if the nombril is not a crimp then the reactor is a Baldwin but not cochlear.
sent1: if the nombril does crimp then it is a kind of a Hangzhou. sent2: if there is something such that it shirks then the reactor is a Baldwin. sent3: the chutney is accordant but it does not crimp. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is a Baldwin and does not shirk is not correct. sent5: the silversmith is not a kind of a Erythroxylon. sent6: the reactor is a kind of a Baldwin if there is something such that the fact that it is not a Baldwin and does not shirk is wrong. sent7: there exists something such that that it is not a Baldwin and it does shirk is not correct. sent8: the fact that the chutney is not a Baldwin but it shirks is incorrect. sent9: if the reactor is not a stipend the fact that the chutney is a kind of non-cochlear thing that is not a kind of a Baldwin is not right. sent10: if something is a stipend then it is a crimp. sent11: if the reactor is not a stipend then the fact that the chutney is not a Erythroxylon and is not a Baldwin is not true. sent12: there is something such that it is not a Baldwin and does not shirk. sent13: if the nombril is not a Baldwin then the fact that the reactor is not a crimp and is cochlear does not hold. sent14: something is not a interlanguage and not capillary. sent15: if the reactor is a Erythroxylon then the silversmith is cochlear. sent16: that if the silversmith is not a Erythroxylon then the fact that the chutney is not a Baldwin but it shirks is false is not false. sent17: that the chutney is not a Baldwin and does not shirk is wrong if the fact that the silversmith is not a kind of a Erythroxylon is not false. sent18: the nombril is not a Erythroxylon. sent19: the chutney is a Erythroxylon. sent20: the reactor is a Baldwin but it is not cochlear if the nombril crimps. sent21: that the nombril does not shirk is true. sent22: the nombril is cochlear. sent23: the nombril is a stipend if that the reactor is cochlear is not wrong.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the reactor is cochlear.; sent23 & assump1 -> int1: the nombril is a kind of a stipend.; sent10 -> int2: the nombril crimps if it is a kind of a stipend.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the nombril is a crimp.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the nombril does not crimp.; int3 & assump2 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the reactor is not cochlear.; sent17 & sent5 -> int6: the fact that the chutney is not a Baldwin and does not shirk is incorrect.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a Baldwin and does not shirk does not hold.; int7 & sent6 -> int8: the reactor is a Baldwin.; int5 & int8 -> int9: the reactor is a kind of a Baldwin but it is not cochlear.; [assump2] & int9 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = if the nombril is not a crimp then the reactor is a Baldwin but not cochlear. ; $context$ = sent1: if the nombril does crimp then it is a kind of a Hangzhou. sent2: if there is something such that it shirks then the reactor is a Baldwin. sent3: the chutney is accordant but it does not crimp. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is a Baldwin and does not shirk is not correct. sent5: the silversmith is not a kind of a Erythroxylon. sent6: the reactor is a kind of a Baldwin if there is something such that the fact that it is not a Baldwin and does not shirk is wrong. sent7: there exists something such that that it is not a Baldwin and it does shirk is not correct. sent8: the fact that the chutney is not a Baldwin but it shirks is incorrect. sent9: if the reactor is not a stipend the fact that the chutney is a kind of non-cochlear thing that is not a kind of a Baldwin is not right. sent10: if something is a stipend then it is a crimp. sent11: if the reactor is not a stipend then the fact that the chutney is not a Erythroxylon and is not a Baldwin is not true. sent12: there is something such that it is not a Baldwin and does not shirk. sent13: if the nombril is not a Baldwin then the fact that the reactor is not a crimp and is cochlear does not hold. sent14: something is not a interlanguage and not capillary. sent15: if the reactor is a Erythroxylon then the silversmith is cochlear. sent16: that if the silversmith is not a Erythroxylon then the fact that the chutney is not a Baldwin but it shirks is false is not false. sent17: that the chutney is not a Baldwin and does not shirk is wrong if the fact that the silversmith is not a kind of a Erythroxylon is not false. sent18: the nombril is not a Erythroxylon. sent19: the chutney is a Erythroxylon. sent20: the reactor is a Baldwin but it is not cochlear if the nombril crimps. sent21: that the nombril does not shirk is true. sent22: the nombril is cochlear. sent23: the nombril is a stipend if that the reactor is cochlear is not wrong. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the reactor is cochlear.; sent23 & assump1 -> int1: the nombril is a kind of a stipend.; sent10 -> int2: the nombril crimps if it is a kind of a stipend.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the nombril is a crimp.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the nombril does not crimp.; int3 & assump2 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the reactor is not cochlear.; sent17 & sent5 -> int6: the fact that the chutney is not a Baldwin and does not shirk is incorrect.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a Baldwin and does not shirk does not hold.; int7 & sent6 -> int8: the reactor is a Baldwin.; int5 & int8 -> int9: the reactor is a kind of a Baldwin but it is not cochlear.; [assump2] & int9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__