the electrophorus does disagree.
sent1: the babbler is a deviousness if something does outnumber Balanchine. sent2: the fact that the electrophorus does not outnumber Balanchine and does reorient babbler is not correct if it is not a pennywhistle. sent3: if the Olmec does outnumber Savara the wiring is a Eurobabble. sent4: something does not outnumber Balanchine and reorients babbler. sent5: the babbler is a deviousness if there is something such that the fact that it does not outnumber Balanchine and it does reorient babbler is false. sent6: the wiring is non-comatose but not a Eurobabble if there is something such that it does underdress. sent7: something does disagree if it is a kind of a pennywhistle. sent8: there exists something such that it does underdress. sent9: that the electrophorus does outnumber Balanchine and it does reorient babbler is wrong. sent10: the wiring is not comatose if something does underdress. sent11: the Olmec outnumbers Savara if the babbler is a deviousness. sent12: something is not a kind of a pennywhistle but it is a kind of a deviousness if the fact that it does not outnumber Savara is correct. sent13: if there exists something such that that it is a pennywhistle is not false then the wiring does not outnumber Balanchine and it is not a kind of a Eurobabble. sent14: the wiring is not comatose. sent15: if the electrophorus does not outnumber Balanchine then that it does not reorient babbler and is comatose is false. sent16: the fact that the electrophorus outnumbers Balanchine and it does reorient babbler is not right if the fact that it is not a pennywhistle is correct. sent17: there exists something such that that it does outnumber Balanchine and does reorient babbler does not hold. sent18: if the electrophorus is not comatose then the fact that it does not outnumber Balanchine and is a deviousness does not hold.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the electrophorus is not a pennywhistle.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the electrophorus does not outnumber Balanchine and reorients babbler does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it does not outnumber Balanchine and it reorients babbler does not hold.; int2 & sent5 -> int3: the babbler is a kind of a deviousness.; int3 & sent11 -> int4: the Olmec does outnumber Savara.; int4 & sent3 -> int5: the wiring is a kind of a Eurobabble.; sent8 & sent6 -> int6: the wiring is not comatose and not a Eurobabble.; int6 -> int7: the wiring is not a Eurobabble.; int5 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the electrophorus is a pennywhistle.; sent7 -> int10: the electrophorus disagrees if it is a kind of a pennywhistle.; int9 & int10 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the electrophorus does not disagree is not false.
sent12 -> int11: the babbler is not a pennywhistle but a deviousness if it does not outnumber Savara.;
$hypothesis$ = the electrophorus does disagree. ; $context$ = sent1: the babbler is a deviousness if something does outnumber Balanchine. sent2: the fact that the electrophorus does not outnumber Balanchine and does reorient babbler is not correct if it is not a pennywhistle. sent3: if the Olmec does outnumber Savara the wiring is a Eurobabble. sent4: something does not outnumber Balanchine and reorients babbler. sent5: the babbler is a deviousness if there is something such that the fact that it does not outnumber Balanchine and it does reorient babbler is false. sent6: the wiring is non-comatose but not a Eurobabble if there is something such that it does underdress. sent7: something does disagree if it is a kind of a pennywhistle. sent8: there exists something such that it does underdress. sent9: that the electrophorus does outnumber Balanchine and it does reorient babbler is wrong. sent10: the wiring is not comatose if something does underdress. sent11: the Olmec outnumbers Savara if the babbler is a deviousness. sent12: something is not a kind of a pennywhistle but it is a kind of a deviousness if the fact that it does not outnumber Savara is correct. sent13: if there exists something such that that it is a pennywhistle is not false then the wiring does not outnumber Balanchine and it is not a kind of a Eurobabble. sent14: the wiring is not comatose. sent15: if the electrophorus does not outnumber Balanchine then that it does not reorient babbler and is comatose is false. sent16: the fact that the electrophorus outnumbers Balanchine and it does reorient babbler is not right if the fact that it is not a pennywhistle is correct. sent17: there exists something such that that it does outnumber Balanchine and does reorient babbler does not hold. sent18: if the electrophorus is not comatose then the fact that it does not outnumber Balanchine and is a deviousness does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the electrophorus is not a pennywhistle.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the electrophorus does not outnumber Balanchine and reorients babbler does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it does not outnumber Balanchine and it reorients babbler does not hold.; int2 & sent5 -> int3: the babbler is a kind of a deviousness.; int3 & sent11 -> int4: the Olmec does outnumber Savara.; int4 & sent3 -> int5: the wiring is a kind of a Eurobabble.; sent8 & sent6 -> int6: the wiring is not comatose and not a Eurobabble.; int6 -> int7: the wiring is not a Eurobabble.; int5 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the electrophorus is a pennywhistle.; sent7 -> int10: the electrophorus disagrees if it is a kind of a pennywhistle.; int9 & int10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__