoza. sent5: that the stove is a hijack but it is not a kind of a phytotherapy is false. sent6: the warrior does dimple. sent7: the fact that the throat is a dimple is right if there exists something such that the fact that it is both not upright and not a hijack does not hold. sent8: if something is not a hijack and not a phytotherapy then the paperclip is not a kind of a dimple. sent9: everything is not schismatic. sent10: that the Morgan is a Truffaut is not wrong. sent11: there is something such that it is not a phytotherapy. sent12: if something that is not a kind of a dimple is a kind of an upright then it is not a Fungia. sent13: the paperclip is a dimple if the Morgan is a Truffaut. sent14: if something is not schismatic then that it does encrust Adapa and is a Zaragoza is not true. sent15: if the paperclip is a kind of a hijack it does dimple. sent16: if the paperclip is not an upright then the c is a Fungia and a dimple. sent17: the throat is a Truffaut if the Morgan is coccygeal. sent18: if there exists something such that that it does not hijack and it is not a phytotherapy is incorrect the throat is a kind of an upright. sent19: if something does command then the fact that it is Cappadocian is not false. sent20: the stove does not dimple and is not a Maghreb. sent21: the Morgan is a Fungia. sent22: the stove is not a kind of a hijack. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the stove is not a kind of a hijack and it is not a phytotherapy.; assump1 -> int1: there is something such that it is not a hijack and it is not a kind of a phytotherapy.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the paperclip is not a dimple.; sent13 & sent10 -> int3: the paperclip is a dimple.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the stove is both not a hijack and not a phytotherapy is false.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that the fact that it is both not a hijack and not a phytotherapy does not hold.; int6 & sent18 -> int7: the throat is an upright.; sent2 -> int8: the throat is a Fungia if that it is an upright is true.; int7 & int8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__