there exists something such that it is not a kind of a phenomenology.
sent1: the wordmonger is not efficient. sent2: the wordmonger does fume. sent3: there is something such that it does pomade. sent4: if something is a phenomenology and it is achromatic then the wordmonger is not strange. sent5: the carillonneur is not achromatic if the contamination is a kind of achromatic thing that is not strange. sent6: if the fact that that the wordmonger is not strange and it does not bog coralroot is correct is not true then it is strange. sent7: if the hostage does not wharf it is a mist and a Loewe. sent8: if something does wharf it is achromatic. sent9: that something is not strange and does not bog coralroot does not hold if it is not efficient. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a insolation and does fume. sent11: the hostage does wharf if something that is not a insolation does fume. sent12: if the wordmonger is a phenomenology but it does not wharf then that the hostage does not wharf is correct.
sent10 & sent11 -> int1: the hostage does wharf.; sent8 -> int2: the hostage is not non-achromatic if it does wharf.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the hostage is achromatic.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the hostage is a phenomenology.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: the hostage is a phenomenology and it is achromatic.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that it is a kind of a phenomenology and it is achromatic.; int5 & sent4 -> int6: the wordmonger is not strange.; sent9 -> int7: that the wordmonger is not strange and it does not bog coralroot does not hold if it is not efficient.; int7 & sent1 -> int8: that the wordmonger is non-strange and it does not bog coralroot is not right.; sent6 & int8 -> int9: the fact that the wordmonger is strange hold.; int6 & int9 -> int10: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int10 -> int11: the hostage is not a phenomenology.; int11 -> hypothesis;
there is something such that it is a kind of a mist and it is a kind of a Loewe.
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is not a kind of a phenomenology. ; $context$ = sent1: the wordmonger is not efficient. sent2: the wordmonger does fume. sent3: there is something such that it does pomade. sent4: if something is a phenomenology and it is achromatic then the wordmonger is not strange. sent5: the carillonneur is not achromatic if the contamination is a kind of achromatic thing that is not strange. sent6: if the fact that that the wordmonger is not strange and it does not bog coralroot is correct is not true then it is strange. sent7: if the hostage does not wharf it is a mist and a Loewe. sent8: if something does wharf it is achromatic. sent9: that something is not strange and does not bog coralroot does not hold if it is not efficient. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a insolation and does fume. sent11: the hostage does wharf if something that is not a insolation does fume. sent12: if the wordmonger is a phenomenology but it does not wharf then that the hostage does not wharf is correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent10 & sent11 -> int1: the hostage does wharf.; sent8 -> int2: the hostage is not non-achromatic if it does wharf.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the hostage is achromatic.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the hostage is a phenomenology.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: the hostage is a phenomenology and it is achromatic.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that it is a kind of a phenomenology and it is achromatic.; int5 & sent4 -> int6: the wordmonger is not strange.; sent9 -> int7: that the wordmonger is not strange and it does not bog coralroot does not hold if it is not efficient.; int7 & sent1 -> int8: that the wordmonger is non-strange and it does not bog coralroot is not right.; sent6 & int8 -> int9: the fact that the wordmonger is strange hold.; int6 & int9 -> int10: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int10 -> int11: the hostage is not a phenomenology.; int11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__