the stork does not imply buyer and is not perceptual.
sent1: if the fact that the fact that the felo-de-se is nonmagnetic but it is not a kind of a caret is true is not true it bears peasanthood. sent2: that the felo-de-se is both nonmagnetic and not a caret does not hold if there exists something such that it is a West-sider. sent3: that the sail is not a caret but it is Galwegian is not incorrect. sent4: the stork does not imply buyer and it is not perceptual if the fact that the telecaster is not perceptual is true. sent5: the telecaster is not a Natrix but it does superscribe nominalist if there is something such that it is not a kind of a harassment. sent6: something is not a West-sider. sent7: the dado is a West-sider. sent8: if the telecaster superscribes nominalist and is perceptual the felo-de-se does not bear peasanthood. sent9: the telecaster is nonmagnetic if it is not a kind of a caret and it does not bear peasanthood. sent10: the fact that the felo-de-se is nonmagnetic and is a caret is not right. sent11: the telecaster is not a kind of a Natrix if there is something such that it is not a harassment. sent12: if the telecaster is nonmagnetic or it superscribes nominalist or both then the stork does not superscribes nominalist. sent13: the felo-de-se bears peasanthood if it is a caret. sent14: the fact that something does not imply buyer and it is not perceptual is not correct if the fact that it is not a harassment is not right. sent15: something is not a harassment. sent16: the stork is not perceptual. sent17: the telecaster is not a kind of a Natrix. sent18: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a West-sider that the felo-de-se is nonmagnetic and it is a caret is incorrect. sent19: if the felo-de-se does imply buyer and it is a caret then the stork is not nonmagnetic. sent20: there is something such that it is a caret. sent21: there is something such that it is a kind of a harassment. sent22: if the telecaster is not perceptual then the stork is not perceptual.
sent15 & sent5 -> int1: the telecaster is not a Natrix and does superscribe nominalist.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the telecaster superscribes nominalist hold.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the telecaster is not non-perceptual.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the telecaster does superscribe nominalist and is perceptual.; int3 & sent8 -> int4: the felo-de-se does not bear peasanthood.; sent7 -> int5: something is a West-sider.; int5 & sent2 -> int6: the fact that that the felo-de-se is nonmagnetic but it is not a caret is not false does not hold.; sent1 & int6 -> int7: the felo-de-se bears peasanthood.; int4 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the telecaster is not perceptual.; int9 & sent4 -> hypothesis;
that the stork does not imply buyer and is not perceptual is not right.
sent14 -> int10: if the stork is a harassment then the fact that it does not imply buyer and it is not perceptual is wrong.;
$hypothesis$ = the stork does not imply buyer and is not perceptual. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the fact that the felo-de-se is nonmagnetic but it is not a kind of a caret is true is not true it bears peasanthood. sent2: that the felo-de-se is both nonmagnetic and not a caret does not hold if there exists something such that it is a West-sider. sent3: that the sail is not a caret but it is Galwegian is not incorrect. sent4: the stork does not imply buyer and it is not perceptual if the fact that the telecaster is not perceptual is true. sent5: the telecaster is not a Natrix but it does superscribe nominalist if there is something such that it is not a kind of a harassment. sent6: something is not a West-sider. sent7: the dado is a West-sider. sent8: if the telecaster superscribes nominalist and is perceptual the felo-de-se does not bear peasanthood. sent9: the telecaster is nonmagnetic if it is not a kind of a caret and it does not bear peasanthood. sent10: the fact that the felo-de-se is nonmagnetic and is a caret is not right. sent11: the telecaster is not a kind of a Natrix if there is something such that it is not a harassment. sent12: if the telecaster is nonmagnetic or it superscribes nominalist or both then the stork does not superscribes nominalist. sent13: the felo-de-se bears peasanthood if it is a caret. sent14: the fact that something does not imply buyer and it is not perceptual is not correct if the fact that it is not a harassment is not right. sent15: something is not a harassment. sent16: the stork is not perceptual. sent17: the telecaster is not a kind of a Natrix. sent18: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a West-sider that the felo-de-se is nonmagnetic and it is a caret is incorrect. sent19: if the felo-de-se does imply buyer and it is a caret then the stork is not nonmagnetic. sent20: there is something such that it is a caret. sent21: there is something such that it is a kind of a harassment. sent22: if the telecaster is not perceptual then the stork is not perceptual. ; $proof$ = 
sent15 & sent5 -> int1: the telecaster is not a Natrix and does superscribe nominalist.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the telecaster superscribes nominalist hold.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the telecaster is not non-perceptual.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the telecaster does superscribe nominalist and is perceptual.; int3 & sent8 -> int4: the felo-de-se does not bear peasanthood.; sent7 -> int5: something is a West-sider.; int5 & sent2 -> int6: the fact that that the felo-de-se is nonmagnetic but it is not a caret is not false does not hold.; sent1 & int6 -> int7: the felo-de-se bears peasanthood.; int4 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the telecaster is not perceptual.; int9 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__