if the solleret does sample Stewart then that the tungstate does not sample depravity and is cardiovascular is wrong.
sent1: the fact that something does sample Akwa'ala but it does not hook lignum does not hold if it samples Stewart. sent2: if the solleret does sample Stewart then the tungstate does not sample depravity and is cardiovascular. sent3: if the solleret is not cardiovascular the fact that the tungstate does not hook lignum hold. sent4: that the tungstate does sample Stewart and it does sample depravity does not hold. sent5: if the fact that the syconium is a West-sider and not autolytic is not right it is not a kind of a West-sider. sent6: there is something such that it is autolytic. sent7: the tungstate does not sample depravity but it is cardiovascular. sent8: the syconium is not autolytic if the fact that the fact that the fact that the solleret samples Akwa'ala but it does not hook lignum hold does not hold is true. sent9: if that the solleret is cardiovascular but it does not sample Akwa'ala is not correct then the tungstate does not hook lignum. sent10: if there is something such that it is not autolytic then that the solleret does hook lignum and it samples depravity is incorrect. sent11: if the solleret does sample Stewart then that the tungstate does sample depravity and is cardiovascular is incorrect. sent12: that the tungstate does not sample depravity and is cardiovascular is not correct if there is something such that it is not autolytic. sent13: there is something such that it does cloud terrorization. sent14: there is something such that it is hemic. sent15: if the solleret does hook lignum then the syconium is not autolytic. sent16: that the tungstate samples depravity and is not non-cardiovascular is incorrect if there exists something such that it is not autolytic. sent17: if that the solleret hooks lignum is not false then the tungstate does not sample depravity and samples Stewart.
sent1 -> int1: if the solleret samples Stewart the fact that it samples Akwa'ala and it does not hook lignum is not correct.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the solleret does sample Stewart.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: that the solleret does sample Akwa'ala but it does not hook lignum is not true.; sent8 & int2 -> int3: the syconium is non-autolytic.; int3 -> int4: something is not autolytic.; int4 & sent12 -> int5: that the tungstate does not sample depravity but it is cardiovascular is incorrect.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis;
there exists something such that that it is not a West-sider is correct.
$hypothesis$ = if the solleret does sample Stewart then that the tungstate does not sample depravity and is cardiovascular is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something does sample Akwa'ala but it does not hook lignum does not hold if it samples Stewart. sent2: if the solleret does sample Stewart then the tungstate does not sample depravity and is cardiovascular. sent3: if the solleret is not cardiovascular the fact that the tungstate does not hook lignum hold. sent4: that the tungstate does sample Stewart and it does sample depravity does not hold. sent5: if the fact that the syconium is a West-sider and not autolytic is not right it is not a kind of a West-sider. sent6: there is something such that it is autolytic. sent7: the tungstate does not sample depravity but it is cardiovascular. sent8: the syconium is not autolytic if the fact that the fact that the fact that the solleret samples Akwa'ala but it does not hook lignum hold does not hold is true. sent9: if that the solleret is cardiovascular but it does not sample Akwa'ala is not correct then the tungstate does not hook lignum. sent10: if there is something such that it is not autolytic then that the solleret does hook lignum and it samples depravity is incorrect. sent11: if the solleret does sample Stewart then that the tungstate does sample depravity and is cardiovascular is incorrect. sent12: that the tungstate does not sample depravity and is cardiovascular is not correct if there is something such that it is not autolytic. sent13: there is something such that it does cloud terrorization. sent14: there is something such that it is hemic. sent15: if the solleret does hook lignum then the syconium is not autolytic. sent16: that the tungstate samples depravity and is not non-cardiovascular is incorrect if there exists something such that it is not autolytic. sent17: if that the solleret hooks lignum is not false then the tungstate does not sample depravity and samples Stewart. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 -> int1: if the solleret samples Stewart the fact that it samples Akwa'ala and it does not hook lignum is not correct.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the solleret does sample Stewart.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: that the solleret does sample Akwa'ala but it does not hook lignum is not true.; sent8 & int2 -> int3: the syconium is non-autolytic.; int3 -> int4: something is not autolytic.; int4 & sent12 -> int5: that the tungstate does not sample depravity but it is cardiovascular is incorrect.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__