that the metopion is a kind of robotic thing that is benzenoid is not incorrect.
sent1: the metopion is not a neoconservatism. sent2: if something does not proposition then it is a kind of a bag that is glad. sent3: the argentine is reconcilable. sent4: if the proconsul is a bag the fact that it does ambush Woolf and is not reconcilable does not hold. sent5: the argentine is not nonretractile if the fact that either it does not quiver prescriptivism or it is not a kind of a swaggerer or both does not hold. sent6: the fact that the ovary does not quiver prescriptivism and/or does not ambush Woolf is false if the argentine does not ambush Woolf. sent7: everything is not a kind of a proposition. sent8: if the fact that the ovary does not quiver prescriptivism but it is a swaggerer is false then the proconsul is not a neoconservatism. sent9: the metopion does not quiver prescriptivism if the fact that the ovary is not a swaggerer but it is a kind of a neoconservatism is incorrect. sent10: the ovary is not benzenoid. sent11: the argentine does not ambush Woolf if the fact that either it is not nonretractile or it is not a kind of a neoconservatism or both is not correct. sent12: that the metopion is a swaggerer is not incorrect. sent13: if the argentine does not ambush Woolf and is reconcilable then the metopion is robotic. sent14: the concealment quivers prescriptivism. sent15: if the argentine is not nonretractile then that the ovary does not quiver prescriptivism and/or is not nonretractile is wrong. sent16: if the fact that something ambushes Woolf and is not reconcilable is not correct then it is nonretractile. sent17: that something is robotic and benzenoid does not hold if it does not quiver prescriptivism. sent18: the fact that the loser is a neoconservatism is not incorrect. sent19: the proconsul quivers prescriptivism. sent20: the argentine is not retractile if the proconsul is not a kind of a neoconservatism. sent21: the ovary does quiver prescriptivism. sent22: The prescriptivism does quiver ovary. sent23: the ovary is not a Wilton but it ambushes millwork. sent24: the metopion is not benzenoid if that it is not a neoconservatism and/or it is not nonretractile does not hold. sent25: the metopion is benzenoid. sent26: that the fact that either the argentine is not nonretractile or it is not a neoconservatism or both is not wrong is not right if the proconsul is not a neoconservatism. sent27: the metopion is not reconcilable.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the ovary does not quiver prescriptivism and is a swaggerer.; assump1 -> int1: the ovary does not quiver prescriptivism.; int1 & sent21 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the ovary does not quiver prescriptivism but it is a kind of a swaggerer is wrong.; int3 & sent8 -> int4: the fact that the proconsul is not a neoconservatism hold.; int4 & sent26 -> int5: the fact that the argentine is not nonretractile and/or it is not a neoconservatism is wrong.; int5 & sent11 -> int6: the argentine does not ambush Woolf.; int6 & sent3 -> int7: the argentine does not ambush Woolf and is reconcilable.; int7 & sent13 -> int8: the metopion is robotic.; int8 & sent25 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the metopion is robotic and benzenoid is incorrect.
sent17 -> int9: if the metopion does not quiver prescriptivism then the fact that it is a kind of robotic thing that is benzenoid is not correct.; sent16 -> int10: if the fact that the proconsul ambushes Woolf and is not reconcilable is not right then it is nonretractile.; sent2 -> int11: if that the argentine does not proposition hold then it is a kind of a bag and is glad.; sent7 -> int12: the argentine is not a proposition.; int11 & int12 -> int13: the argentine is a kind of a bag and it is glad.; int13 -> int14: everything is a bag and glad.; int14 -> int15: the proconsul is a bag and it is glad.; int15 -> int16: the proconsul is a kind of a bag.; sent4 & int16 -> int17: the fact that the proconsul does ambush Woolf and is not reconcilable is not right.; int10 & int17 -> int18: the proconsul is nonretractile.; int18 -> int19: there exists something such that it is nonretractile.;
$hypothesis$ = that the metopion is a kind of robotic thing that is benzenoid is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the metopion is not a neoconservatism. sent2: if something does not proposition then it is a kind of a bag that is glad. sent3: the argentine is reconcilable. sent4: if the proconsul is a bag the fact that it does ambush Woolf and is not reconcilable does not hold. sent5: the argentine is not nonretractile if the fact that either it does not quiver prescriptivism or it is not a kind of a swaggerer or both does not hold. sent6: the fact that the ovary does not quiver prescriptivism and/or does not ambush Woolf is false if the argentine does not ambush Woolf. sent7: everything is not a kind of a proposition. sent8: if the fact that the ovary does not quiver prescriptivism but it is a swaggerer is false then the proconsul is not a neoconservatism. sent9: the metopion does not quiver prescriptivism if the fact that the ovary is not a swaggerer but it is a kind of a neoconservatism is incorrect. sent10: the ovary is not benzenoid. sent11: the argentine does not ambush Woolf if the fact that either it is not nonretractile or it is not a kind of a neoconservatism or both is not correct. sent12: that the metopion is a swaggerer is not incorrect. sent13: if the argentine does not ambush Woolf and is reconcilable then the metopion is robotic. sent14: the concealment quivers prescriptivism. sent15: if the argentine is not nonretractile then that the ovary does not quiver prescriptivism and/or is not nonretractile is wrong. sent16: if the fact that something ambushes Woolf and is not reconcilable is not correct then it is nonretractile. sent17: that something is robotic and benzenoid does not hold if it does not quiver prescriptivism. sent18: the fact that the loser is a neoconservatism is not incorrect. sent19: the proconsul quivers prescriptivism. sent20: the argentine is not retractile if the proconsul is not a kind of a neoconservatism. sent21: the ovary does quiver prescriptivism. sent22: The prescriptivism does quiver ovary. sent23: the ovary is not a Wilton but it ambushes millwork. sent24: the metopion is not benzenoid if that it is not a neoconservatism and/or it is not nonretractile does not hold. sent25: the metopion is benzenoid. sent26: that the fact that either the argentine is not nonretractile or it is not a neoconservatism or both is not wrong is not right if the proconsul is not a neoconservatism. sent27: the metopion is not reconcilable. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the ovary does not quiver prescriptivism and is a swaggerer.; assump1 -> int1: the ovary does not quiver prescriptivism.; int1 & sent21 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the ovary does not quiver prescriptivism but it is a kind of a swaggerer is wrong.; int3 & sent8 -> int4: the fact that the proconsul is not a neoconservatism hold.; int4 & sent26 -> int5: the fact that the argentine is not nonretractile and/or it is not a neoconservatism is wrong.; int5 & sent11 -> int6: the argentine does not ambush Woolf.; int6 & sent3 -> int7: the argentine does not ambush Woolf and is reconcilable.; int7 & sent13 -> int8: the metopion is robotic.; int8 & sent25 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__