the toucanet is non-cereal.
sent1: if the anterior is not a inchoative the fact that that it is not a armlet and is not a smoothie is not false is not correct. sent2: the fact that something is not a kind of a smoothie but it personifies ogress does not hold if it is not constructive. sent3: if the audile is constructive the anterior is thoughtful. sent4: the Beninese does interlock lover. sent5: something is a cereal if it is constructive. sent6: the evergreen does not personify ogress. sent7: if the anterior does not jumble parka the audile personifies ogress and it is a kind of a armlet. sent8: if the ohmage is not a armlet the work does jumble parka. sent9: the ohmage is not a armlet if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a smoothie and it does not personify ogress is wrong. sent10: the fact that something is not a inchoative but non-constructive does not hold if it does not personify ogress. sent11: if the fact that the anterior is thoughtful but it is not a inchoative does not hold it is not thoughtful. sent12: if the fact that the work is a kind of a cereal that does not jumble parka is wrong it is not a cereal. sent13: the fact that that something is not a kind of a smoothie and does not personify ogress is not right if it is non-constructive is correct. sent14: if something personifies ogress then the fact that it is not thoughtful and it is a smoothie is not right. sent15: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a smoothie and does personify ogress does not hold. sent16: if something is not a inchoative then the fact that it is not thoughtful and it personifies ogress is not correct. sent17: if the work does not personify ogress then the fact that the audile jumbles parka is not wrong. sent18: the fact that the anterior is not non-thoughtful and not a inchoative is incorrect. sent19: there exists something such that that it is a smoothie that does not personify ogress is not correct. sent20: the toucanet is constructive if the fact that the fact that the audile is not thoughtful but it is a smoothie is wrong is not incorrect. sent21: if the work does jumble parka then the toucanet is not a cereal.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the audile is constructive.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the anterior is thoughtful.; sent11 & sent18 -> int2: the anterior is not thoughtful.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the audile is not constructive.; sent13 -> int5: the fact that if the audile is not constructive that the audile is not a smoothie and does not personify ogress is not right is not wrong.; int4 & int5 -> int6: that the audile is not a smoothie and it does not personify ogress is false.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that the fact that it is not a smoothie and does not personify ogress is not correct.; int7 & sent9 -> int8: the ohmage is not a kind of a armlet.; int8 & sent8 -> int9: the work jumbles parka.; int9 & sent21 -> hypothesis;
the toucanet is a cereal.
sent5 -> int10: that the toucanet is cereal hold if it is constructive.; sent14 -> int11: if the audile personifies ogress then that it is not thoughtful and is a kind of a smoothie is not true.;
$hypothesis$ = the toucanet is non-cereal. ; $context$ = sent1: if the anterior is not a inchoative the fact that that it is not a armlet and is not a smoothie is not false is not correct. sent2: the fact that something is not a kind of a smoothie but it personifies ogress does not hold if it is not constructive. sent3: if the audile is constructive the anterior is thoughtful. sent4: the Beninese does interlock lover. sent5: something is a cereal if it is constructive. sent6: the evergreen does not personify ogress. sent7: if the anterior does not jumble parka the audile personifies ogress and it is a kind of a armlet. sent8: if the ohmage is not a armlet the work does jumble parka. sent9: the ohmage is not a armlet if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a smoothie and it does not personify ogress is wrong. sent10: the fact that something is not a inchoative but non-constructive does not hold if it does not personify ogress. sent11: if the fact that the anterior is thoughtful but it is not a inchoative does not hold it is not thoughtful. sent12: if the fact that the work is a kind of a cereal that does not jumble parka is wrong it is not a cereal. sent13: the fact that that something is not a kind of a smoothie and does not personify ogress is not right if it is non-constructive is correct. sent14: if something personifies ogress then the fact that it is not thoughtful and it is a smoothie is not right. sent15: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a smoothie and does personify ogress does not hold. sent16: if something is not a inchoative then the fact that it is not thoughtful and it personifies ogress is not correct. sent17: if the work does not personify ogress then the fact that the audile jumbles parka is not wrong. sent18: the fact that the anterior is not non-thoughtful and not a inchoative is incorrect. sent19: there exists something such that that it is a smoothie that does not personify ogress is not correct. sent20: the toucanet is constructive if the fact that the fact that the audile is not thoughtful but it is a smoothie is wrong is not incorrect. sent21: if the work does jumble parka then the toucanet is not a cereal. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the audile is constructive.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the anterior is thoughtful.; sent11 & sent18 -> int2: the anterior is not thoughtful.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the audile is not constructive.; sent13 -> int5: the fact that if the audile is not constructive that the audile is not a smoothie and does not personify ogress is not right is not wrong.; int4 & int5 -> int6: that the audile is not a smoothie and it does not personify ogress is false.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that the fact that it is not a smoothie and does not personify ogress is not correct.; int7 & sent9 -> int8: the ohmage is not a kind of a armlet.; int8 & sent8 -> int9: the work jumbles parka.; int9 & sent21 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__