the follower is a bream.
sent1: the foulard is a Holcus if the lightweight is a Holcus that is not a jampan. sent2: the follower is not a bream if the fact that the reflex does bream or does consolidate or both is false. sent3: the follower is lovable and/or does not mistake conchfish. sent4: the fact that something is a Iowan and does not mistake Kathmandu hold if it is a Holcus. sent5: if the sandalwood is a counterblast then the fact that the Tahitian does not torment Oregon but it is a quack-quack is incorrect. sent6: something is a beryl. sent7: the regurgitation either consolidates or does bob Bluebeard or both if the reflex does not consolidates. sent8: something is a bream if the fact that it is a quack-quack hold. sent9: the demagogue is not a quack-quack if that that the Tahitian does not torment Oregon and is a kind of a quack-quack is not wrong is false. sent10: if the regurgitation does not consolidate then it bobs Bluebeard and/or is a kind of a cinch. sent11: the sandalwood is a counterblast if the foulard troops woodenness. sent12: if the regurgitation bobs Bluebeard then the follower is a quack-quack. sent13: the fact that the fact that the reflex is a kind of a beryl or does not mistake conchfish or both hold is not correct if it consolidates. sent14: the artist does not mistake metaphor. sent15: if the follower is a beryl then the fact that it is a bream is not wrong. sent16: that if the demagogue is not a quack-quack then that the regurgitation does not bob Bluebeard is not wrong is not wrong. sent17: the fact that the fact that the follower is a kind of a quack-quack is not incorrect if the regurgitation does consolidate is right. sent18: the regurgitation is a quack-quack and/or it does not bob Bluebeard if there exists something such that it is a quack-quack. sent19: that something troops woodenness is correct if it is a Iowan. sent20: if there exists something such that it is a beryl the reflex is a kind of a beryl and/or it does not mistake conchfish.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the reflex does consolidate.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that that either the reflex is a beryl or it does not mistake conchfish or both is incorrect is not incorrect.; sent6 & sent20 -> int2: the reflex is a beryl or it does not mistake conchfish or both.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the reflex does not consolidate.; int4 & sent7 -> int5: the regurgitation consolidates or does bob Bluebeard or both.; int5 & sent17 & sent12 -> int6: the follower is a kind of a quack-quack.; sent8 -> int7: the follower is a kind of a bream if it is a kind of a quack-quack.; int6 & int7 -> hypothesis;
the follower does not bream.
sent19 -> int8: the foulard troops woodenness if it is a Iowan.; sent4 -> int9: if the foulard is a Holcus it is a Iowan and it does not mistake Kathmandu.; sent14 -> int10: something does not mistake metaphor.;
$hypothesis$ = the follower is a bream. ; $context$ = sent1: the foulard is a Holcus if the lightweight is a Holcus that is not a jampan. sent2: the follower is not a bream if the fact that the reflex does bream or does consolidate or both is false. sent3: the follower is lovable and/or does not mistake conchfish. sent4: the fact that something is a Iowan and does not mistake Kathmandu hold if it is a Holcus. sent5: if the sandalwood is a counterblast then the fact that the Tahitian does not torment Oregon but it is a quack-quack is incorrect. sent6: something is a beryl. sent7: the regurgitation either consolidates or does bob Bluebeard or both if the reflex does not consolidates. sent8: something is a bream if the fact that it is a quack-quack hold. sent9: the demagogue is not a quack-quack if that that the Tahitian does not torment Oregon and is a kind of a quack-quack is not wrong is false. sent10: if the regurgitation does not consolidate then it bobs Bluebeard and/or is a kind of a cinch. sent11: the sandalwood is a counterblast if the foulard troops woodenness. sent12: if the regurgitation bobs Bluebeard then the follower is a quack-quack. sent13: the fact that the fact that the reflex is a kind of a beryl or does not mistake conchfish or both hold is not correct if it consolidates. sent14: the artist does not mistake metaphor. sent15: if the follower is a beryl then the fact that it is a bream is not wrong. sent16: that if the demagogue is not a quack-quack then that the regurgitation does not bob Bluebeard is not wrong is not wrong. sent17: the fact that the fact that the follower is a kind of a quack-quack is not incorrect if the regurgitation does consolidate is right. sent18: the regurgitation is a quack-quack and/or it does not bob Bluebeard if there exists something such that it is a quack-quack. sent19: that something troops woodenness is correct if it is a Iowan. sent20: if there exists something such that it is a beryl the reflex is a kind of a beryl and/or it does not mistake conchfish. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the reflex does consolidate.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that that either the reflex is a beryl or it does not mistake conchfish or both is incorrect is not incorrect.; sent6 & sent20 -> int2: the reflex is a beryl or it does not mistake conchfish or both.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the reflex does not consolidate.; int4 & sent7 -> int5: the regurgitation consolidates or does bob Bluebeard or both.; int5 & sent17 & sent12 -> int6: the follower is a kind of a quack-quack.; sent8 -> int7: the follower is a kind of a bream if it is a kind of a quack-quack.; int6 & int7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__