the fact that the catalog is not balletic is right.
sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it is a subshrub that does not concern cart is wrong then the catalog acts jurisprudence. sent2: the sob is not a backing. sent3: something is a kind of a subshrub and does not concern cart. sent4: the crocodile is not a tarnish if the catalog acts jurisprudence and it is balletic. sent5: there is something such that that it is a subshrub and concerns cart does not hold. sent6: something does not act jurisprudence and it is not a kind of a tarnish if it is arteriolar. sent7: if the sob is not a concavity the crocodile is arteriolar and not a backing. sent8: the fact that the gyro is a kind of a tarnish is true. sent9: if the crocodile does not tarnish then the sob is both not non-arteriolar and a backing. sent10: there is something such that that it is a subshrub and it does not concern cart is incorrect.
sent10 & sent1 -> int1: the catalog acts jurisprudence.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the catalog is balletic.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the catalog does act jurisprudence and is balletic.; int2 & sent4 -> int3: the crocodile is not a tarnish.; int3 & sent9 -> int4: the sob is arteriolar and it is backing.; int4 -> int5: the sob backs.; int5 & sent2 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis;
the catalog is balletic.
sent6 -> int7: if the crocodile is arteriolar it does not act jurisprudence and it is not a tarnish.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the catalog is not balletic is right. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it is a subshrub that does not concern cart is wrong then the catalog acts jurisprudence. sent2: the sob is not a backing. sent3: something is a kind of a subshrub and does not concern cart. sent4: the crocodile is not a tarnish if the catalog acts jurisprudence and it is balletic. sent5: there is something such that that it is a subshrub and concerns cart does not hold. sent6: something does not act jurisprudence and it is not a kind of a tarnish if it is arteriolar. sent7: if the sob is not a concavity the crocodile is arteriolar and not a backing. sent8: the fact that the gyro is a kind of a tarnish is true. sent9: if the crocodile does not tarnish then the sob is both not non-arteriolar and a backing. sent10: there is something such that that it is a subshrub and it does not concern cart is incorrect. ; $proof$ = 
sent10 & sent1 -> int1: the catalog acts jurisprudence.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the catalog is balletic.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the catalog does act jurisprudence and is balletic.; int2 & sent4 -> int3: the crocodile is not a tarnish.; int3 & sent9 -> int4: the sob is arteriolar and it is backing.; int4 -> int5: the sob backs.; int5 & sent2 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__