the part-owner is not a Meuse if the phonologist is a kind of a despair.
sent1: if the cusk is animating but it is not a insentience that the part-owner is not a Meuse is not false. sent2: the cusk is not a insentience if the part-owner does animate. sent3: the part-owner is a Meuse. sent4: the part-owner is either a despair or a Meuse or both. sent5: if the cusk counts nonattendance and/or does stoke discrimination then the phonologist is not a despair. sent6: that the cusk is not a cope and it is not a insentience does not hold. sent7: the cusk does not animate. sent8: the fact that if the cusk is animating the phonologist animating is right. sent9: if the phonologist does despair the part-owner is a kind of a Meuse. sent10: if that the cusk does not animate and is not a insentience is not true it does count nonattendance. sent11: if the cusk does animate that it does count nonattendance is not wrong. sent12: that that the cusk is a kind of animating thing that is not a kind of a insentience is wrong is true. sent13: if the cusk does stoke discrimination the phonologist does not despair. sent14: if the cusk is non-animating thing that is not a insentience the part-owner is a kind of a Meuse.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the phonologist despairs.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the cusk does not animate and is not a insentience is wrong.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the cusk counts nonattendance.; int1 -> int2: the cusk counts nonattendance or it stokes discrimination or both.; sent5 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the phonologist is not a kind of a despair is true.; assump2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the cusk is a kind of non-animating thing that is not a kind of a insentience.;
the phonologist is animating.
$hypothesis$ = the part-owner is not a Meuse if the phonologist is a kind of a despair. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cusk is animating but it is not a insentience that the part-owner is not a Meuse is not false. sent2: the cusk is not a insentience if the part-owner does animate. sent3: the part-owner is a Meuse. sent4: the part-owner is either a despair or a Meuse or both. sent5: if the cusk counts nonattendance and/or does stoke discrimination then the phonologist is not a despair. sent6: that the cusk is not a cope and it is not a insentience does not hold. sent7: the cusk does not animate. sent8: the fact that if the cusk is animating the phonologist animating is right. sent9: if the phonologist does despair the part-owner is a kind of a Meuse. sent10: if that the cusk does not animate and is not a insentience is not true it does count nonattendance. sent11: if the cusk does animate that it does count nonattendance is not wrong. sent12: that that the cusk is a kind of animating thing that is not a kind of a insentience is wrong is true. sent13: if the cusk does stoke discrimination the phonologist does not despair. sent14: if the cusk is non-animating thing that is not a insentience the part-owner is a kind of a Meuse. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the phonologist despairs.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the cusk does not animate and is not a insentience is wrong.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the cusk counts nonattendance.; int1 -> int2: the cusk counts nonattendance or it stokes discrimination or both.; sent5 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the phonologist is not a kind of a despair is true.; assump2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the cusk is a kind of non-animating thing that is not a kind of a insentience.; __UNKNOWN__