that the mayeng is a kind of a miotic but it does not photostat originality is not correct.
sent1: something that does photostat broiler is a kind of miotic thing that does not photostat originality. sent2: if there is something such that it is not life-support then the xylose is tympanic and/or it is a mush. sent3: if something is a kind of a pyrrhic the fact that it is not a Scythian and it is life-support is incorrect. sent4: the mayeng is not aspectual if it is miotic and photostats originality. sent5: the cabaret does not photostat indisposition but it is a procurator. sent6: if the xylose is both tympanic and aspectual the broiler is not aspectual. sent7: if the fact that the cabaret does not photostat Salerno is true it is not a Nassau and is a pyrrhic. sent8: the mayeng is not aspectual if it is miotic and it does not photostat originality. sent9: the broiler does not clap if the xylose is tympanic and/or it mushes. sent10: the fact that the cellarage is not non-re-entrant and is not a spurge is false if there is something such that it does not photostat broiler. sent11: the fact that something is non-aspectual and does photostat broiler is not correct if it does not clap. sent12: that the mayeng is a kind of a miotic that photostats originality is wrong. sent13: the cabaret is not life-support if that it is not a Scythian but life-support is not true. sent14: the cabaret does not photostat Salerno if it does not photostat indisposition and it is a procurator. sent15: the fact that the bioelectricity is not non-aspectual but it does not wow cufflink is false. sent16: the mayeng is aspectual. sent17: if that something does not photostat broiler but it does clap is wrong then it photostat broiler. sent18: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of non-aspectual thing that photostats broiler does not hold the mayeng does not photostats broiler. sent19: the mayeng does not photostat originality.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the mayeng is miotic and does not photostat originality.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: that the mayeng is not aspectual is correct.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;
that the cellarage is re-entrant but it is not a kind of a spurge is incorrect.
sent11 -> int3: if the broiler does not clap the fact that it is not aspectual and it photostats broiler is false.; sent3 -> int4: if that the cabaret is pyrrhic is not false that it is a kind of non-Scythian thing that is life-support is incorrect.; sent14 & sent5 -> int5: the cabaret does not photostat Salerno.; sent7 & int5 -> int6: the cabaret is not a Nassau but it is a kind of a pyrrhic.; int6 -> int7: the cabaret is a kind of a pyrrhic.; int4 & int7 -> int8: that the cabaret is not Scythian but life-support is wrong.; sent13 & int8 -> int9: the cabaret is not life-support.; int9 -> int10: there is something such that that it is not life-support is true.; int10 & sent2 -> int11: the xylose is tympanic or it mushes or both.; sent9 & int11 -> int12: the broiler does not clap.; int3 & int12 -> int13: that the broiler is a kind of non-aspectual thing that does photostat broiler does not hold.; int13 -> int14: there is something such that that it is not aspectual and does photostat broiler is not correct.; int14 & sent18 -> int15: the mayeng does not photostat broiler.; int15 -> int16: something does not photostat broiler.; int16 & sent10 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that the mayeng is a kind of a miotic but it does not photostat originality is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: something that does photostat broiler is a kind of miotic thing that does not photostat originality. sent2: if there is something such that it is not life-support then the xylose is tympanic and/or it is a mush. sent3: if something is a kind of a pyrrhic the fact that it is not a Scythian and it is life-support is incorrect. sent4: the mayeng is not aspectual if it is miotic and photostats originality. sent5: the cabaret does not photostat indisposition but it is a procurator. sent6: if the xylose is both tympanic and aspectual the broiler is not aspectual. sent7: if the fact that the cabaret does not photostat Salerno is true it is not a Nassau and is a pyrrhic. sent8: the mayeng is not aspectual if it is miotic and it does not photostat originality. sent9: the broiler does not clap if the xylose is tympanic and/or it mushes. sent10: the fact that the cellarage is not non-re-entrant and is not a spurge is false if there is something such that it does not photostat broiler. sent11: the fact that something is non-aspectual and does photostat broiler is not correct if it does not clap. sent12: that the mayeng is a kind of a miotic that photostats originality is wrong. sent13: the cabaret is not life-support if that it is not a Scythian but life-support is not true. sent14: the cabaret does not photostat Salerno if it does not photostat indisposition and it is a procurator. sent15: the fact that the bioelectricity is not non-aspectual but it does not wow cufflink is false. sent16: the mayeng is aspectual. sent17: if that something does not photostat broiler but it does clap is wrong then it photostat broiler. sent18: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of non-aspectual thing that photostats broiler does not hold the mayeng does not photostats broiler. sent19: the mayeng does not photostat originality. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the mayeng is miotic and does not photostat originality.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: that the mayeng is not aspectual is correct.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__