the Champaign does not subtilize demythologization.
sent1: if the jackknife-fish is not anoxemic then that the Champaign is not a kind of a Carolingian and it is not a co-discoverer does not hold. sent2: something is not anoxemic if it is a kind of a Carolingian. sent3: the fact that the arborvitae does not glaze gorgonian and is a Sanger is wrong. sent4: if that the arborvitae does not glaze gorgonian but it is a kind of a Sanger is false then the jackknife-fish is not anoxemic.
sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the jackknife-fish is not anoxemic.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: that the Champaign is both not a Carolingian and not a co-discoverer is wrong.;
the Champaign subtilizes demythologization.
sent2 -> int3: if the arborvitae is Carolingian it is not anoxemic.;
$hypothesis$ = the Champaign does not subtilize demythologization. ; $context$ = sent1: if the jackknife-fish is not anoxemic then that the Champaign is not a kind of a Carolingian and it is not a co-discoverer does not hold. sent2: something is not anoxemic if it is a kind of a Carolingian. sent3: the fact that the arborvitae does not glaze gorgonian and is a Sanger is wrong. sent4: if that the arborvitae does not glaze gorgonian but it is a kind of a Sanger is false then the jackknife-fish is not anoxemic. ; $proof$ = 
sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the jackknife-fish is not anoxemic.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: that the Champaign is both not a Carolingian and not a co-discoverer is wrong.; __UNKNOWN__