the fortification is anapestic.
sent1: that the fortification is not anapestic is not incorrect if either the dragoman labors blend or it is anapestic or both. sent2: if the downfall is a cayuse then the fact that the trestlework is not a kind of a raglan but it is a waterleaf is incorrect. sent3: the fact that that the ampicillin is chaotic but not traceable is not correct is true. sent4: the fortification is anapestic if it either is a raglan or is not a cayuse or both. sent5: the fact that if something that is not a waterleaf is anapestic then the dragoman does not labor blend is not wrong. sent6: the trestlework is not a kind of a cayuse. sent7: the downfall is a waterleaf if there is something such that it is a kind of a raglan that does not labor blend. sent8: the fortification is anapestic if it is not a cayuse. sent9: the trestlework does not labor blend if the dragoman does labor sequin and it is implicational. sent10: the fortification is a kind of a raglan and/or it is a cayuse if the trestlework is not a raglan. sent11: the dragoman does not labor blend. sent12: the ampicillin is non-gastroduodenal if that it is a kind of chaotic thing that is not traceable does not hold. sent13: if something that is not a kind of a decker is not a kind of a buffeted the downfall is a kind of a cayuse. sent14: if the dragoman labors sequin and is not implicational the trestlework does not labor blend. sent15: the tachymeter is not a decker. sent16: the fact that the fortification is a raglan and/or it is not a cayuse is true if the trestlework is not a raglan. sent17: if the fact that the trestlework is not a kind of a cayuse is correct it is not a waterleaf and it is anapestic. sent18: the dragoman labors sequin and is not implicational. sent19: something is a kind of a raglan and it labors blend. sent20: if the fact that the downfall is both a decker and a waterleaf is false then it is not a waterleaf. sent21: if something is innocuous then it is not a kind of a decker and it is not a buffeted. sent22: something rehabilitates Portsmouth and it is innocuous if it is not gastroduodenal. sent23: that the downfall is a kind of a decker and it is a kind of a waterleaf is not right.
sent14 & sent18 -> int1: the trestlework does not labor blend.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the trestlework is a kind of a raglan.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the trestlework is a raglan but it does not labor blend.; int2 -> int3: something is a kind of a raglan that does not labor blend.; int3 & sent7 -> int4: the downfall is a kind of a waterleaf.; sent20 & sent23 -> int5: the downfall is not a waterleaf.; int4 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the trestlework is not a raglan.; int7 & sent16 -> int8: the fortification is a raglan or is not a cayuse or both.; int8 & sent4 -> hypothesis;
that the downfall is aerological and it is a decker does not hold.
sent17 & sent6 -> int9: the trestlework is both not a waterleaf and anapestic.; int9 -> int10: something is not a waterleaf but anapestic.; int10 & sent5 -> int11: the dragoman does not labor blend.;
$hypothesis$ = the fortification is anapestic. ; $context$ = sent1: that the fortification is not anapestic is not incorrect if either the dragoman labors blend or it is anapestic or both. sent2: if the downfall is a cayuse then the fact that the trestlework is not a kind of a raglan but it is a waterleaf is incorrect. sent3: the fact that that the ampicillin is chaotic but not traceable is not correct is true. sent4: the fortification is anapestic if it either is a raglan or is not a cayuse or both. sent5: the fact that if something that is not a waterleaf is anapestic then the dragoman does not labor blend is not wrong. sent6: the trestlework is not a kind of a cayuse. sent7: the downfall is a waterleaf if there is something such that it is a kind of a raglan that does not labor blend. sent8: the fortification is anapestic if it is not a cayuse. sent9: the trestlework does not labor blend if the dragoman does labor sequin and it is implicational. sent10: the fortification is a kind of a raglan and/or it is a cayuse if the trestlework is not a raglan. sent11: the dragoman does not labor blend. sent12: the ampicillin is non-gastroduodenal if that it is a kind of chaotic thing that is not traceable does not hold. sent13: if something that is not a kind of a decker is not a kind of a buffeted the downfall is a kind of a cayuse. sent14: if the dragoman labors sequin and is not implicational the trestlework does not labor blend. sent15: the tachymeter is not a decker. sent16: the fact that the fortification is a raglan and/or it is not a cayuse is true if the trestlework is not a raglan. sent17: if the fact that the trestlework is not a kind of a cayuse is correct it is not a waterleaf and it is anapestic. sent18: the dragoman labors sequin and is not implicational. sent19: something is a kind of a raglan and it labors blend. sent20: if the fact that the downfall is both a decker and a waterleaf is false then it is not a waterleaf. sent21: if something is innocuous then it is not a kind of a decker and it is not a buffeted. sent22: something rehabilitates Portsmouth and it is innocuous if it is not gastroduodenal. sent23: that the downfall is a kind of a decker and it is a kind of a waterleaf is not right. ; $proof$ = 
sent14 & sent18 -> int1: the trestlework does not labor blend.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the trestlework is a kind of a raglan.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the trestlework is a raglan but it does not labor blend.; int2 -> int3: something is a kind of a raglan that does not labor blend.; int3 & sent7 -> int4: the downfall is a kind of a waterleaf.; sent20 & sent23 -> int5: the downfall is not a waterleaf.; int4 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the trestlework is not a raglan.; int7 & sent16 -> int8: the fortification is a raglan or is not a cayuse or both.; int8 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__