that the accuser is a kind of latitudinal thing that does redecorate traumatophobia does not hold if the phrenologist is not a musnud.
sent1: that the phrenologist redecorates traumatophobia and it is a musnud is not correct if it is not latitudinal. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not Sarawakian the fact that the cheat is ambulatory thing that is atrial does not hold. sent3: if the phrenologist is not latitudinal then that it is a musnud and it redecorates traumatophobia does not hold. sent4: if the home-farm falls phrenologist then the vacancy falls phrenologist. sent5: if something is not perceptual then the fact that it is latitudinal and it does redecorate traumatophobia is not correct. sent6: if the phrenologist is not perceptual the fact that the accuser is latitudinal a musnud does not hold. sent7: if the accuser does not redecorate traumatophobia the phrenologist is not perceptual and/or it is a musnud. sent8: if the accuser is perceptual then the phrenologist is a musnud. sent9: that the phrenologist is latitudinal and it is perceptual is not correct if the accuser is a musnud. sent10: if the vacancy does fall phrenologist it is a kind of non-extragalactic thing that is a midiron. sent11: the accuser is latitudinal and redecorates traumatophobia if it is not perceptual. sent12: the menorah is not a musnud. sent13: if the accuser is a musnud that the phrenologist is latitudinal hold. sent14: if the meitnerium is not an ambulatory then the accuser does not redecorate traumatophobia. sent15: the vacancy is not a Sarawakian if it is not extragalactic. sent16: the home-farm falls phrenologist. sent17: the fact that the accuser is perceptual and it is a musnud is wrong if the phrenologist does redecorate traumatophobia. sent18: if the phrenologist is latitudinal the accuser is a kind of a musnud. sent19: the fact that the accuser is a musnud and is latitudinal is wrong. sent20: that the phrenologist is a musnud and it is latitudinal does not hold if the accuser does not redecorate traumatophobia.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the accuser is perceptual.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the phrenologist is a musnud.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the phrenologist is not a kind of a musnud.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the accuser is not perceptual.; sent5 -> int4: the fact that the accuser is latitudinal and it does redecorate traumatophobia does not hold if it is not perceptual.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the accuser is latitudinal thing that does redecorate traumatophobia is not correct.; [assump2] & int5 -> hypothesis;
the phrenologist is not latitudinal.
sent4 & sent16 -> int6: the vacancy falls phrenologist.; sent10 & int6 -> int7: the vacancy is not extragalactic and is a kind of a midiron.; int7 -> int8: the vacancy is not extragalactic.; sent15 & int8 -> int9: the vacancy is not a kind of a Sarawakian.; int9 -> int10: there is something such that the fact that it is not a Sarawakian is not false.; int10 & sent2 -> int11: that the cheat is an ambulatory and it is atrial does not hold.; int11 -> int12: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of an ambulatory and it is atrial is wrong.;
$hypothesis$ = that the accuser is a kind of latitudinal thing that does redecorate traumatophobia does not hold if the phrenologist is not a musnud. ; $context$ = sent1: that the phrenologist redecorates traumatophobia and it is a musnud is not correct if it is not latitudinal. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not Sarawakian the fact that the cheat is ambulatory thing that is atrial does not hold. sent3: if the phrenologist is not latitudinal then that it is a musnud and it redecorates traumatophobia does not hold. sent4: if the home-farm falls phrenologist then the vacancy falls phrenologist. sent5: if something is not perceptual then the fact that it is latitudinal and it does redecorate traumatophobia is not correct. sent6: if the phrenologist is not perceptual the fact that the accuser is latitudinal a musnud does not hold. sent7: if the accuser does not redecorate traumatophobia the phrenologist is not perceptual and/or it is a musnud. sent8: if the accuser is perceptual then the phrenologist is a musnud. sent9: that the phrenologist is latitudinal and it is perceptual is not correct if the accuser is a musnud. sent10: if the vacancy does fall phrenologist it is a kind of non-extragalactic thing that is a midiron. sent11: the accuser is latitudinal and redecorates traumatophobia if it is not perceptual. sent12: the menorah is not a musnud. sent13: if the accuser is a musnud that the phrenologist is latitudinal hold. sent14: if the meitnerium is not an ambulatory then the accuser does not redecorate traumatophobia. sent15: the vacancy is not a Sarawakian if it is not extragalactic. sent16: the home-farm falls phrenologist. sent17: the fact that the accuser is perceptual and it is a musnud is wrong if the phrenologist does redecorate traumatophobia. sent18: if the phrenologist is latitudinal the accuser is a kind of a musnud. sent19: the fact that the accuser is a musnud and is latitudinal is wrong. sent20: that the phrenologist is a musnud and it is latitudinal does not hold if the accuser does not redecorate traumatophobia. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the accuser is perceptual.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the phrenologist is a musnud.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the phrenologist is not a kind of a musnud.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the accuser is not perceptual.; sent5 -> int4: the fact that the accuser is latitudinal and it does redecorate traumatophobia does not hold if it is not perceptual.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the accuser is latitudinal thing that does redecorate traumatophobia is not correct.; [assump2] & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__