the slack is both professorial and non-anabatic.
sent1: the planthopper is not a broadcaster. sent2: the fact that the force is not a Gongora and/or it is a Quiscalus is wrong. sent3: the inhalant is a kind of an oral. sent4: if the trick is not anabatic the slack is non-oral and is deconstructionist. sent5: if the respirator is not a kind of a Quiscalus the trick is a broadcaster and invests acinus. sent6: if something is not deconstructionist it is professorial and it is not anabatic. sent7: if the slack is either not a broadcaster or non-oral or both it is not a non-oral. sent8: the slack is a kind of an oral if it is deconstructionist. sent9: if something does invest acinus and it is a kind of an oral then it is non-deconstructionist. sent10: if that the force is not a Gongora and/or it is a Quiscalus is wrong that the respirator is not a Quiscalus is right. sent11: the slack does tabulate trick but it does not unloose slack. sent12: the slack is not a kind of a broadcaster and/or is not oral.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the slack is deconstructionist.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the slack is an oral.; sent7 & sent12 -> int2: the slack is not oral.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the slack is not deconstructionist.; sent6 -> int5: if the fact that the slack is non-deconstructionist hold it is professorial and it is not anabatic.; int4 & int5 -> hypothesis;
the treacle is not professorial.
$hypothesis$ = the slack is both professorial and non-anabatic. ; $context$ = sent1: the planthopper is not a broadcaster. sent2: the fact that the force is not a Gongora and/or it is a Quiscalus is wrong. sent3: the inhalant is a kind of an oral. sent4: if the trick is not anabatic the slack is non-oral and is deconstructionist. sent5: if the respirator is not a kind of a Quiscalus the trick is a broadcaster and invests acinus. sent6: if something is not deconstructionist it is professorial and it is not anabatic. sent7: if the slack is either not a broadcaster or non-oral or both it is not a non-oral. sent8: the slack is a kind of an oral if it is deconstructionist. sent9: if something does invest acinus and it is a kind of an oral then it is non-deconstructionist. sent10: if that the force is not a Gongora and/or it is a Quiscalus is wrong that the respirator is not a Quiscalus is right. sent11: the slack does tabulate trick but it does not unloose slack. sent12: the slack is not a kind of a broadcaster and/or is not oral. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the slack is deconstructionist.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the slack is an oral.; sent7 & sent12 -> int2: the slack is not oral.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the slack is not deconstructionist.; sent6 -> int5: if the fact that the slack is non-deconstructionist hold it is professorial and it is not anabatic.; int4 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__