the Eskimo is drupaceous.
sent1: that the thysanuron is the sprinkle if that that the thysanuron does not sprinkle and it does not compromise Melanchthon is not incorrect is not correct is correct. sent2: if something is not non-drupaceous then it does not buy and is a kind of a pot. sent3: the splice does not compromise IAEA and is onside if the Charon is not a flap. sent4: if the Eskimo is not drupaceous then the splice is not a kind of a pot but it is pentavalent. sent5: if the splice is not a Tampico the fact that it does pot and it is pentavalent does not hold. sent6: the fact that the screwdriver is drupaceous and it does ambush Mill is not true. sent7: if something is not a Tampico it either is not amenorrheic or is not non-drupaceous or both. sent8: the fact that the Eskimo is not a sectionalism and is a Myrica is wrong if it is not a Tampico. sent9: the splice is not a Tampico. sent10: something is a kind of a disharmony. sent11: if that the splice is not a Tampico is not incorrect the fact that it is not a pot and it is pentavalent is wrong. sent12: if the Eskimo is not drupaceous the splice is not a pot. sent13: the Eskimo is not a Tampico if there exists something such that it does not compromise IAEA and is onside. sent14: the Eskimo does pot. sent15: the splice is not drupaceous and/or is amenorrheic if the Charon is not a kind of a Tampico. sent16: the Samaritan is not drupaceous. sent17: if something is a disharmony the fact that that the thysanuron is not a kind of a sprinkle and does not compromise Melanchthon is true is not right. sent18: if there exists something such that it is not amenorrheic and/or it is drupaceous the tempestuousness is drupaceous. sent19: if that something is not a sprinkle but it quivers Socinian does not hold it is not a flap. sent20: that the splice is not a kind of a Tampico but it is drupaceous if the Eskimo is not pentavalent is not incorrect. sent21: that if the Eskimo is not a pot the splice is non-pentavalent and drupaceous hold. sent22: something is not a Tampico if the fact that it does compromise IAEA and is onside is not correct. sent23: the Eskimo does not quiver appropriateness but it is a wrack.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Eskimo is not drupaceous.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the splice is not a pot but pentavalent.; sent11 & sent9 -> int2: that the splice is not a pot but pentavalent is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;
the Eskimo is not drupaceous.
sent22 -> int4: if that the Charon does compromise IAEA and it is onside is not right then it is not a Tampico.;
$hypothesis$ = the Eskimo is drupaceous. ; $context$ = sent1: that the thysanuron is the sprinkle if that that the thysanuron does not sprinkle and it does not compromise Melanchthon is not incorrect is not correct is correct. sent2: if something is not non-drupaceous then it does not buy and is a kind of a pot. sent3: the splice does not compromise IAEA and is onside if the Charon is not a flap. sent4: if the Eskimo is not drupaceous then the splice is not a kind of a pot but it is pentavalent. sent5: if the splice is not a Tampico the fact that it does pot and it is pentavalent does not hold. sent6: the fact that the screwdriver is drupaceous and it does ambush Mill is not true. sent7: if something is not a Tampico it either is not amenorrheic or is not non-drupaceous or both. sent8: the fact that the Eskimo is not a sectionalism and is a Myrica is wrong if it is not a Tampico. sent9: the splice is not a Tampico. sent10: something is a kind of a disharmony. sent11: if that the splice is not a Tampico is not incorrect the fact that it is not a pot and it is pentavalent is wrong. sent12: if the Eskimo is not drupaceous the splice is not a pot. sent13: the Eskimo is not a Tampico if there exists something such that it does not compromise IAEA and is onside. sent14: the Eskimo does pot. sent15: the splice is not drupaceous and/or is amenorrheic if the Charon is not a kind of a Tampico. sent16: the Samaritan is not drupaceous. sent17: if something is a disharmony the fact that that the thysanuron is not a kind of a sprinkle and does not compromise Melanchthon is true is not right. sent18: if there exists something such that it is not amenorrheic and/or it is drupaceous the tempestuousness is drupaceous. sent19: if that something is not a sprinkle but it quivers Socinian does not hold it is not a flap. sent20: that the splice is not a kind of a Tampico but it is drupaceous if the Eskimo is not pentavalent is not incorrect. sent21: that if the Eskimo is not a pot the splice is non-pentavalent and drupaceous hold. sent22: something is not a Tampico if the fact that it does compromise IAEA and is onside is not correct. sent23: the Eskimo does not quiver appropriateness but it is a wrack. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Eskimo is not drupaceous.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the splice is not a pot but pentavalent.; sent11 & sent9 -> int2: that the splice is not a pot but pentavalent is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__