the fact that the clothespin is not non-heedful is not right.
sent1: the waterproofing is not non-alliaceous. sent2: the zone is a scorched. sent3: something that is not a tear is surgical and/or is a scorched. sent4: something is heedful if it scorches. sent5: the vibraphone does expense commensalism but it does not concern nucleoplasm if there exists something such that that it is alliaceous is not wrong. sent6: if something is surgical it is an airmail. sent7: the vibraphone cokes if either the zone is not a kind of a tear or it is cognitive or both. sent8: the clothespin is not heedful if something expenses commensalism and is a kind of a coke. sent9: the fact that the vibraphone is a coke hold if the zone is cognitive. sent10: if the fact that something is both not a scorched and surgical is wrong then it is not a kind of a tear.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the zone is not a scorched but it is surgical.; assump1 -> int1: the zone does not scorch.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the fact that the zone is not a scorched and is surgical is wrong is not wrong.; sent10 -> int4: the zone is not a tear if the fact that it is not a scorched but surgical is false.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the zone is not a tear.; int5 -> int6: either the zone does not tear or it is cognitive or both.; int6 & sent7 -> int7: the vibraphone is a coke.; sent1 -> int8: there are alliaceous things.; int8 & sent5 -> int9: the vibraphone does expense commensalism but it does not concern nucleoplasm.; int9 -> int10: the vibraphone expenses commensalism.; int7 & int10 -> int11: the vibraphone expenses commensalism and it cokes.; int11 -> int12: something does expense commensalism and is a coke.; int12 & sent8 -> hypothesis;
something airmails.
sent6 -> int13: if the zone is surgical it does airmail.; sent3 -> int14: if the vibraphone does not tear then that either it is surgical or it scorches or both hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the clothespin is not non-heedful is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the waterproofing is not non-alliaceous. sent2: the zone is a scorched. sent3: something that is not a tear is surgical and/or is a scorched. sent4: something is heedful if it scorches. sent5: the vibraphone does expense commensalism but it does not concern nucleoplasm if there exists something such that that it is alliaceous is not wrong. sent6: if something is surgical it is an airmail. sent7: the vibraphone cokes if either the zone is not a kind of a tear or it is cognitive or both. sent8: the clothespin is not heedful if something expenses commensalism and is a kind of a coke. sent9: the fact that the vibraphone is a coke hold if the zone is cognitive. sent10: if the fact that something is both not a scorched and surgical is wrong then it is not a kind of a tear. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the zone is not a scorched but it is surgical.; assump1 -> int1: the zone does not scorch.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the fact that the zone is not a scorched and is surgical is wrong is not wrong.; sent10 -> int4: the zone is not a tear if the fact that it is not a scorched but surgical is false.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the zone is not a tear.; int5 -> int6: either the zone does not tear or it is cognitive or both.; int6 & sent7 -> int7: the vibraphone is a coke.; sent1 -> int8: there are alliaceous things.; int8 & sent5 -> int9: the vibraphone does expense commensalism but it does not concern nucleoplasm.; int9 -> int10: the vibraphone expenses commensalism.; int7 & int10 -> int11: the vibraphone expenses commensalism and it cokes.; int11 -> int12: something does expense commensalism and is a coke.; int12 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__