the fact that the ribosome is ritualistic but it does not amount does not hold.
sent1: the crying is not a glide. sent2: the gesneriad orchestrates pro-lifer if the haywire is a bag. sent3: if the fact that something is a kind of a pregnanediol and it is postwar does not hold then it does not hunger Myxocephalus. sent4: if the crying is not a pregnanediol it does not hunger Myxocephalus. sent5: if the haywire is ritualistic then that the ribosome is ritualistic but it is not a kind of an amount is incorrect. sent6: the crying does bag. sent7: the fact that the gesneriad does bag and orchestrates pro-lifer does not hold. sent8: something is not a bag if the fact that it does not hunger Myxocephalus and/or it does not orchestrate pro-lifer does not hold. sent9: the crying is immobile. sent10: something does not hunger Myxocephalus if it is not a pregnanediol. sent11: that the gesneriad is not a kind of a pregnanediol hold. sent12: if the crying hungers Myxocephalus then the fact that that the gesneriad hungers Myxocephalus and does not orchestrate pro-lifer is not correct is not wrong. sent13: the crying hungers Myxocephalus if the gesneriad does orchestrate pro-lifer. sent14: the ribosome does not aspire. sent15: the zygoma is not a pregnanediol. sent16: if something is not postwar and it does not hunger Myxocephalus then the ribosome is ritualistic. sent17: if the crying is not a glide the fact that that it is a pregnanediol and is postwar is right is wrong. sent18: the ribosome hungers Myxocephalus. sent19: if something is not a pregnanediol it is a kind of non-postwar thing that does not hunger Myxocephalus. sent20: the fact that the crying orchestrates pro-lifer and is not postwar is incorrect if the gesneriad does orchestrates pro-lifer. sent21: something is ritualistic if it is not a bag. sent22: the gesneriad does not glide.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the haywire does bag is not incorrect.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the gesneriad orchestrates pro-lifer.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: the crying hungers Myxocephalus.; sent3 -> int3: if that the crying is a pregnanediol and postwar is not true it does not hunger Myxocephalus.; sent17 & sent1 -> int4: that the crying is a kind of a pregnanediol and it is postwar is false.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the crying does not hunger Myxocephalus.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the haywire does not bag.; sent21 -> int8: the haywire is ritualistic if the fact that it does bag does not hold.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the fact that the haywire is ritualistic is not false.; int9 & sent5 -> hypothesis;
the ribosome is ritualistic and not an amount.
sent19 -> int10: the gesneriad is not postwar and it does not hunger Myxocephalus if it is not a pregnanediol.; int10 & sent11 -> int11: the gesneriad is non-postwar thing that does not hunger Myxocephalus.; int11 -> int12: something is non-postwar thing that does not hunger Myxocephalus.; int12 & sent16 -> int13: the ribosome is ritualistic.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the ribosome is ritualistic but it does not amount does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the crying is not a glide. sent2: the gesneriad orchestrates pro-lifer if the haywire is a bag. sent3: if the fact that something is a kind of a pregnanediol and it is postwar does not hold then it does not hunger Myxocephalus. sent4: if the crying is not a pregnanediol it does not hunger Myxocephalus. sent5: if the haywire is ritualistic then that the ribosome is ritualistic but it is not a kind of an amount is incorrect. sent6: the crying does bag. sent7: the fact that the gesneriad does bag and orchestrates pro-lifer does not hold. sent8: something is not a bag if the fact that it does not hunger Myxocephalus and/or it does not orchestrate pro-lifer does not hold. sent9: the crying is immobile. sent10: something does not hunger Myxocephalus if it is not a pregnanediol. sent11: that the gesneriad is not a kind of a pregnanediol hold. sent12: if the crying hungers Myxocephalus then the fact that that the gesneriad hungers Myxocephalus and does not orchestrate pro-lifer is not correct is not wrong. sent13: the crying hungers Myxocephalus if the gesneriad does orchestrate pro-lifer. sent14: the ribosome does not aspire. sent15: the zygoma is not a pregnanediol. sent16: if something is not postwar and it does not hunger Myxocephalus then the ribosome is ritualistic. sent17: if the crying is not a glide the fact that that it is a pregnanediol and is postwar is right is wrong. sent18: the ribosome hungers Myxocephalus. sent19: if something is not a pregnanediol it is a kind of non-postwar thing that does not hunger Myxocephalus. sent20: the fact that the crying orchestrates pro-lifer and is not postwar is incorrect if the gesneriad does orchestrates pro-lifer. sent21: something is ritualistic if it is not a bag. sent22: the gesneriad does not glide. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the haywire does bag is not incorrect.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the gesneriad orchestrates pro-lifer.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: the crying hungers Myxocephalus.; sent3 -> int3: if that the crying is a pregnanediol and postwar is not true it does not hunger Myxocephalus.; sent17 & sent1 -> int4: that the crying is a kind of a pregnanediol and it is postwar is false.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the crying does not hunger Myxocephalus.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the haywire does not bag.; sent21 -> int8: the haywire is ritualistic if the fact that it does bag does not hold.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the fact that the haywire is ritualistic is not false.; int9 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__