the ageratum is a trophy and it is meteorologic.
sent1: either the petard is not appetitive or it is unfashionable or both. sent2: if the mole is meteorologic the abelia is not meteorologic. sent3: the ageratum moors. sent4: the fact that something is a kind of neurotoxic thing that is not a spark does not hold if the fact that it is not appetitive is false. sent5: the ageratum is not shut if the Astragalus is appetitive and not shut. sent6: if that the petard is appetitive is true then that it is neurotoxic a spark is not true. sent7: if something is appetitive that it is neurotoxic and it is a spark is not right. sent8: either the petard is appetitive or it is not unfashionable or both. sent9: that that the petard is neurotoxic and it is a spark is correct is not correct. sent10: if the ageratum is a moor then it is meteorologic. sent11: the petard is neurotoxic but it does not spark. sent12: the fact that the abelia is a kind of non-unfashionable thing that is not a kind of a trophy is right if the fact that it is not meteorologic is not incorrect. sent13: the mole accredits varicocele and it is a moor. sent14: the ageratum is a kind of a trophy if the fact that the petard is either not appetitive or not unfashionable or both hold. sent15: the petard is not a spark.
sent4 -> int1: the fact that if the petard is appetitive the fact that the petard is neurotoxic but not a spark is incorrect is correct.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the petard is appetitive.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: that the petard is neurotoxic but it does not spark does not hold.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the petard is not appetitive.; int4 -> int5: the petard is not appetitive and/or is not unfashionable.; int5 & sent14 -> int6: the ageratum is a kind of a trophy.; sent10 & sent3 -> int7: the ageratum is meteorologic.; int6 & int7 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the ageratum is not shut is correct.
sent13 -> int8: the mole moors.;
$hypothesis$ = the ageratum is a trophy and it is meteorologic. ; $context$ = sent1: either the petard is not appetitive or it is unfashionable or both. sent2: if the mole is meteorologic the abelia is not meteorologic. sent3: the ageratum moors. sent4: the fact that something is a kind of neurotoxic thing that is not a spark does not hold if the fact that it is not appetitive is false. sent5: the ageratum is not shut if the Astragalus is appetitive and not shut. sent6: if that the petard is appetitive is true then that it is neurotoxic a spark is not true. sent7: if something is appetitive that it is neurotoxic and it is a spark is not right. sent8: either the petard is appetitive or it is not unfashionable or both. sent9: that that the petard is neurotoxic and it is a spark is correct is not correct. sent10: if the ageratum is a moor then it is meteorologic. sent11: the petard is neurotoxic but it does not spark. sent12: the fact that the abelia is a kind of non-unfashionable thing that is not a kind of a trophy is right if the fact that it is not meteorologic is not incorrect. sent13: the mole accredits varicocele and it is a moor. sent14: the ageratum is a kind of a trophy if the fact that the petard is either not appetitive or not unfashionable or both hold. sent15: the petard is not a spark. ; $proof$ = 
sent4 -> int1: the fact that if the petard is appetitive the fact that the petard is neurotoxic but not a spark is incorrect is correct.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the petard is appetitive.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: that the petard is neurotoxic but it does not spark does not hold.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the petard is not appetitive.; int4 -> int5: the petard is not appetitive and/or is not unfashionable.; int5 & sent14 -> int6: the ageratum is a kind of a trophy.; sent10 & sent3 -> int7: the ageratum is meteorologic.; int6 & int7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__