the fact that the blastomere is not a muster is not incorrect.
sent1: if the fact that the catmint is a kind of a Hampshire is correct then the heliometer is not non-incestuous. sent2: if the Fuji moves prairie and does aggregate counter-sabotage the formalin is not a muster. sent3: if the handrest does not aggregate counter-sabotage that the Fuji does move prairie but it does not dissociate acceptance does not hold. sent4: the formalin is incestuous if the dartboard dissociates acceptance. sent5: something that wants is cryogenics. sent6: if the formalin does not aggregate counter-sabotage then the dartboard is cryogenics. sent7: if the formalin does not aggregate counter-sabotage the fact that the dartboard is not cryogenics and/or it aggregate counter-sabotage is not correct. sent8: the dartboard is cryogenics. sent9: that the Fuji aggregates counter-sabotage is not incorrect if the fact that it does move prairie or it is not phenomenal or both does not hold. sent10: the Fuji is phenomenal if it wants. sent11: the secessionist is a kind of a Strigidae and wants. sent12: that something does not aggregate counter-sabotage and is not phenomenal is not true if the fact that it is cryogenics hold. sent13: the dartboard does dissociate acceptance if there is something such that that it moves prairie and it does not dissociate acceptance is false. sent14: the catmint is a unwariness. sent15: the catmint is a kind of a Hampshire that is a unwariness. sent16: if the fact that the Fuji does want hold that either it moves prairie or it is not phenomenal or both does not hold. sent17: the Fuji aggregates counter-sabotage if the fact that it does move prairie and/or is phenomenal is wrong. sent18: either the dartboard is cryogenics or it aggregates counter-sabotage or both. sent19: the blastomere musters if the catmint is not a kind of a musters and is not a unwariness. sent20: the formalin does not aggregate counter-sabotage if the blastomere is a muster and it does dissociate acceptance. sent21: the handrest does not aggregate counter-sabotage if the fact that the secessionist does not aggregate counter-sabotage and it is not phenomenal is not true. sent22: the dartboard is not a unwariness. sent23: if that the Fuji is phenomenal is not wrong then that the dartboard does move prairie is not wrong. sent24: if there is something such that that it aggregates counter-sabotage is not wrong then the dartboard is not cryogenics and/or does aggregates counter-sabotage. sent25: the Fuji wants. sent26: if the heliometer is incestuous the fact that the blastomere dissociates acceptance is not incorrect. sent27: the dartboard either is cryogenics or aggregates counter-sabotage or both if there exists something such that that it aggregates counter-sabotage is not false. sent28: if the formalin is incestuous the heliometer is a Hampshire. sent29: the Fuji is phenomenal.
sent15 -> int1: the catmint is a Hampshire.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the heliometer is incestuous.; int2 & sent26 -> int3: the blastomere does dissociate acceptance.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the blastomere is a kind of a muster is right.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: the blastomere is a kind of a muster and it dissociates acceptance.; int4 & sent20 -> int5: that the formalin does not aggregate counter-sabotage is true.; int5 & sent7 -> int6: that the dartboard is not cryogenics or it aggregates counter-sabotage or both is wrong.; sent16 & sent25 -> int7: that the Fuji does move prairie and/or it is not phenomenal is not true.; sent9 & int7 -> int8: the Fuji aggregates counter-sabotage.; int8 -> int9: something does aggregate counter-sabotage.; int9 & sent24 -> int10: the dartboard is not cryogenics and/or does aggregate counter-sabotage.; int6 & int10 -> int11: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int11 -> hypothesis;
the blastomere musters.
