the windbreak is healthy.
sent1: the electron is not viatical if the packthread is inexplicable and/or emends workaholism. sent2: that the trepan is pneumogastric thing that is a Norway does not hold. sent3: The telemetered does urticate trepan. sent4: the trepan does urticate telemetered. sent5: if something is not a Djiboutian then it is non-pneumogastric and is a Norway. sent6: if the trepan urticates telemetered then it is not Djiboutian. sent7: if the electron is not viatical that the trepan is a kind of non-pneumogastric a Norway is wrong. sent8: the windbreak is healthy if the bookmobile is not non-heuristic and does not emend workaholism. sent9: if the packthread does not emend workaholism the bookmobile is heuristic but it does not emend workaholism. sent10: the trepan is not a kind of a Norway if it is not inexplicable.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the packthread does emend workaholism.; assump1 -> int1: the packthread is inexplicable and/or it does emend workaholism.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the electron is not viatical.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: that the fact that the trepan is not pneumogastric but a Norway is not correct is not incorrect.; sent5 -> int4: if the trepan is not a Djiboutian it is not pneumogastric but a Norway.; sent6 & sent4 -> int5: the trepan is not a Djiboutian.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the trepan is both not pneumogastric and a Norway.; int3 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the packthread does not emend workaholism.; int8 & sent9 -> int9: the bookmobile is a kind of a heuristic but it does not emend workaholism.; int9 & sent8 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the windbreak is healthy. ; $context$ = sent1: the electron is not viatical if the packthread is inexplicable and/or emends workaholism. sent2: that the trepan is pneumogastric thing that is a Norway does not hold. sent3: The telemetered does urticate trepan. sent4: the trepan does urticate telemetered. sent5: if something is not a Djiboutian then it is non-pneumogastric and is a Norway. sent6: if the trepan urticates telemetered then it is not Djiboutian. sent7: if the electron is not viatical that the trepan is a kind of non-pneumogastric a Norway is wrong. sent8: the windbreak is healthy if the bookmobile is not non-heuristic and does not emend workaholism. sent9: if the packthread does not emend workaholism the bookmobile is heuristic but it does not emend workaholism. sent10: the trepan is not a kind of a Norway if it is not inexplicable. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the packthread does emend workaholism.; assump1 -> int1: the packthread is inexplicable and/or it does emend workaholism.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the electron is not viatical.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: that the fact that the trepan is not pneumogastric but a Norway is not correct is not incorrect.; sent5 -> int4: if the trepan is not a Djiboutian it is not pneumogastric but a Norway.; sent6 & sent4 -> int5: the trepan is not a Djiboutian.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the trepan is both not pneumogastric and a Norway.; int3 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the packthread does not emend workaholism.; int8 & sent9 -> int9: the bookmobile is a kind of a heuristic but it does not emend workaholism.; int9 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__