the teacake does not watch dowse.
sent1: there exists something such that it is pleasant or does watch Endecott or both. sent2: the teacake is a republican and it is a fascist if it is not a coelostat. sent3: if that the coelostat does not watch navigator but it does debouch is false then it is a kind of a tormentor. sent4: if the teacake does narrate and it is a kind of a fascist it does not watch dowse. sent5: if that something is both not a tormentor and non-conspecific is false then it does watch dowse. sent6: the trojan is a conspecific if there is something such that it does not watch navigator and does debouch. sent7: if the fact that the trojan sunburns and it is unintelligible is not true then it is not conspecific. sent8: if something is pleasant or it watches Endecott or both then the teacake is not a coelostat. sent9: if something does not narrate then the fact that it is a kind of a tormentor and is not conspecific is not true. sent10: if that the overcompensation is not a tormentor and it is not criminological does not hold then the teacake does narrate. sent11: the overcompensation does not narrate if the Sporozoa does narrate. sent12: something that does not watch dowse is either a fascist or not criminological or both. sent13: the choanocyte does not watch dowse. sent14: the fact that the trojan is both a sunburned and unintelligible does not hold. sent15: if the coelostat is a kind of a tormentor the fact that the overcompensation is not a tormentor and is not criminological is not correct. sent16: if the fact that the overcompensation is a tormentor but it is not conspecific is false then the trojan is not parabolic.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the coelostat does not watch navigator and does debouch is not wrong.; assump1 -> int1: there exists something such that it does not watch navigator and it debouches.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the trojan is a conspecific.; sent7 & sent14 -> int3: the trojan is not a kind of a conspecific.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the coelostat does not watch navigator and does debouch is false.; int5 & sent3 -> int6: the coelostat is a tormentor.; int6 & sent15 -> int7: that the overcompensation is not a tormentor and it is not criminological is not right.; int7 & sent10 -> int8: the teacake narrates.; sent1 & sent8 -> int9: the fact that the teacake is not a coelostat hold.; sent2 & int9 -> int10: the teacake is a republican and it is a kind of a fascist.; int10 -> int11: the teacake is a fascist.; int8 & int11 -> int12: the fact that the teacake narrates and it is fascist hold.; int12 & sent4 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the teacake is rustless and it is not non-parabolic is incorrect.
sent9 -> int13: if the overcompensation does not narrate then the fact that it is a kind of a tormentor and it is not a conspecific is wrong.; sent12 -> int14: if the choanocyte does not watch dowse then it is a kind of a fascist and/or it is not criminological.; int14 & sent13 -> int15: the choanocyte is a fascist and/or it is not criminological.; int15 -> int16: there is something such that either it is fascist or it is not criminological or both.;
$hypothesis$ = the teacake does not watch dowse. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is pleasant or does watch Endecott or both. sent2: the teacake is a republican and it is a fascist if it is not a coelostat. sent3: if that the coelostat does not watch navigator but it does debouch is false then it is a kind of a tormentor. sent4: if the teacake does narrate and it is a kind of a fascist it does not watch dowse. sent5: if that something is both not a tormentor and non-conspecific is false then it does watch dowse. sent6: the trojan is a conspecific if there is something such that it does not watch navigator and does debouch. sent7: if the fact that the trojan sunburns and it is unintelligible is not true then it is not conspecific. sent8: if something is pleasant or it watches Endecott or both then the teacake is not a coelostat. sent9: if something does not narrate then the fact that it is a kind of a tormentor and is not conspecific is not true. sent10: if that the overcompensation is not a tormentor and it is not criminological does not hold then the teacake does narrate. sent11: the overcompensation does not narrate if the Sporozoa does narrate. sent12: something that does not watch dowse is either a fascist or not criminological or both. sent13: the choanocyte does not watch dowse. sent14: the fact that the trojan is both a sunburned and unintelligible does not hold. sent15: if the coelostat is a kind of a tormentor the fact that the overcompensation is not a tormentor and is not criminological is not correct. sent16: if the fact that the overcompensation is a tormentor but it is not conspecific is false then the trojan is not parabolic. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the coelostat does not watch navigator and does debouch is not wrong.; assump1 -> int1: there exists something such that it does not watch navigator and it debouches.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the trojan is a conspecific.; sent7 & sent14 -> int3: the trojan is not a kind of a conspecific.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the coelostat does not watch navigator and does debouch is false.; int5 & sent3 -> int6: the coelostat is a tormentor.; int6 & sent15 -> int7: that the overcompensation is not a tormentor and it is not criminological is not right.; int7 & sent10 -> int8: the teacake narrates.; sent1 & sent8 -> int9: the fact that the teacake is not a coelostat hold.; sent2 & int9 -> int10: the teacake is a republican and it is a kind of a fascist.; int10 -> int11: the teacake is a fascist.; int8 & int11 -> int12: the fact that the teacake narrates and it is fascist hold.; int12 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__