the yarmulke is a petrissage.
sent1: the porker is not a Bolivian. sent2: if something is both not a breakwater and not a Trachelospermum it is not a kind of a petrissage. sent3: if something does not preempt reflectance the fact that it is a Trachelospermum that does not jellify yarmulke is wrong. sent4: the Soubise does jellify yarmulke. sent5: that the Soubise does jellify ameba but it does not preempt Leibniz if the man-of-war is not a breakwater is not wrong. sent6: the fact that the Soubise does not preempt Leibniz is right. sent7: the man-of-war is a Exacum. sent8: if the man-of-war jellifies yarmulke but it is not a breakwater then it is not a petrissage. sent9: if the man-of-war is not a breakwater then the Soubise does not preempt Leibniz. sent10: the yarmulke is not a breakwater if there exists something such that that it is both not a Exacum and not ambiversive is not right. sent11: if that the Soubise exceeds hectoliter but it does not drape ecarte does not hold then it does not preempt reflectance. sent12: if something is not ambiversive it is a petrissage. sent13: the Soubise is a Trachelospermum. sent14: that the Soubise exceeds hectoliter and does not drape ecarte is false. sent15: if something does not jellify annex but it is a self-renewal then it is sobering. sent16: the man-of-war does not jellify annex and is a self-renewal if the porker is not Bolivian. sent17: the Soubise is not a kind of a Trachelospermum if it does jellify ameba and it does preempt Leibniz. sent18: that the Soubise is not a Trachelospermum is not incorrect if it jellifies ameba and it does not preempt Leibniz. sent19: if the yarmulke does not jellify yarmulke then it is not ambiversive. sent20: if the man-of-war is a Exacum and it is a kind of a breakwater then the yarmulke does not jellify yarmulke. sent21: if something unclutters that it is not a kind of a Exacum and is not ambiversive does not hold. sent22: something unclutters if it does sober.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the man-of-war is not a breakwater.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the Soubise jellifies ameba and does not preempt Leibniz.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the Soubise is not a Trachelospermum.; int2 & sent13 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the man-of-war is a breakwater.; int4 & sent7 -> int5: the man-of-war is a Exacum and is a kind of a breakwater.; int5 & sent20 -> int6: the yarmulke does not jellify yarmulke.; int6 & sent19 -> int7: the yarmulke is not ambiversive.; sent12 -> int8: if the fact that the yarmulke is not ambiversive is true then it is a petrissage.; int7 & int8 -> hypothesis;
the yarmulke is not a kind of a petrissage.
sent2 -> int9: if the yarmulke is not a breakwater and is not a Trachelospermum it is not a kind of a petrissage.; sent21 -> int10: if the man-of-war unclutters that it is both not a Exacum and not ambiversive does not hold.; sent22 -> int11: the fact that the man-of-war unclutters hold if it is sobering.; sent15 -> int12: if the man-of-war does not jellify annex but it is a self-renewal it is sobering.; sent16 & sent1 -> int13: the man-of-war does not jellify annex and is a self-renewal.; int12 & int13 -> int14: the fact that the man-of-war is sobering is right.; int11 & int14 -> int15: the fact that the man-of-war does unclutter is right.; int10 & int15 -> int16: that the man-of-war is both not a Exacum and not ambiversive does not hold.; int16 -> int17: there is something such that that it is not a Exacum and not ambiversive is not right.; int17 & sent10 -> int18: the yarmulke is not a breakwater.; sent3 -> int19: if the fact that the Soubise does not preempt reflectance hold then that it is a kind of a Trachelospermum that does not jellify yarmulke is not true.; sent11 & sent14 -> int20: the Soubise does not preempt reflectance.; int19 & int20 -> int21: that the Soubise is a Trachelospermum and does not jellify yarmulke is wrong.; int21 -> int22: there is something such that that it is a Trachelospermum and does not jellify yarmulke does not hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the yarmulke is a petrissage. ; $context$ = sent1: the porker is not a Bolivian. sent2: if something is both not a breakwater and not a Trachelospermum it is not a kind of a petrissage. sent3: if something does not preempt reflectance the fact that it is a Trachelospermum that does not jellify yarmulke is wrong. sent4: the Soubise does jellify yarmulke. sent5: that the Soubise does jellify ameba but it does not preempt Leibniz if the man-of-war is not a breakwater is not wrong. sent6: the fact that the Soubise does not preempt Leibniz is right. sent7: the man-of-war is a Exacum. sent8: if the man-of-war jellifies yarmulke but it is not a breakwater then it is not a petrissage. sent9: if the man-of-war is not a breakwater then the Soubise does not preempt Leibniz. sent10: the yarmulke is not a breakwater if there exists something such that that it is both not a Exacum and not ambiversive is not right. sent11: if that the Soubise exceeds hectoliter but it does not drape ecarte does not hold then it does not preempt reflectance. sent12: if something is not ambiversive it is a petrissage. sent13: the Soubise is a Trachelospermum. sent14: that the Soubise exceeds hectoliter and does not drape ecarte is false. sent15: if something does not jellify annex but it is a self-renewal then it is sobering. sent16: the man-of-war does not jellify annex and is a self-renewal if the porker is not Bolivian. sent17: the Soubise is not a kind of a Trachelospermum if it does jellify ameba and it does preempt Leibniz. sent18: that the Soubise is not a Trachelospermum is not incorrect if it jellifies ameba and it does not preempt Leibniz. sent19: if the yarmulke does not jellify yarmulke then it is not ambiversive. sent20: if the man-of-war is a Exacum and it is a kind of a breakwater then the yarmulke does not jellify yarmulke. sent21: if something unclutters that it is not a kind of a Exacum and is not ambiversive does not hold. sent22: something unclutters if it does sober. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the man-of-war is not a breakwater.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the Soubise jellifies ameba and does not preempt Leibniz.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the Soubise is not a Trachelospermum.; int2 & sent13 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the man-of-war is a breakwater.; int4 & sent7 -> int5: the man-of-war is a Exacum and is a kind of a breakwater.; int5 & sent20 -> int6: the yarmulke does not jellify yarmulke.; int6 & sent19 -> int7: the yarmulke is not ambiversive.; sent12 -> int8: if the fact that the yarmulke is not ambiversive is true then it is a petrissage.; int7 & int8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__