the district is wheelless.
sent1: if there are myopathic things the Saudi is autographic. sent2: the fact that the district is a kind of undeniable thing that does not bury almandite does not hold. sent3: the district is a postmodernism if there is something such that it is a affusion. sent4: if the fact that the fact that the district is undeniable thing that is not a postmodernism is not correct is not false the defeatist is not a kind of a twinkling. sent5: that the district does bury merchantability and does not hop promethazine is false. sent6: the district is a kind of non-autographic thing that is not a affusion if the defeatist is myopathic. sent7: the defeatist is not undeniable if that the district is a twinkling and not a postmodernism is wrong. sent8: if the district is a kind of wheelless thing that does not twinkle then the defeatist is not a twinkle. sent9: something is not wheelless and it is not a kind of a postmodernism if the fact that it is not a affusion hold. sent10: if the defeatist does not mind it is myopathic and does abuse armband. sent11: if something is not a twinkling it is wheelless. sent12: that the defeatist is a postmodernism is correct. sent13: the defeatist is not a postmodernism if that the district is undeniable but it does not twinkle is not right. sent14: the district is a postmodernism if the fact that it is not a twinkling hold. sent15: the anisogamy is myopathic if there exists something such that that it is not a mind and does not abuse armband is false. sent16: the district is a postmodernism. sent17: if something is a sequoia then that it is not a mind and does not abuse armband is not correct. sent18: if the district is not undeniable then the defeatist is not a postmodernism. sent19: the district is undeniable. sent20: everything is a sequoia. sent21: the hydrochloride is not a postmodernism. sent22: if the Saudi is autographic then it is a affusion.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the district is undeniable and is not a twinkling is incorrect.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the defeatist is not a postmodernism.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the district is undeniable but it is not a twinkling.; int3 -> int4: the district does not twinkle.; sent11 -> int5: if the district is not a twinkling then the fact that it is wheelless is right.; int4 & int5 -> hypothesis;
the district is not wheelless.
sent9 -> int6: the district is non-wheelless thing that is not a postmodernism if it is not a affusion.;
$hypothesis$ = the district is wheelless. ; $context$ = sent1: if there are myopathic things the Saudi is autographic. sent2: the fact that the district is a kind of undeniable thing that does not bury almandite does not hold. sent3: the district is a postmodernism if there is something such that it is a affusion. sent4: if the fact that the fact that the district is undeniable thing that is not a postmodernism is not correct is not false the defeatist is not a kind of a twinkling. sent5: that the district does bury merchantability and does not hop promethazine is false. sent6: the district is a kind of non-autographic thing that is not a affusion if the defeatist is myopathic. sent7: the defeatist is not undeniable if that the district is a twinkling and not a postmodernism is wrong. sent8: if the district is a kind of wheelless thing that does not twinkle then the defeatist is not a twinkle. sent9: something is not wheelless and it is not a kind of a postmodernism if the fact that it is not a affusion hold. sent10: if the defeatist does not mind it is myopathic and does abuse armband. sent11: if something is not a twinkling it is wheelless. sent12: that the defeatist is a postmodernism is correct. sent13: the defeatist is not a postmodernism if that the district is undeniable but it does not twinkle is not right. sent14: the district is a postmodernism if the fact that it is not a twinkling hold. sent15: the anisogamy is myopathic if there exists something such that that it is not a mind and does not abuse armband is false. sent16: the district is a postmodernism. sent17: if something is a sequoia then that it is not a mind and does not abuse armband is not correct. sent18: if the district is not undeniable then the defeatist is not a postmodernism. sent19: the district is undeniable. sent20: everything is a sequoia. sent21: the hydrochloride is not a postmodernism. sent22: if the Saudi is autographic then it is a affusion. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the district is undeniable and is not a twinkling is incorrect.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the defeatist is not a postmodernism.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the district is undeniable but it is not a twinkling.; int3 -> int4: the district does not twinkle.; sent11 -> int5: if the district is not a twinkling then the fact that it is wheelless is right.; int4 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__