that the lozenge is non-neuralgic thing that does date baas does not hold.
sent1: the tiptoe does date baas. sent2: that the tiptoe is not a parhelion is not wrong if the fact that the undoer is not over-the-counter and is not counterclockwise is false. sent3: the lozenge is a kind of a parhelion and it is unintelligible if the undoer is not a insecureness. sent4: the fact that the undoer is a insecureness and unveils awl is not true. sent5: the fact that the tiptoe is not counterclockwise and it is not a parhelion does not hold. sent6: the undoer is unintelligible and a insecureness. sent7: something is a kind of non-neuralgic thing that dates baas if it is a parhelion. sent8: the fact that if the undoer is non-over-the-counter and not counterclockwise then the undoer is not unintelligible hold. sent9: that the undoer is not a kind of a parhelion but it is unintelligible is not right if the tiptoe is not counterclockwise. sent10: the undoer is not counterclockwise. sent11: the fact that that the lozenge is a kind of neuralgic thing that does date baas is not wrong is not right. sent12: if the lozenge is not over-the-counter the fact that that the undoer is a kind of non-counterclockwise thing that is neuralgic is not true is correct. sent13: the pontifical does not date baas. sent14: if the tiptoe is not a parhelion that the fact that the lozenge is a kind of non-neuralgic thing that does date baas is not incorrect does not hold.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the undoer is both non-over-the-counter and not counterclockwise.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the undoer is not unintelligible.; sent6 -> int2: the undoer is unintelligible.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the undoer is not over-the-counter and is not counterclockwise is false.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: the tiptoe is not a kind of a parhelion.; int5 & sent14 -> hypothesis;
the lozenge is not neuralgic and dates baas.
sent7 -> int6: if the lozenge is a kind of a parhelion then it is non-neuralgic thing that dates baas.;
$hypothesis$ = that the lozenge is non-neuralgic thing that does date baas does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the tiptoe does date baas. sent2: that the tiptoe is not a parhelion is not wrong if the fact that the undoer is not over-the-counter and is not counterclockwise is false. sent3: the lozenge is a kind of a parhelion and it is unintelligible if the undoer is not a insecureness. sent4: the fact that the undoer is a insecureness and unveils awl is not true. sent5: the fact that the tiptoe is not counterclockwise and it is not a parhelion does not hold. sent6: the undoer is unintelligible and a insecureness. sent7: something is a kind of non-neuralgic thing that dates baas if it is a parhelion. sent8: the fact that if the undoer is non-over-the-counter and not counterclockwise then the undoer is not unintelligible hold. sent9: that the undoer is not a kind of a parhelion but it is unintelligible is not right if the tiptoe is not counterclockwise. sent10: the undoer is not counterclockwise. sent11: the fact that that the lozenge is a kind of neuralgic thing that does date baas is not wrong is not right. sent12: if the lozenge is not over-the-counter the fact that that the undoer is a kind of non-counterclockwise thing that is neuralgic is not true is correct. sent13: the pontifical does not date baas. sent14: if the tiptoe is not a parhelion that the fact that the lozenge is a kind of non-neuralgic thing that does date baas is not incorrect does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the undoer is both non-over-the-counter and not counterclockwise.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the undoer is not unintelligible.; sent6 -> int2: the undoer is unintelligible.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the undoer is not over-the-counter and is not counterclockwise is false.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: the tiptoe is not a kind of a parhelion.; int5 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__