the fact that the Carolingian is appointive is true.
sent1: if something is not a symbolatry the fact that it is not a print and is not a matchwood is wrong. sent2: that the fact that the mistress is runic and is a disingenuousness is wrong is correct. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is runic and it is a disingenuousness is false. sent4: if the fact that the Carolingian is not pictographic hold the redoubt is not a Typhon. sent5: if the fact that something is not a daiquiri and is not deficient does not hold it is not runic. sent6: something is not appointive but it is a kind of a disingenuousness if it is not pictographic. sent7: there exists something such that it is not inoperable and it is courteous. sent8: if something is pictographic it is appointive. sent9: the redoubt is not a Typhon. sent10: that the mistress is deficient does not hold. sent11: the Carolingian is non-appointive if the redoubt is not non-appointive but it is a disingenuousness. sent12: if that something either is a galago or is not a propman or both is not correct then it is not a garbageman. sent13: if the mistress is not runic that the redoubt is not pictographic is right. sent14: if something prints that it is a galago and/or not a propman is false. sent15: something is inconclusive if it is a kind of a beatification. sent16: if that the mistress does not print and it is not a kind of a matchwood is incorrect it does print. sent17: if that something is a kind of a Typhon and/or it is not euphonic does not hold then it is a disingenuousness. sent18: the redoubt is not a disingenuousness if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of non-runic a disingenuousness does not hold. sent19: the fact that the Carolingian is deficient and/or it is not a polymyxin is false. sent20: the fact that either the redoubt is a Typhon or it is not euphonic or both is not correct if the Carolingian is not pictographic. sent21: that something is not a kind of a daiquiri and it is not deficient is false if it is not a kind of a garbageman. sent22: the Carolingian is a Typhon.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the Carolingian is not pictographic hold.; sent20 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the redoubt is a Typhon and/or it is not euphonic is wrong.; sent17 -> int2: the redoubt is a disingenuousness if that it is a Typhon and/or it is not euphonic does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the redoubt is a disingenuousness.; sent8 -> int4: if the Carolingian is pictographic then it is appointive.;
the Carolingian is not appointive.
sent6 -> int5: the redoubt is not appointive but it is a disingenuousness if it is not pictographic.; sent5 -> int6: if that the mistress is not a daiquiri and it is not deficient does not hold then that it is not runic is not incorrect.; sent21 -> int7: the fact that the mistress is not a kind of a daiquiri and it is not deficient is wrong if that it is a kind of a garbageman does not hold.; sent12 -> int8: the mistress is not a garbageman if the fact that it is a kind of a galago and/or it is not a propman is false.; sent14 -> int9: if the mistress is a kind of a print that either it is a galago or it is not a propman or both does not hold.; sent1 -> int10: that the mistress is both not a print and not a matchwood does not hold if the fact that it is not a kind of a symbolatry is true.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Carolingian is appointive is true. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a symbolatry the fact that it is not a print and is not a matchwood is wrong. sent2: that the fact that the mistress is runic and is a disingenuousness is wrong is correct. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is runic and it is a disingenuousness is false. sent4: if the fact that the Carolingian is not pictographic hold the redoubt is not a Typhon. sent5: if the fact that something is not a daiquiri and is not deficient does not hold it is not runic. sent6: something is not appointive but it is a kind of a disingenuousness if it is not pictographic. sent7: there exists something such that it is not inoperable and it is courteous. sent8: if something is pictographic it is appointive. sent9: the redoubt is not a Typhon. sent10: that the mistress is deficient does not hold. sent11: the Carolingian is non-appointive if the redoubt is not non-appointive but it is a disingenuousness. sent12: if that something either is a galago or is not a propman or both is not correct then it is not a garbageman. sent13: if the mistress is not runic that the redoubt is not pictographic is right. sent14: if something prints that it is a galago and/or not a propman is false. sent15: something is inconclusive if it is a kind of a beatification. sent16: if that the mistress does not print and it is not a kind of a matchwood is incorrect it does print. sent17: if that something is a kind of a Typhon and/or it is not euphonic does not hold then it is a disingenuousness. sent18: the redoubt is not a disingenuousness if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of non-runic a disingenuousness does not hold. sent19: the fact that the Carolingian is deficient and/or it is not a polymyxin is false. sent20: the fact that either the redoubt is a Typhon or it is not euphonic or both is not correct if the Carolingian is not pictographic. sent21: that something is not a kind of a daiquiri and it is not deficient is false if it is not a kind of a garbageman. sent22: the Carolingian is a Typhon. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the Carolingian is not pictographic hold.; sent20 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the redoubt is a Typhon and/or it is not euphonic is wrong.; sent17 -> int2: the redoubt is a disingenuousness if that it is a Typhon and/or it is not euphonic does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the redoubt is a disingenuousness.; sent8 -> int4: if the Carolingian is pictographic then it is appointive.; __UNKNOWN__