the Mandarin does mind.
sent1: that the sideline either binds or does sentimentalise or both is wrong. sent2: if the fact that the sideline either is a kind of a bind or does sentimentalise or both does not hold then the flood is not a bind. sent3: if the AMP does reek and is unchristian then the Mandarin is not a minded. sent4: if something that is a kind of a herpetology reeks the bibliophile does irritate. sent5: the AMP is unchristian if the bibliophile is unchristian. sent6: that something is unchristian thing that is a kind of a hardbacked if it is not a bind is not false. sent7: if the canary is unchristian then the Mandarin is a minded. sent8: the AMP sentimentalises if the sideline reeks. sent9: if there is something such that it is not unchristian the AMP is a herpetology and it reeks. sent10: if the flood either is non-impetiginous or does sentimentalise or both then the fact that the hamper irritates is not true. sent11: the flood binds if that the hamper does irritate and is not a hardbacked does not hold. sent12: that the hamper does irritate but it is not a hardbacked is not right if the bibliophile does irritate. sent13: the AMP reeks and is a herpetology if the hamper does not irritate.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the canary is not unchristian hold.; assump1 -> int1: something is not unchristian.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the AMP is a kind of a herpetology that does reek.; int2 -> int3: there exists something such that it is a kind of a herpetology and does reek.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: the bibliophile irritates.; int4 & sent12 -> int5: that the hamper irritates but it is not a hardbacked does not hold.; int5 & sent11 -> int6: the fact that the flood is a bind is correct.; sent2 & sent1 -> int7: the flood is not a bind.; int6 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the fact that the canary is unchristian is correct.; int9 & sent7 -> hypothesis;
the Mandarin does not mind.
sent6 -> int10: the bibliophile is unchristian and it is a hardbacked if it is not a kind of a bind.;
$hypothesis$ = the Mandarin does mind. ; $context$ = sent1: that the sideline either binds or does sentimentalise or both is wrong. sent2: if the fact that the sideline either is a kind of a bind or does sentimentalise or both does not hold then the flood is not a bind. sent3: if the AMP does reek and is unchristian then the Mandarin is not a minded. sent4: if something that is a kind of a herpetology reeks the bibliophile does irritate. sent5: the AMP is unchristian if the bibliophile is unchristian. sent6: that something is unchristian thing that is a kind of a hardbacked if it is not a bind is not false. sent7: if the canary is unchristian then the Mandarin is a minded. sent8: the AMP sentimentalises if the sideline reeks. sent9: if there is something such that it is not unchristian the AMP is a herpetology and it reeks. sent10: if the flood either is non-impetiginous or does sentimentalise or both then the fact that the hamper irritates is not true. sent11: the flood binds if that the hamper does irritate and is not a hardbacked does not hold. sent12: that the hamper does irritate but it is not a hardbacked is not right if the bibliophile does irritate. sent13: the AMP reeks and is a herpetology if the hamper does not irritate. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the canary is not unchristian hold.; assump1 -> int1: something is not unchristian.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the AMP is a kind of a herpetology that does reek.; int2 -> int3: there exists something such that it is a kind of a herpetology and does reek.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: the bibliophile irritates.; int4 & sent12 -> int5: that the hamper irritates but it is not a hardbacked does not hold.; int5 & sent11 -> int6: the fact that the flood is a bind is correct.; sent2 & sent1 -> int7: the flood is not a bind.; int6 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the fact that the canary is unchristian is correct.; int9 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__