sent12 -> int12: if the secessionist is cryogenics that it does not aggregate counter-sabotage and is not phenomenal is not right.; sent5 -> int13: if the secessionist wants then the fact that it is cryogenics is true.; sent11 -> int14: the secessionist wants.; int13 & int14 -> int15: the secessionist is cryogenics.; int12 & int15 -> int16: that the secessionist does not aggregate counter-sabotage and is not phenomenal is not correct.; sent21 & int16 -> int17: the handrest does not aggregate counter-sabotage.; sent3 & int17 -> int18: that the Fuji does move prairie but it does not dissociate acceptance is wrong.; int18 -> int19: there is something such that that it moves prairie and it does not dissociate acceptance is false.; int19 & sent13 -> int20: the dartboard does dissociate acceptance.; sent4 & int20 -> int21: the formalin is incestuous.; sent28 & int21 -> int22: the heliometer is a Hampshire.; int22 -> int23: there exists something such that it is a Hampshire.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the blastomere is not a muster is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the catmint is a kind of a Hampshire is correct then the heliometer is not non-incestuous. sent2: if the Fuji moves prairie and does aggregate counter-sabotage the formalin is not a muster. sent3: if the handrest does not aggregate counter-sabotage that the Fuji does move prairie but it does not dissociate acceptance does not hold. sent4: the formalin is incestuous if the dartboard dissociates acceptance. sent5: something that wants is cryogenics. sent6: if the formalin does not aggregate counter-sabotage then the dartboard is cryogenics. sent7: if the formalin does not aggregate counter-sabotage the fact that the dartboard is not cryogenics and/or it aggregate counter-sabotage is not correct. sent8: the dartboard is cryogenics. sent9: that the Fuji aggregates counter-sabotage is not incorrect if the fact that it does move prairie or it is not phenomenal or both does not hold. sent10: the Fuji is phenomenal if it wants. sent11: the secessionist is a kind of a Strigidae and wants. sent12: that something does not aggregate counter-sabotage and is not phenomenal is not true if the fact that it is cryogenics hold. sent13: the dartboard does dissociate acceptance if there is something such that that it moves prairie and it does not dissociate acceptance is false. sent14: the catmint is a unwariness. sent15: the catmint is a kind of a Hampshire that is a unwariness. sent16: if the fact that the Fuji does want hold that either it moves prairie or it is not phenomenal or both does not hold. sent17: the Fuji aggregates counter-sabotage if the fact that it does move prairie and/or is phenomenal is wrong. sent18: either the dartboard is cryogenics or it aggregates counter-sabotage or both. sent19: the blastomere musters if the catmint is not a kind of a musters and is not a unwariness. sent20: the formalin does not aggregate counter-sabotage if the blastomere is a muster and it does dissociate acceptance. sent21: the handrest does not aggregate counter-sabotage if the fact that the secessionist does not aggregate counter-sabotage and it is not phenomenal is not true. sent22: the dartboard is not a unwariness. sent23: if that the Fuji is phenomenal is not wrong then that the dartboard does move prairie is not wrong. sent24: if there is something such that that it aggregates counter-sabotage is not wrong then the dartboard is not cryogenics and/or does aggregates counter-sabotage. sent25: the Fuji wants. sent26: if the heliometer is incestuous the fact that the blastomere dissociates acceptance is not incorrect. sent27: the dartboard either is cryogenics or aggregates counter-sabotage or both if there exists something such that that it aggregates counter-sabotage is not false. sent28: if the formalin is incestuous the heliometer is a Hampshire. sent29: the Fuji is phenomenal. ; $proof$ = 
sent15 -> int1: the catmint is a Hampshire.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the heliometer is incestuous.; int2 & sent26 -> int3: the blastomere does dissociate acceptance.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the blastomere is a kind of a muster is right.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: the blastomere is a kind of a muster and it dissociates acceptance.; int4 & sent20 -> int5: that the formalin does not aggregate counter-sabotage is true.; int5 & sent7 -> int6: that the dartboard is not cryogenics or it aggregates counter-sabotage or both is wrong.; sent16 & sent25 -> int7: that the Fuji does move prairie and/or it is not phenomenal is not true.; sent9 & int7 -> int8: the Fuji aggregates counter-sabotage.; int8 -> int9: something does aggregate counter-sabotage.; int9 & sent24 -> int10: the dartboard is not cryogenics and/or does aggregate counter-sabotage.; int6 & int10 -> int11: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__