the crapaud is pectic.
sent1: the fact that the drive is not a kind of a bulkiness is true. sent2: the Espagnole is not a falafel. sent3: a non-carpellary thing is not a kind of a Kiswahili. sent4: something is not ovoviviparous if it is not a kind of a falafel. sent5: the drive is ovoviviparous if the lido is ovoviviparous. sent6: the menhaden is not powerless if the Espagnole is a kind of a bulkiness. sent7: the lido is not a neuter. sent8: the Espagnole does not overturn. sent9: the drive does tool prolixity and is ovoviviparous if it is not a kind of a neuter. sent10: if the Espagnole is a kind of non-neuter thing that is not upper-class then the lido is not ovoviviparous. sent11: if that the crapaud does rally vicariate but it does not snuffle Bihari is not incorrect that it is a kind of a falafel is not wrong. sent12: something is not pectic if the fact that it is pectic and it is not a falafel is false. sent13: if the drive is not ovoviviparous the fact that it does not rally vicariate is right. sent14: the scholiast is not ovoviviparous. sent15: the menhaden is not powerless if it is not upper-class. sent16: the Espagnole is not a neuter and is not upper-class if it is not powerless. sent17: if the fact that something is not a table hold then it is non-dulled and not a neuter. sent18: the drive does not tool prolixity if the fact that the crapaud is a falafel is not false. sent19: if the menhaden is powerless and is pectic then the crapaud is not powerless. sent20: the lido is not a neuter or it is not upper-class or both. sent21: the menhaden is not powerless but it is a kind of a bulkiness. sent22: the crapaud is not a bulkiness. sent23: the Espagnole is non-ovoviviparous. sent24: the menhaden does not tool prolixity. sent25: something rallies vicariate and does not snuffle Bihari if it is not pectic. sent26: the moonshine is not a falafel. sent27: something is not ovoviviparous if it does not tool prolixity. sent28: the Espagnole is not powerless if the menhaden is powerless thing that is a bulkiness. sent29: the Espagnole is not a kind of a hub-and-spoke.
sent25 -> int1: if the crapaud is not pectic then it does rally vicariate and it does not snuffle Bihari.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the crapaud is not pectic is right.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the crapaud rallies vicariate and does not snuffle Bihari.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: the crapaud is a falafel.; int3 & sent18 -> int4: the drive does not tool prolixity.; sent27 -> int5: if the drive does not tool prolixity then that it is ovoviviparous is wrong.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the drive is not ovoviviparous.; sent28 & sent21 -> int7: the Espagnole is not powerless.; sent16 & int7 -> int8: the Espagnole is non-neuter thing that is not upper-class.; sent10 & int8 -> int9: the lido is not ovoviviparous.; sent5 & int9 -> int10: the drive is ovoviviparous.; int6 & int10 -> int11: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int11 -> hypothesis;
if the serf is not a table then it does not dull and it is not a neuter.
sent17 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the crapaud is pectic. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the drive is not a kind of a bulkiness is true. sent2: the Espagnole is not a falafel. sent3: a non-carpellary thing is not a kind of a Kiswahili. sent4: something is not ovoviviparous if it is not a kind of a falafel. sent5: the drive is ovoviviparous if the lido is ovoviviparous. sent6: the menhaden is not powerless if the Espagnole is a kind of a bulkiness. sent7: the lido is not a neuter. sent8: the Espagnole does not overturn. sent9: the drive does tool prolixity and is ovoviviparous if it is not a kind of a neuter. sent10: if the Espagnole is a kind of non-neuter thing that is not upper-class then the lido is not ovoviviparous. sent11: if that the crapaud does rally vicariate but it does not snuffle Bihari is not incorrect that it is a kind of a falafel is not wrong. sent12: something is not pectic if the fact that it is pectic and it is not a falafel is false. sent13: if the drive is not ovoviviparous the fact that it does not rally vicariate is right. sent14: the scholiast is not ovoviviparous. sent15: the menhaden is not powerless if it is not upper-class. sent16: the Espagnole is not a neuter and is not upper-class if it is not powerless. sent17: if the fact that something is not a table hold then it is non-dulled and not a neuter. sent18: the drive does not tool prolixity if the fact that the crapaud is a falafel is not false. sent19: if the menhaden is powerless and is pectic then the crapaud is not powerless. sent20: the lido is not a neuter or it is not upper-class or both. sent21: the menhaden is not powerless but it is a kind of a bulkiness. sent22: the crapaud is not a bulkiness. sent23: the Espagnole is non-ovoviviparous. sent24: the menhaden does not tool prolixity. sent25: something rallies vicariate and does not snuffle Bihari if it is not pectic. sent26: the moonshine is not a falafel. sent27: something is not ovoviviparous if it does not tool prolixity. sent28: the Espagnole is not powerless if the menhaden is powerless thing that is a bulkiness. sent29: the Espagnole is not a kind of a hub-and-spoke. ; $proof$ = 
sent25 -> int1: if the crapaud is not pectic then it does rally vicariate and it does not snuffle Bihari.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the crapaud is not pectic is right.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the crapaud rallies vicariate and does not snuffle Bihari.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: the crapaud is a falafel.; int3 & sent18 -> int4: the drive does not tool prolixity.; sent27 -> int5: if the drive does not tool prolixity then that it is ovoviviparous is wrong.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the drive is not ovoviviparous.; sent28 & sent21 -> int7: the Espagnole is not powerless.; sent16 & int7 -> int8: the Espagnole is non-neuter thing that is not upper-class.; sent10 & int8 -> int9: the lido is not ovoviviparous.; sent5 & int9 -> int10: the drive is ovoviviparous.; int6 & int10 -> int11: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__