the fact that the welt is naturistic thing that does not invigilate is not correct.
sent1: if the trouper is both not a fawn and not a hummer it is a throw-in. sent2: the clast does not breathe. sent3: the fact that if the ursinia is not a hummer then the welt is a kind of a fawn is not incorrect. sent4: if the radome is a kind of a errancy then it breathes. sent5: the ursinia does not blossom. sent6: if the radome is not a kind of a errancy then the trouper does not fawn. sent7: if the fact that something is a kind of non-naturistic thing that is not a errancy is incorrect then that it is naturistic hold. sent8: the fact that the ursinia is a hornwort but it does not blossom does not hold. sent9: the fact that the trouper does invigilate but it does not breathe is not false if the welt is a hummer. sent10: if something is not a kind of a hornwort and it does not blossom then it does not invigilate. sent11: the fact that the welt is naturistic but it does not invigilate is not correct if the trouper is a throw-in. sent12: the butcher is not upmarket and it is not a hornwort. sent13: something is not a hornwort and does not blossom if it fawns. sent14: if the radome does breathe the ursinia does not blossom. sent15: the radome is a throw-in but it does not breathe if the trouper is a kind of a hornwort. sent16: that the welt is naturistic and it invigilates is not right. sent17: if the radome breathes the ursinia is a hornwort but it does not blossom. sent18: the fact that the fact that the ursinia is a hornwort and it blossoms is not right is true. sent19: the trouper is not a hummer. sent20: the fact that the trouper does invigilate and is not a kind of a hummer is incorrect if the welt is naturistic. sent21: that the welt is a kind of naturistic thing that does invigilate is incorrect if the trouper is a throw-in.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the radome is a kind of a errancy.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the radome does breathe.; int1 & sent17 -> int2: the ursinia is a hornwort but it does not blossom.; int2 & sent8 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the radome is not a errancy.; int4 & sent6 -> int5: the trouper is not a fawn.; int5 & sent19 -> int6: the trouper is not a fawn and it is not a hummer.; int6 & sent1 -> int7: the trouper is a throw-in.; int7 & sent11 -> hypothesis;
the welt is naturistic thing that does not invigilate.
sent7 -> int8: the welt is naturistic if that it is both not naturistic and not a errancy does not hold.; sent10 -> int9: the welt does not invigilate if it is not a kind of a hornwort and it does not blossom.; sent13 -> int10: if the welt fawns then it is not a kind of a hornwort and does not blossom.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the welt is naturistic thing that does not invigilate is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the trouper is both not a fawn and not a hummer it is a throw-in. sent2: the clast does not breathe. sent3: the fact that if the ursinia is not a hummer then the welt is a kind of a fawn is not incorrect. sent4: if the radome is a kind of a errancy then it breathes. sent5: the ursinia does not blossom. sent6: if the radome is not a kind of a errancy then the trouper does not fawn. sent7: if the fact that something is a kind of non-naturistic thing that is not a errancy is incorrect then that it is naturistic hold. sent8: the fact that the ursinia is a hornwort but it does not blossom does not hold. sent9: the fact that the trouper does invigilate but it does not breathe is not false if the welt is a hummer. sent10: if something is not a kind of a hornwort and it does not blossom then it does not invigilate. sent11: the fact that the welt is naturistic but it does not invigilate is not correct if the trouper is a throw-in. sent12: the butcher is not upmarket and it is not a hornwort. sent13: something is not a hornwort and does not blossom if it fawns. sent14: if the radome does breathe the ursinia does not blossom. sent15: the radome is a throw-in but it does not breathe if the trouper is a kind of a hornwort. sent16: that the welt is naturistic and it invigilates is not right. sent17: if the radome breathes the ursinia is a hornwort but it does not blossom. sent18: the fact that the fact that the ursinia is a hornwort and it blossoms is not right is true. sent19: the trouper is not a hummer. sent20: the fact that the trouper does invigilate and is not a kind of a hummer is incorrect if the welt is naturistic. sent21: that the welt is a kind of naturistic thing that does invigilate is incorrect if the trouper is a throw-in. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the radome is a kind of a errancy.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the radome does breathe.; int1 & sent17 -> int2: the ursinia is a hornwort but it does not blossom.; int2 & sent8 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the radome is not a errancy.; int4 & sent6 -> int5: the trouper is not a fawn.; int5 & sent19 -> int6: the trouper is not a fawn and it is not a hummer.; int6 & sent1 -> int7: the trouper is a throw-in.; int7 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__