if the Sir blanches then the confinement is a trandolapril.
sent1: the confinement is a expansivity if that the Sir is not logical and not nonindulgent is not true. sent2: the fact that the Sir is both logical and not nonindulgent is false. sent3: if the Sir is not ionic then that the gulch is a kind of a trandolapril and does not blanch is not right. sent4: if the fact that the confinement is a kind of non-logical thing that is not nonindulgent is wrong then the Sir is a trandolapril. sent5: the fact that the confinement is both nonindulgent and illogical is not true if it is a kind of a trandolapril. sent6: that the Sir is a trandolapril is not wrong if the confinement is nonindulgent. sent7: that the confinement is nonindulgent is true. sent8: if the Sir does blanch then the fact that it is both not logical and not nonindulgent does not hold. sent9: if something is a expansivity then it is a trandolapril. sent10: that the Sir is a kind of non-logical thing that is nonindulgent is incorrect.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Sir blanches.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the Sir is a kind of non-logical thing that is not nonindulgent is false.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the confinement is a expansivity.; sent9 -> int3: if the confinement is a expansivity the fact that it is a kind of a trandolapril is not false.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the confinement is a kind of a trandolapril.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the gulch is not a kind of a expansivity does not hold.
$hypothesis$ = if the Sir blanches then the confinement is a trandolapril. ; $context$ = sent1: the confinement is a expansivity if that the Sir is not logical and not nonindulgent is not true. sent2: the fact that the Sir is both logical and not nonindulgent is false. sent3: if the Sir is not ionic then that the gulch is a kind of a trandolapril and does not blanch is not right. sent4: if the fact that the confinement is a kind of non-logical thing that is not nonindulgent is wrong then the Sir is a trandolapril. sent5: the fact that the confinement is both nonindulgent and illogical is not true if it is a kind of a trandolapril. sent6: that the Sir is a trandolapril is not wrong if the confinement is nonindulgent. sent7: that the confinement is nonindulgent is true. sent8: if the Sir does blanch then the fact that it is both not logical and not nonindulgent does not hold. sent9: if something is a expansivity then it is a trandolapril. sent10: that the Sir is a kind of non-logical thing that is nonindulgent is incorrect. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Sir blanches.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the Sir is a kind of non-logical thing that is not nonindulgent is false.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the confinement is a expansivity.; sent9 -> int3: if the confinement is a expansivity the fact that it is a kind of a trandolapril is not false.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the confinement is a kind of a trandolapril.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__