that the tangelo adheres but it does not impart pollinator does not hold.
sent1: if the cymule is a kind of a hogfish the kummel is a kind of a lastingness. sent2: the fact that if the academician does not impart pollinator then that the tangelo does adhere and does not impart pollinator is wrong is right. sent3: the sanctum is tubercular and is hidrotic. sent4: if the kummel is a kind of a lastingness then the fact that the sanctum is hidrotic but it is not a lastingness is false. sent5: if the cymule is not a kind of a hogfish then that the academician either is not a hogfish or imparts Concepcion or both does not hold. sent6: the sanctum is a kingfish and is not a kind of a lastingness. sent7: something does not impart pollinator if that it is not a hogfish and/or does impart Concepcion is not right.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cymule is a hogfish.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the kummel is a lastingness.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the sanctum is hidrotic but not a lastingness is not true.; sent3 -> int3: the fact that the sanctum is hidrotic is true.; sent6 -> int4: the sanctum is not a kind of a lastingness.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the sanctum is hidrotic but it is not a lastingness.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the cymule is not a kind of a hogfish.; int7 & sent5 -> int8: the fact that the academician either is not a kind of a hogfish or does impart Concepcion or both does not hold.; sent7 -> int9: if the fact that either the academician is not a kind of a hogfish or it imparts Concepcion or both does not hold then it does not impart pollinator.; int8 & int9 -> int10: that the academician does not impart pollinator hold.; int10 & sent2 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that the tangelo adheres but it does not impart pollinator does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cymule is a kind of a hogfish the kummel is a kind of a lastingness. sent2: the fact that if the academician does not impart pollinator then that the tangelo does adhere and does not impart pollinator is wrong is right. sent3: the sanctum is tubercular and is hidrotic. sent4: if the kummel is a kind of a lastingness then the fact that the sanctum is hidrotic but it is not a lastingness is false. sent5: if the cymule is not a kind of a hogfish then that the academician either is not a hogfish or imparts Concepcion or both does not hold. sent6: the sanctum is a kingfish and is not a kind of a lastingness. sent7: something does not impart pollinator if that it is not a hogfish and/or does impart Concepcion is not right. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cymule is a hogfish.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the kummel is a lastingness.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the sanctum is hidrotic but not a lastingness is not true.; sent3 -> int3: the fact that the sanctum is hidrotic is true.; sent6 -> int4: the sanctum is not a kind of a lastingness.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the sanctum is hidrotic but it is not a lastingness.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the cymule is not a kind of a hogfish.; int7 & sent5 -> int8: the fact that the academician either is not a kind of a hogfish or does impart Concepcion or both does not hold.; sent7 -> int9: if the fact that either the academician is not a kind of a hogfish or it imparts Concepcion or both does not hold then it does not impart pollinator.; int8 & int9 -> int10: that the academician does not impart pollinator hold.; int10 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__