the droshky is condylar.
sent1: if the fact that the osier is valvular thing that does not desexualize Voltaire is incorrect then the hairstreak does not desexualize Voltaire. sent2: the fact that something is incongruent and antitypic does not hold if it does not coach. sent3: if that something is incongruent and it is antitypic is not true it is non-condylar. sent4: if the hairstreak does not desexualize Voltaire the droshky is an objective and quenches. sent5: the fact that the osier is valvular and does not desexualize Voltaire does not hold. sent6: the aerogram is a Tappan and is functional. sent7: if something does quench and is noncellular then it is not a kind of a coach. sent8: if the droshky quenches then the fact that it is a kind of cellular thing that is not a coach is incorrect. sent9: the droshky is both antitypic and not non-condylar. sent10: something coaches if that it is not noncellular and it is not a coaches does not hold. sent11: if the kirtle is not unguiculate the droshky urticates sandbank and it is noncellular. sent12: something is condylar if it is antitypic.
sent9 -> hypothesis;
the droshky is not condylar.
sent3 -> int1: the droshky is not condylar if the fact that it is incongruent and is antitypic is wrong.; sent2 -> int2: that the droshky is incongruent and it is not non-antitypic is not right if the fact that it is not a coach is not wrong.; sent7 -> int3: if the droshky does quench and is noncellular it is not a coach.; sent1 & sent5 -> int4: the hairstreak does not desexualize Voltaire.; sent4 & int4 -> int5: the droshky is objective and it quenches.; int5 -> int6: the droshky does quench.;
$hypothesis$ = the droshky is condylar. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the osier is valvular thing that does not desexualize Voltaire is incorrect then the hairstreak does not desexualize Voltaire. sent2: the fact that something is incongruent and antitypic does not hold if it does not coach. sent3: if that something is incongruent and it is antitypic is not true it is non-condylar. sent4: if the hairstreak does not desexualize Voltaire the droshky is an objective and quenches. sent5: the fact that the osier is valvular and does not desexualize Voltaire does not hold. sent6: the aerogram is a Tappan and is functional. sent7: if something does quench and is noncellular then it is not a kind of a coach. sent8: if the droshky quenches then the fact that it is a kind of cellular thing that is not a coach is incorrect. sent9: the droshky is both antitypic and not non-condylar. sent10: something coaches if that it is not noncellular and it is not a coaches does not hold. sent11: if the kirtle is not unguiculate the droshky urticates sandbank and it is noncellular. sent12: something is condylar if it is antitypic. ; $proof$ = 
sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__