the chaff is not perfect.
sent1: that something is a dribble that is not intermolecular does not hold if it does not cozen farfalle. sent2: the fact that the chaff does not butt betrayal but it is perfect is true if the varnisher is unpaintable. sent3: the fact that something is a kind of an acrylic that is not a Malmo does not hold if it is unrespectable. sent4: if there is something such that the fact that it dribbles and it is not intermolecular is not correct then the chaff is not unpaintable. sent5: if the fact that the cabstand is convenient and/or it is not insincere is right it is not chaetal. sent6: The betrayal does not butt chaff. sent7: the chaff is a clubfoot. sent8: the pigtail is not a kind of a conventionality if that something is not chaetal is right. sent9: the toucan either is not Hemingwayesque or undervalues or both. sent10: something is unrespectable if it undervalues and it is not a kind of a conventionality. sent11: the chaff butts betrayal if it is perfect. sent12: the chaff is not a proficiency. sent13: the dermatologist does perfect. sent14: if that the pigtail is a kind of an acrylic that is not a Malmo does not hold the gymnosperm is not a valley. sent15: if something is not Hemingwayesque and/or undervalues then the pigtail does undervalues. sent16: if something is not a valley then the varnisher does not cozen farfalle. sent17: the cabstand is not inconvenient or is sincere or both. sent18: the farfalle butts betrayal. sent19: the chaff does not butt betrayal. sent20: if the chaff is not unpaintable then the hedger does butt betrayal and perfects.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the chaff perfects.; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: the chaff butts betrayal.; int1 & sent19 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;
the chaff is perfect.
$hypothesis$ = the chaff is not perfect. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is a dribble that is not intermolecular does not hold if it does not cozen farfalle. sent2: the fact that the chaff does not butt betrayal but it is perfect is true if the varnisher is unpaintable. sent3: the fact that something is a kind of an acrylic that is not a Malmo does not hold if it is unrespectable. sent4: if there is something such that the fact that it dribbles and it is not intermolecular is not correct then the chaff is not unpaintable. sent5: if the fact that the cabstand is convenient and/or it is not insincere is right it is not chaetal. sent6: The betrayal does not butt chaff. sent7: the chaff is a clubfoot. sent8: the pigtail is not a kind of a conventionality if that something is not chaetal is right. sent9: the toucan either is not Hemingwayesque or undervalues or both. sent10: something is unrespectable if it undervalues and it is not a kind of a conventionality. sent11: the chaff butts betrayal if it is perfect. sent12: the chaff is not a proficiency. sent13: the dermatologist does perfect. sent14: if that the pigtail is a kind of an acrylic that is not a Malmo does not hold the gymnosperm is not a valley. sent15: if something is not Hemingwayesque and/or undervalues then the pigtail does undervalues. sent16: if something is not a valley then the varnisher does not cozen farfalle. sent17: the cabstand is not inconvenient or is sincere or both. sent18: the farfalle butts betrayal. sent19: the chaff does not butt betrayal. sent20: if the chaff is not unpaintable then the hedger does butt betrayal and perfects. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the chaff perfects.; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: the chaff butts betrayal.; int1 & sent19 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__