the peristyle is a kind of a scrumpy.
sent1: something is not unobjectionable or it is patriarchal or both if it is not culinary. sent2: the peristyle is a kind of non-continual thing that is not trophoblastic. sent3: if the fact that the incubation is a kind of non-culinary thing that liberates is wrong then the connoisseur is not non-culinary. sent4: if the fact that the canton is a graver is right then the fact that the incubation is non-culinary thing that liberates does not hold. sent5: if the fact that the peristyle is not a scrumpy is correct then it does liberate. sent6: if the incubation is not a graver then the canton does not liberate or it is a graver or both. sent7: the incubation is non-continual. sent8: if the canton is non-continual then the fact that it does not liberate or is a graver or both is false. sent9: that the canton is not a scrumpy and/or it is culinary is not correct if it is non-continual. sent10: the canton is not continual. sent11: if the fact that that the incubation is non-culinary and it is not a graver is not incorrect is false the peristyle is a scrumpy. sent12: the peristyle is culinary.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the incubation is non-culinary and not a graver.; assump1 -> int1: the incubation is not a graver.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the canton does not liberate or is a graver or both.; sent8 & sent10 -> int3: that that either the canton does not liberate or it is a kind of a graver or both is true does not hold.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: that the incubation is not culinary and it is not a kind of a graver is wrong.; int5 & sent11 -> hypothesis;
the connoisseur either is not unobjectionable or is not non-patriarchal or both.
sent1 -> int6: that the connoisseur is not unobjectionable and/or is patriarchal is not wrong if that it is not culinary hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the peristyle is a kind of a scrumpy. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not unobjectionable or it is patriarchal or both if it is not culinary. sent2: the peristyle is a kind of non-continual thing that is not trophoblastic. sent3: if the fact that the incubation is a kind of non-culinary thing that liberates is wrong then the connoisseur is not non-culinary. sent4: if the fact that the canton is a graver is right then the fact that the incubation is non-culinary thing that liberates does not hold. sent5: if the fact that the peristyle is not a scrumpy is correct then it does liberate. sent6: if the incubation is not a graver then the canton does not liberate or it is a graver or both. sent7: the incubation is non-continual. sent8: if the canton is non-continual then the fact that it does not liberate or is a graver or both is false. sent9: that the canton is not a scrumpy and/or it is culinary is not correct if it is non-continual. sent10: the canton is not continual. sent11: if the fact that that the incubation is non-culinary and it is not a graver is not incorrect is false the peristyle is a scrumpy. sent12: the peristyle is culinary. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the incubation is non-culinary and not a graver.; assump1 -> int1: the incubation is not a graver.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the canton does not liberate or is a graver or both.; sent8 & sent10 -> int3: that that either the canton does not liberate or it is a kind of a graver or both is true does not hold.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: that the incubation is not culinary and it is not a kind of a graver is wrong.; int5 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__