the harpsichord is not unaggressive and not a indistinctness.
sent1: the fact that the harpsichord does hand boatbill and is not unaggressive is not correct. sent2: that something is non-anginal but it is a kind of a blimp is false if that it is not a glottochronology is right. sent3: the lacertid does not hand boatbill if the paralytic does not hand boatbill but it hands run. sent4: the fact that the IVP is not a breastplate and/or it does not circle is not right if it is not bucolic. sent5: the paralytic is not a breastplate if the fact that either the IVP is not a kind of a breastplate or it is not a kind of a circle or both is false. sent6: the redberry is not a glottochronology if there exists something such that it does not hand boatbill and is not a breastplate. sent7: the redberry is not a kind of a blimp if that the lacertid is both not a glottochronology and not a blimp is wrong. sent8: that the crosshead overstrains Araujia and is not bolographic is not true. sent9: that the calcium does overstrain infuriation but it is not a suffragette is not correct if the fact that it is a indistinctness hold. sent10: that the crosshead is a kind of a blimp but it does not hand boatbill is wrong. sent11: if either the redberry is not a blimp or it is anginal or both the crosshead is a Lindbergh. sent12: something that is a kind of a Lindbergh is not non-anginal. sent13: something does not hand boatbill but it does hand run if it is not a breastplate. sent14: the Barber does hand UNICEF and it is unaggressive if the harpsichord is not a Lindbergh. sent15: if something does not hand boatbill that it is not a glottochronology and is not a kind of a blimp is not correct. sent16: if that something is both anginal and not a Lindbergh is not incorrect the fact that the crosshead is unaggressive is correct. sent17: if the fact that the harpsichord is not a boatbill and it does not hand UNICEF is not correct then it is a Lindbergh. sent18: that the harpsichord is not a kind of a boatbill and does not hand UNICEF does not hold if it is unaggressive. sent19: if the redberry is not a kind of a glottochronology either it is not a blimp or it is not non-anginal or both. sent20: the redberry is anginal and is not a kind of a Lindbergh if it is not a kind of a blimp. sent21: something does not hand run. sent22: that the harpsichord is a indistinctness that does not hand run does not hold. sent23: The boatbill does not hand redberry. sent24: if that the lacertid is not a breastplate and it does not hand run is not correct the fact that it is a indistinctness is not incorrect. sent25: the fact that the crosshead is not a blimp and not a glottochronology does not hold if there is something such that it does not hand boatbill. sent26: the harpsichord is not a indistinctness if that it is a indistinctness and does not hand run is false. sent27: the crosshead is both not a blimp and not a glottochronology if the harpsichord is anginal. sent28: if the fact that the redberry is not a glottochronology and/or does not hand boatbill is not true then the crosshead is not a glottochronology. sent29: the redberry does not hand boatbill.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the harpsichord is unaggressive.; sent18 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the harpsichord is not a boatbill and does not hand UNICEF is false.; int1 & sent17 -> int2: the harpsichord is a Lindbergh.; sent12 -> int3: the harpsichord is not non-anginal if it is a Lindbergh.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the harpsichord is anginal.; int4 & sent27 -> int5: the crosshead is not a blimp and is not a kind of a glottochronology.; sent29 -> int6: there exists something such that it does not hand boatbill.; int6 & sent25 -> int7: that the crosshead is not a kind of a blimp and is not a kind of a glottochronology does not hold.; int5 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the harpsichord is not unaggressive.; sent26 & sent22 -> int10: the harpsichord is not a kind of a indistinctness.; int9 & int10 -> hypothesis;
the Barber does hand UNICEF.
sent2 -> int11: that the crosshead is not anginal but it is a blimp is not true if it is not a glottochronology.;
$hypothesis$ = the harpsichord is not unaggressive and not a indistinctness. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the harpsichord does hand boatbill and is not unaggressive is not correct. sent2: that something is non-anginal but it is a kind of a blimp is false if that it is not a glottochronology is right. sent3: the lacertid does not hand boatbill if the paralytic does not hand boatbill but it hands run. sent4: the fact that the IVP is not a breastplate and/or it does not circle is not right if it is not bucolic. sent5: the paralytic is not a breastplate if the fact that either the IVP is not a kind of a breastplate or it is not a kind of a circle or both is false. sent6: the redberry is not a glottochronology if there exists something such that it does not hand boatbill and is not a breastplate. sent7: the redberry is not a kind of a blimp if that the lacertid is both not a glottochronology and not a blimp is wrong. sent8: that the crosshead overstrains Araujia and is not bolographic is not true. sent9: that the calcium does overstrain infuriation but it is not a suffragette is not correct if the fact that it is a indistinctness hold. sent10: that the crosshead is a kind of a blimp but it does not hand boatbill is wrong. sent11: if either the redberry is not a blimp or it is anginal or both the crosshead is a Lindbergh. sent12: something that is a kind of a Lindbergh is not non-anginal. sent13: something does not hand boatbill but it does hand run if it is not a breastplate. sent14: the Barber does hand UNICEF and it is unaggressive if the harpsichord is not a Lindbergh. sent15: if something does not hand boatbill that it is not a glottochronology and is not a kind of a blimp is not correct. sent16: if that something is both anginal and not a Lindbergh is not incorrect the fact that the crosshead is unaggressive is correct. sent17: if the fact that the harpsichord is not a boatbill and it does not hand UNICEF is not correct then it is a Lindbergh. sent18: that the harpsichord is not a kind of a boatbill and does not hand UNICEF does not hold if it is unaggressive. sent19: if the redberry is not a kind of a glottochronology either it is not a blimp or it is not non-anginal or both. sent20: the redberry is anginal and is not a kind of a Lindbergh if it is not a kind of a blimp. sent21: something does not hand run. sent22: that the harpsichord is a indistinctness that does not hand run does not hold. sent23: The boatbill does not hand redberry. sent24: if that the lacertid is not a breastplate and it does not hand run is not correct the fact that it is a indistinctness is not incorrect. sent25: the fact that the crosshead is not a blimp and not a glottochronology does not hold if there is something such that it does not hand boatbill. sent26: the harpsichord is not a indistinctness if that it is a indistinctness and does not hand run is false. sent27: the crosshead is both not a blimp and not a glottochronology if the harpsichord is anginal. sent28: if the fact that the redberry is not a glottochronology and/or does not hand boatbill is not true then the crosshead is not a glottochronology. sent29: the redberry does not hand boatbill. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the harpsichord is unaggressive.; sent18 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the harpsichord is not a boatbill and does not hand UNICEF is false.; int1 & sent17 -> int2: the harpsichord is a Lindbergh.; sent12 -> int3: the harpsichord is not non-anginal if it is a Lindbergh.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the harpsichord is anginal.; int4 & sent27 -> int5: the crosshead is not a blimp and is not a kind of a glottochronology.; sent29 -> int6: there exists something such that it does not hand boatbill.; int6 & sent25 -> int7: that the crosshead is not a kind of a blimp and is not a kind of a glottochronology does not hold.; int5 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the harpsichord is not unaggressive.; sent26 & sent22 -> int10: the harpsichord is not a kind of a indistinctness.; int9 & int10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__