the cane is analytic.
sent1: if the cane slugs cane the mantelet brazens metalware. sent2: the acaricide is osseous if the mantelet does brazen metalware. sent3: the Ohioan does not override DLE if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a blot and does override DLE is false. sent4: if the fact that the paperknife does recuperate and is not osseous is not right the acaricide is not osseous. sent5: something is ametropic and/or it slugs cane if it is not analytic. sent6: something either slugs cane or overrides DLE or both if it is not osseous. sent7: that the ADA is not a blot and does override DLE is wrong. sent8: if there is something such that it does not override DLE then the Ohioan does not override DLE. sent9: the mantelet does brazen metalware if the cane is ametropic. sent10: if that the Ohioan does not override DLE is not incorrect the fact that the paperknife does recuperate but it is not osseous is not right.
sent5 -> int1: the cane is ametropic or does slug cane or both if it is not analytic.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cane is not analytic.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the cane is ametropic or slugs cane or both.; int2 & sent9 & sent1 -> int3: the mantelet brazens metalware.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: the acaricide is osseous.; sent7 -> int5: there exists something such that the fact that it does not blot and it does override DLE is not true.; int5 & sent3 -> int6: the Ohioan does not override DLE.; sent10 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the paperknife recuperates but it is not osseous does not hold.; sent4 & int7 -> int8: the acaricide is not osseous.; int4 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the cane is analytic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cane slugs cane the mantelet brazens metalware. sent2: the acaricide is osseous if the mantelet does brazen metalware. sent3: the Ohioan does not override DLE if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a blot and does override DLE is false. sent4: if the fact that the paperknife does recuperate and is not osseous is not right the acaricide is not osseous. sent5: something is ametropic and/or it slugs cane if it is not analytic. sent6: something either slugs cane or overrides DLE or both if it is not osseous. sent7: that the ADA is not a blot and does override DLE is wrong. sent8: if there is something such that it does not override DLE then the Ohioan does not override DLE. sent9: the mantelet does brazen metalware if the cane is ametropic. sent10: if that the Ohioan does not override DLE is not incorrect the fact that the paperknife does recuperate but it is not osseous is not right. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 -> int1: the cane is ametropic or does slug cane or both if it is not analytic.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cane is not analytic.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the cane is ametropic or slugs cane or both.; int2 & sent9 & sent1 -> int3: the mantelet brazens metalware.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: the acaricide is osseous.; sent7 -> int5: there exists something such that the fact that it does not blot and it does override DLE is not true.; int5 & sent3 -> int6: the Ohioan does not override DLE.; sent10 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the paperknife recuperates but it is not osseous does not hold.; sent4 & int7 -> int8: the acaricide is not osseous.; int4 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__