if the colonel is not formal then the blackthorn is a committedness.
sent1: if there is something such that it is a kind of an immunity the blackthorn is a analphabet or is a kind of an immunity or both. sent2: if something is a witching then the fact that it does not cocoon and it is immaterial does not hold. sent3: if the colonel is a kind of a analphabet then the emblem is a analphabet. sent4: the colonel is a analphabet if the blackthorn is an immunity. sent5: if something is a CD it is a witching. sent6: if the fact that something devoices hornbeam but it is not saprophytic is not correct it is bacchantic. sent7: the fact that something does not scratch and does not outsell blackthorn is not correct if it is a kind of a analphabet. sent8: the fact that the blackthorn devoices hornbeam but it is not saprophytic is not right if that the colonel is not a kind of a formal hold. sent9: the fact that the colonel is not a scorch is not wrong. sent10: there is something such that it is an immunity. sent11: if that that something does not cocoon but it is immaterial hold is wrong that it is not immaterial is not wrong. sent12: if the blackthorn is a analphabet the colonel is a analphabet. sent13: if the colonel is formal the fact that the blackthorn devoices hornbeam and is not saprophytic is not true. sent14: that something is not a committedness and it is not a formal is not true if it is not immaterial. sent15: if the blackthorn is saprophytic it is bacchantic. sent16: if the fact that something is not a kind of a scratch and it does not outsell blackthorn is wrong then it is a kind of a CD. sent17: the colonel is bacchantic. sent18: the colonel is bacchantic if the blackthorn is not a formal. sent19: something is a committedness if it is bacchantic. sent20: the fact that the blackthorn devoices hornbeam and it is saprophytic is not right if the colonel is not a formal. sent21: if the fact that something is not a kind of a committedness and is not a formal does not hold then it is bacchantic. sent22: something is bacchantic if it is saprophytic.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the colonel is not a kind of a formal.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the blackthorn devoices hornbeam but it is not saprophytic is incorrect.; sent6 -> int2: the blackthorn is bacchantic if the fact that it devoices hornbeam and it is not saprophytic is not correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the blackthorn is bacchantic.; sent19 -> int4: if the fact that the blackthorn is bacchantic is true then it is a kind of a committedness.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the blackthorn is a committedness.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the emblem is bacchantic hold.
sent21 -> int6: if that that the emblem is not a committedness and it is not a formal is right is false then it is bacchantic.; sent14 -> int7: if the emblem is not immaterial that it is not a committedness and it is not a kind of a formal is not correct.; sent11 -> int8: if the fact that the emblem is not a cocoon but it is immaterial does not hold it is not immaterial.; sent2 -> int9: if the emblem is a witching that it does not cocoon and it is not non-immaterial does not hold.; sent5 -> int10: if the fact that the emblem is a CD is right then it is a witching.; sent16 -> int11: if the fact that the emblem does not scratch and does not outsell blackthorn is not correct then the fact that it is a CD is right.; sent7 -> int12: that if the emblem is a kind of the analphabet then that the emblem is not a scratch and it does not outsell blackthorn is false hold.; sent10 & sent1 -> int13: the blackthorn is a analphabet and/or an immunity.; int13 & sent12 & sent4 -> int14: the colonel is a analphabet.; sent3 & int14 -> int15: the emblem is a analphabet.; int12 & int15 -> int16: that the emblem is not a scratch and does not outsell blackthorn is false.; int11 & int16 -> int17: the fact that the emblem is a kind of a CD is right.; int10 & int17 -> int18: the emblem is a witching.; int9 & int18 -> int19: that the emblem is not a cocoon and is immaterial is not true.; int8 & int19 -> int20: the emblem is not immaterial.; int7 & int20 -> int21: the fact that the emblem is not a committedness and it is not a kind of a formal is not correct.; int6 & int21 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = if the colonel is not formal then the blackthorn is a committedness. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that it is a kind of an immunity the blackthorn is a analphabet or is a kind of an immunity or both. sent2: if something is a witching then the fact that it does not cocoon and it is immaterial does not hold. sent3: if the colonel is a kind of a analphabet then the emblem is a analphabet. sent4: the colonel is a analphabet if the blackthorn is an immunity. sent5: if something is a CD it is a witching. sent6: if the fact that something devoices hornbeam but it is not saprophytic is not correct it is bacchantic. sent7: the fact that something does not scratch and does not outsell blackthorn is not correct if it is a kind of a analphabet. sent8: the fact that the blackthorn devoices hornbeam but it is not saprophytic is not right if that the colonel is not a kind of a formal hold. sent9: the fact that the colonel is not a scorch is not wrong. sent10: there is something such that it is an immunity. sent11: if that that something does not cocoon but it is immaterial hold is wrong that it is not immaterial is not wrong. sent12: if the blackthorn is a analphabet the colonel is a analphabet. sent13: if the colonel is formal the fact that the blackthorn devoices hornbeam and is not saprophytic is not true. sent14: that something is not a committedness and it is not a formal is not true if it is not immaterial. sent15: if the blackthorn is saprophytic it is bacchantic. sent16: if the fact that something is not a kind of a scratch and it does not outsell blackthorn is wrong then it is a kind of a CD. sent17: the colonel is bacchantic. sent18: the colonel is bacchantic if the blackthorn is not a formal. sent19: something is a committedness if it is bacchantic. sent20: the fact that the blackthorn devoices hornbeam and it is saprophytic is not right if the colonel is not a formal. sent21: if the fact that something is not a kind of a committedness and is not a formal does not hold then it is bacchantic. sent22: something is bacchantic if it is saprophytic. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the colonel is not a kind of a formal.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the blackthorn devoices hornbeam but it is not saprophytic is incorrect.; sent6 -> int2: the blackthorn is bacchantic if the fact that it devoices hornbeam and it is not saprophytic is not correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the blackthorn is bacchantic.; sent19 -> int4: if the fact that the blackthorn is bacchantic is true then it is a kind of a committedness.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the blackthorn is a committedness.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__