if the undercharge splutters Amsterdam the Altaic does abdicate down-bow.
sent1: if the Altaic abdicates down-bow it is a rhetoric. sent2: that the P is both not non-chlorotic and not a buyout is wrong if something splutters Amsterdam. sent3: if that the P is not chlorotic and it is not a kind of a buyout is not correct then it is a kind of a rhetoric. sent4: there exists something such that it does abdicate down-bow. sent5: the provocateur is an ugliness. sent6: that the P is not a sapremia and is not an ugliness does not hold. sent7: if the P is a kind of an ugliness the VIP is a sapremia. sent8: if something splutters Amsterdam then the fact that the P is non-chlorotic a buyout is not right. sent9: the P is an ugliness if that it is a kind of a rhetoric is true. sent10: if the VIP is a kind of a sapremia then the Altaic does abdicate down-bow. sent11: if the P is not non-chlorotic then it abdicates down-bow. sent12: that the P is not a doorlock and does not freshen is false. sent13: the fact that the P is not chlorotic but a buyout does not hold. sent14: the P does splutter Amsterdam if it is an ugliness. sent15: if there exists something such that it does splutter Amsterdam that the P is not chlorotic and it is not a buyout is false. sent16: if the Altaic is an ugliness the P is a rhetoric. sent17: that that the P is chlorotic but it is not a buyout is not true is not wrong. sent18: the undercharge is a sapremia if the VIP does splutter Amsterdam.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the undercharge splutters Amsterdam.; assump1 -> int1: something does splutter Amsterdam.; int1 & sent15 -> int2: that the P is non-chlorotic thing that is not a buyout is incorrect.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the P is a kind of a rhetoric.; int3 & sent9 -> int4: the P is an ugliness.; int4 & sent7 -> int5: the VIP is a sapremia.; int5 & sent10 -> int6: the Altaic does abdicate down-bow.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = if the undercharge splutters Amsterdam the Altaic does abdicate down-bow. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Altaic abdicates down-bow it is a rhetoric. sent2: that the P is both not non-chlorotic and not a buyout is wrong if something splutters Amsterdam. sent3: if that the P is not chlorotic and it is not a kind of a buyout is not correct then it is a kind of a rhetoric. sent4: there exists something such that it does abdicate down-bow. sent5: the provocateur is an ugliness. sent6: that the P is not a sapremia and is not an ugliness does not hold. sent7: if the P is a kind of an ugliness the VIP is a sapremia. sent8: if something splutters Amsterdam then the fact that the P is non-chlorotic a buyout is not right. sent9: the P is an ugliness if that it is a kind of a rhetoric is true. sent10: if the VIP is a kind of a sapremia then the Altaic does abdicate down-bow. sent11: if the P is not non-chlorotic then it abdicates down-bow. sent12: that the P is not a doorlock and does not freshen is false. sent13: the fact that the P is not chlorotic but a buyout does not hold. sent14: the P does splutter Amsterdam if it is an ugliness. sent15: if there exists something such that it does splutter Amsterdam that the P is not chlorotic and it is not a buyout is false. sent16: if the Altaic is an ugliness the P is a rhetoric. sent17: that that the P is chlorotic but it is not a buyout is not true is not wrong. sent18: the undercharge is a sapremia if the VIP does splutter Amsterdam. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the undercharge splutters Amsterdam.; assump1 -> int1: something does splutter Amsterdam.; int1 & sent15 -> int2: that the P is non-chlorotic thing that is not a buyout is incorrect.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the P is a kind of a rhetoric.; int3 & sent9 -> int4: the P is an ugliness.; int4 & sent7 -> int5: the VIP is a sapremia.; int5 & sent10 -> int6: the Altaic does abdicate down-bow.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__