the survivor is not a Dalmatian.
sent1: something that is not no is thyrotoxic and Dalmatian. sent2: that if either the omnirange is not non-no or it is not thyrotoxic or both then the poorwill does bay is true. sent3: if the scribe personifies then that it imparts and is not a disadvantage is not true. sent4: if the poorwill bays the fact that the survivor is a bays that is not a wet-nurse is false. sent5: if the scribe is non-thyrotoxic the omnirange is a no or it is not non-thyrotoxic or both. sent6: the scribe is not a disadvantage. sent7: if the survivor is not a bay it is not a Dalmatian. sent8: the scribe does personify. sent9: that the scribe imparts and it is a disadvantage is false if it does personify. sent10: if the fact that something is a kind of a bay but it is not a wet-nurse is not true it is not a kind of a Dalmatian. sent11: if something is not a bay it is not a kind of a Dalmatian. sent12: if the scribe is thyrotoxic then it does impart and is not a disadvantage.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the scribe is thyrotoxic is true.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the scribe does impart and is not a disadvantage.; sent3 & sent8 -> int2: the fact that the scribe does impart and does not disadvantage is not true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the scribe is not thyrotoxic.; int4 & sent5 -> int5: the omnirange is a kind of a no and/or it is not thyrotoxic.; int5 & sent2 -> int6: the poorwill does bay.; int6 & sent4 -> int7: the fact that the survivor does bay and is not a wet-nurse is not true.; sent10 -> int8: the survivor is not a Dalmatian if the fact that it bays and it is not a wet-nurse is not true.; int7 & int8 -> hypothesis;
the survivor is a Dalmatian.
sent1 -> int9: the survivor is both thyrotoxic and a Dalmatian if the fact that it is not a no hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the survivor is not a Dalmatian. ; $context$ = sent1: something that is not no is thyrotoxic and Dalmatian. sent2: that if either the omnirange is not non-no or it is not thyrotoxic or both then the poorwill does bay is true. sent3: if the scribe personifies then that it imparts and is not a disadvantage is not true. sent4: if the poorwill bays the fact that the survivor is a bays that is not a wet-nurse is false. sent5: if the scribe is non-thyrotoxic the omnirange is a no or it is not non-thyrotoxic or both. sent6: the scribe is not a disadvantage. sent7: if the survivor is not a bay it is not a Dalmatian. sent8: the scribe does personify. sent9: that the scribe imparts and it is a disadvantage is false if it does personify. sent10: if the fact that something is a kind of a bay but it is not a wet-nurse is not true it is not a kind of a Dalmatian. sent11: if something is not a bay it is not a kind of a Dalmatian. sent12: if the scribe is thyrotoxic then it does impart and is not a disadvantage. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the scribe is thyrotoxic is true.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the scribe does impart and is not a disadvantage.; sent3 & sent8 -> int2: the fact that the scribe does impart and does not disadvantage is not true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the scribe is not thyrotoxic.; int4 & sent5 -> int5: the omnirange is a kind of a no and/or it is not thyrotoxic.; int5 & sent2 -> int6: the poorwill does bay.; int6 & sent4 -> int7: the fact that the survivor does bay and is not a wet-nurse is not true.; sent10 -> int8: the survivor is not a Dalmatian if the fact that it bays and it is not a wet-nurse is not true.; int7 & int8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__