the tabard is not a technical and it does not wire canvasback.
sent1: there exists something such that that the fact that it wires canvasback and is not a kind of a Norman is not wrong is not true. sent2: the alumroot is not Mozartian if there exists something such that it is a kind of a Norman. sent3: if the proprionamide is inconvenient then that the tabard is a technical and is not a kind of a jostle is false. sent4: the alumroot is Mozartian and it is inconvenient. sent5: the alumroot is not a jostle. sent6: the stanhope does not jostle. sent7: the alumroot is not Mozartian if there is something such that that it is a kind of pleochroic thing that is not Norman is incorrect. sent8: if the proprionamide is a kind of an acute that the stanhope is pleochroic and is not a Norman is not true. sent9: if the fact that the alumroot is a kind of Norman thing that is not inconvenient is incorrect then it is not a Norman. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is a technical and it does not wire canvasback does not hold. sent11: the fact that the alumroot is not an acute and is not pleochroic is not right if it is not a Norman. sent12: there exists nothing such that it is Norman and it is not inconvenient. sent13: the fact that the tabard is both acute and not technical is not true if the proprionamide jostles. sent14: the fact that the tabard is not a kind of a technical but it wires canvasback does not hold. sent15: if the proprionamide is a jostle then the fact that it is an acute is true. sent16: if the fact that that the alumroot does not distinguish imperfectibility is not correct is not wrong the fact that the proprionamide is a kind of an acute and it is inconvenient is incorrect. sent17: if the fact that the tabard is not a kind of a technical and it does not wire canvasback is wrong the proprionamide does not distinguish imperfectibility. sent18: something jostles if it does not distinguish imperfectibility. sent19: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of pleochroic thing that is Norman is incorrect. sent20: if the tabard does wire canvasback then the proprionamide does not distinguish imperfectibility.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the tabard is a kind of nontechnical thing that does not wire canvasback does not hold.; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: the proprionamide does not distinguish imperfectibility.; sent18 -> int2: if that the proprionamide does not distinguish imperfectibility is correct it jostles.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the proprionamide is a jostle.; int3 & sent15 -> int4: the proprionamide is acute.; int4 & sent8 -> int5: the fact that the stanhope is pleochroic and not Norman does not hold.; int5 -> int6: there exists something such that that it is pleochroic and it is not a kind of a Norman is not right.; int6 & sent7 -> int7: the alumroot is not Mozartian.; sent4 -> int8: the alumroot is Mozartian.; int7 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the tabard is a kind of nontechnical thing that does not wire canvasback does not hold.
sent12 -> int10: the fact that the alumroot is both not non-Norman and convenient is wrong.; sent9 & int10 -> int11: the alumroot is not Norman.; sent11 & int11 -> int12: that the alumroot is not a kind of an acute and is not pleochroic is incorrect.; int12 -> int13: there exists something such that that it is not an acute and it is not pleochroic is not true.;
$hypothesis$ = the tabard is not a technical and it does not wire canvasback. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that that the fact that it wires canvasback and is not a kind of a Norman is not wrong is not true. sent2: the alumroot is not Mozartian if there exists something such that it is a kind of a Norman. sent3: if the proprionamide is inconvenient then that the tabard is a technical and is not a kind of a jostle is false. sent4: the alumroot is Mozartian and it is inconvenient. sent5: the alumroot is not a jostle. sent6: the stanhope does not jostle. sent7: the alumroot is not Mozartian if there is something such that that it is a kind of pleochroic thing that is not Norman is incorrect. sent8: if the proprionamide is a kind of an acute that the stanhope is pleochroic and is not a Norman is not true. sent9: if the fact that the alumroot is a kind of Norman thing that is not inconvenient is incorrect then it is not a Norman. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is a technical and it does not wire canvasback does not hold. sent11: the fact that the alumroot is not an acute and is not pleochroic is not right if it is not a Norman. sent12: there exists nothing such that it is Norman and it is not inconvenient. sent13: the fact that the tabard is both acute and not technical is not true if the proprionamide jostles. sent14: the fact that the tabard is not a kind of a technical but it wires canvasback does not hold. sent15: if the proprionamide is a jostle then the fact that it is an acute is true. sent16: if the fact that that the alumroot does not distinguish imperfectibility is not correct is not wrong the fact that the proprionamide is a kind of an acute and it is inconvenient is incorrect. sent17: if the fact that the tabard is not a kind of a technical and it does not wire canvasback is wrong the proprionamide does not distinguish imperfectibility. sent18: something jostles if it does not distinguish imperfectibility. sent19: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of pleochroic thing that is Norman is incorrect. sent20: if the tabard does wire canvasback then the proprionamide does not distinguish imperfectibility. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the tabard is a kind of nontechnical thing that does not wire canvasback does not hold.; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: the proprionamide does not distinguish imperfectibility.; sent18 -> int2: if that the proprionamide does not distinguish imperfectibility is correct it jostles.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the proprionamide is a jostle.; int3 & sent15 -> int4: the proprionamide is acute.; int4 & sent8 -> int5: the fact that the stanhope is pleochroic and not Norman does not hold.; int5 -> int6: there exists something such that that it is pleochroic and it is not a kind of a Norman is not right.; int6 & sent7 -> int7: the alumroot is not Mozartian.; sent4 -> int8: the alumroot is Mozartian.; int7 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__