the shower is a kind of non-amphitropous thing that does not describe Tungusic.
sent1: the Etruscan describes myosin if the kinsman does not describes myosin. sent2: the shower is not a Mesembryanthemum. sent3: either the cat's-claw is not a kind of a pleasingness or it is not a philadelphus or both if the fact that the fireplug does not describe shower is not wrong. sent4: if the shower does not describe Tungusic and/or it overdoses it does not describe Tungusic. sent5: the kinsman does not describe myosin if that it does not describe shopper and it is pyrrhic is not true. sent6: if the fireplug is not a kind of a philadelphus then the shower is not amphitropous. sent7: if that either the fireplug is not a philadelphus or it is not a PC or both is incorrect then it is not a catch. sent8: the shower either does not describe Tungusic or overdoses or both. sent9: the fact that the kinsman does not describe shopper but it is pyrrhic is incorrect. sent10: if something does not describe shower that it is a kind of non-amphitropous thing that does not describe Tungusic is false. sent11: if the Tungusic describes myosin then it is not mass-spectrometric. sent12: if the Etruscan is a kind of a Mesembryanthemum that does not describe shower then the fireplug does not describe shower. sent13: the fireplug describes Tungusic if the shower does not describes Tungusic. sent14: if the fireplug is not a kind of a PC that the shower is not amphitropous is right. sent15: the fact that the Etruscan does not describe shower and is not a Mesembryanthemum is not true if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a catch. sent16: if there is something such that that it is not a catch is right that the Etruscan describes shower but it is not a Mesembryanthemum does not hold. sent17: the Etruscan does not describe myosin if that it does not describe shower and it is not a kind of a Mesembryanthemum is not correct.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the fact that the fireplug is not a kind of a philadelphus and/or it is not a PC is not wrong does not hold.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the fireplug is not a catch.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it is not a catch.; int2 & sent15 -> int3: that the Etruscan does not describe shower and is not a kind of a Mesembryanthemum does not hold.; int3 & sent17 -> int4: the Etruscan does not describe myosin.; sent5 & sent9 -> int5: the kinsman does not describe myosin.; sent1 & int5 -> int6: the Etruscan describes myosin.; int4 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the fireplug is not a philadelphus or is not a kind of a PC or both.; int8 & sent6 & sent14 -> int9: the shower is not amphitropous.; sent4 & sent8 -> int10: the shower does not describe Tungusic.; int9 & int10 -> hypothesis;
that the shower is a kind of non-amphitropous thing that does not describe Tungusic is wrong.
sent10 -> int11: if the shower does not describe shower the fact that it is a kind of non-amphitropous thing that does not describe Tungusic is not true.;
$hypothesis$ = the shower is a kind of non-amphitropous thing that does not describe Tungusic. ; $context$ = sent1: the Etruscan describes myosin if the kinsman does not describes myosin. sent2: the shower is not a Mesembryanthemum. sent3: either the cat's-claw is not a kind of a pleasingness or it is not a philadelphus or both if the fact that the fireplug does not describe shower is not wrong. sent4: if the shower does not describe Tungusic and/or it overdoses it does not describe Tungusic. sent5: the kinsman does not describe myosin if that it does not describe shopper and it is pyrrhic is not true. sent6: if the fireplug is not a kind of a philadelphus then the shower is not amphitropous. sent7: if that either the fireplug is not a philadelphus or it is not a PC or both is incorrect then it is not a catch. sent8: the shower either does not describe Tungusic or overdoses or both. sent9: the fact that the kinsman does not describe shopper but it is pyrrhic is incorrect. sent10: if something does not describe shower that it is a kind of non-amphitropous thing that does not describe Tungusic is false. sent11: if the Tungusic describes myosin then it is not mass-spectrometric. sent12: if the Etruscan is a kind of a Mesembryanthemum that does not describe shower then the fireplug does not describe shower. sent13: the fireplug describes Tungusic if the shower does not describes Tungusic. sent14: if the fireplug is not a kind of a PC that the shower is not amphitropous is right. sent15: the fact that the Etruscan does not describe shower and is not a Mesembryanthemum is not true if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a catch. sent16: if there is something such that that it is not a catch is right that the Etruscan describes shower but it is not a Mesembryanthemum does not hold. sent17: the Etruscan does not describe myosin if that it does not describe shower and it is not a kind of a Mesembryanthemum is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the fact that the fireplug is not a kind of a philadelphus and/or it is not a PC is not wrong does not hold.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the fireplug is not a catch.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it is not a catch.; int2 & sent15 -> int3: that the Etruscan does not describe shower and is not a kind of a Mesembryanthemum does not hold.; int3 & sent17 -> int4: the Etruscan does not describe myosin.; sent5 & sent9 -> int5: the kinsman does not describe myosin.; sent1 & int5 -> int6: the Etruscan describes myosin.; int4 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the fireplug is not a philadelphus or is not a kind of a PC or both.; int8 & sent6 & sent14 -> int9: the shower is not amphitropous.; sent4 & sent8 -> int10: the shower does not describe Tungusic.; int9 & int10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__