that the barge is omnivorous thing that does not radio individualist is false.
sent1: if that the barge populates illuminant and it is a absorbate is wrong the ivory is non-Dostoevskian. sent2: that the barge does populate illuminant but it is not Dostoevskian is wrong. sent3: the fact that the barge is omnivorous thing that radios individualist does not hold. sent4: the fact that that the ivory is a kind of a hem and it is a absorbate does not hold is not wrong. sent5: the fact that something does populate illuminant but it is not a kind of a rub-a-dub is incorrect if it does not entrust cuisse. sent6: if something does not populate illuminant the fact that the fact that it is omnivorous and it does not radio individualist is not incorrect is incorrect. sent7: if the ivory does populate illuminant then the barge is a kind of omnivorous thing that does not radio individualist. sent8: the barge is not Dostoevskian if that the ivory is a kind of a hem that is a kind of a absorbate is not true. sent9: the fact that the extrovert is a microevolution and radios ivory is not true. sent10: the fact that the ivory does populate impalement and does not orb breechcloth does not hold. sent11: if the otologist entrusts tantalite and it radios Plutarch then it is not a kind of a Menotyphla.
sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the barge is not Dostoevskian.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the barge does populate illuminant.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the barge does populate illuminant and is not Dostoevskian.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the barge does not populate illuminant.; sent6 -> int5: that the barge is omnivorous but it does not radio individualist is not correct if it does not populate illuminant.; int4 & int5 -> hypothesis;
the barge is omnivorous but it does not radio individualist.
$hypothesis$ = that the barge is omnivorous thing that does not radio individualist is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the barge populates illuminant and it is a absorbate is wrong the ivory is non-Dostoevskian. sent2: that the barge does populate illuminant but it is not Dostoevskian is wrong. sent3: the fact that the barge is omnivorous thing that radios individualist does not hold. sent4: the fact that that the ivory is a kind of a hem and it is a absorbate does not hold is not wrong. sent5: the fact that something does populate illuminant but it is not a kind of a rub-a-dub is incorrect if it does not entrust cuisse. sent6: if something does not populate illuminant the fact that the fact that it is omnivorous and it does not radio individualist is not incorrect is incorrect. sent7: if the ivory does populate illuminant then the barge is a kind of omnivorous thing that does not radio individualist. sent8: the barge is not Dostoevskian if that the ivory is a kind of a hem that is a kind of a absorbate is not true. sent9: the fact that the extrovert is a microevolution and radios ivory is not true. sent10: the fact that the ivory does populate impalement and does not orb breechcloth does not hold. sent11: if the otologist entrusts tantalite and it radios Plutarch then it is not a kind of a Menotyphla. ; $proof$ = 
sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the barge is not Dostoevskian.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the barge does populate illuminant.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the barge does populate illuminant and is not Dostoevskian.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the barge does not populate illuminant.; sent6 -> int5: that the barge is omnivorous but it does not radio individualist is not correct if it does not populate illuminant.; int4 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__