that the transcendentalist overturns exploiter and it is a kind of a changed is wrong.
sent1: if the fact that the wahoo is not pneumogastric is right the fact that that the transcendentalist is a reconsideration but not a retractor is not true is correct. sent2: if something is a brunet then the fact that it is not a reconsideration is correct. sent3: if the clack is a brunet then it is not a reconsideration. sent4: the clack is a brunet if it is a kind of a retractor. sent5: there is something such that it is pneumogastric. sent6: if the fact that something is not brunet and it is not a kind of a retractor does not hold then it overturns exploiter. sent7: the fact that the clack is both not tartaric and a sabbatical does not hold. sent8: the fact that if something is not pneumogastric then the fact that the transcendentalist does overturn exploiter and is a changed is false hold. sent9: if the snuffle overturns exploiter then the fact that it is not pneumogastric and is a changed does not hold. sent10: the clack is not a reconsideration. sent11: the clack is a kind of a retractor if that that it is not tartaric and it is a kind of a sabbatical hold is wrong. sent12: a brunet is not pneumogastric and is not a kind of a reconsideration. sent13: the fact that the clack is tartaric and it is a kind of a sabbatical is not true.
sent11 & sent7 -> int1: the fact that the clack is a kind of a retractor is not incorrect.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the clack is a brunet.; sent12 -> int3: if that the clack is not non-brunet hold it is a kind of non-pneumogastric thing that is not a reconsideration.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the clack is not pneumogastric and is not a reconsideration.; int4 -> int5: the clack is not pneumogastric.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it is not pneumogastric.; int6 & sent8 -> hypothesis;
the trigonometrician is not tartaric.
$hypothesis$ = that the transcendentalist overturns exploiter and it is a kind of a changed is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the wahoo is not pneumogastric is right the fact that that the transcendentalist is a reconsideration but not a retractor is not true is correct. sent2: if something is a brunet then the fact that it is not a reconsideration is correct. sent3: if the clack is a brunet then it is not a reconsideration. sent4: the clack is a brunet if it is a kind of a retractor. sent5: there is something such that it is pneumogastric. sent6: if the fact that something is not brunet and it is not a kind of a retractor does not hold then it overturns exploiter. sent7: the fact that the clack is both not tartaric and a sabbatical does not hold. sent8: the fact that if something is not pneumogastric then the fact that the transcendentalist does overturn exploiter and is a changed is false hold. sent9: if the snuffle overturns exploiter then the fact that it is not pneumogastric and is a changed does not hold. sent10: the clack is not a reconsideration. sent11: the clack is a kind of a retractor if that that it is not tartaric and it is a kind of a sabbatical hold is wrong. sent12: a brunet is not pneumogastric and is not a kind of a reconsideration. sent13: the fact that the clack is tartaric and it is a kind of a sabbatical is not true. ; $proof$ = 
sent11 & sent7 -> int1: the fact that the clack is a kind of a retractor is not incorrect.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the clack is a brunet.; sent12 -> int3: if that the clack is not non-brunet hold it is a kind of non-pneumogastric thing that is not a reconsideration.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the clack is not pneumogastric and is not a reconsideration.; int4 -> int5: the clack is not pneumogastric.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it is not pneumogastric.; int6 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__