the chartist does not crystallize Alabaman.
sent1: The overshot shatters fives. sent2: if that the Rambouillet is both not membered and non-psychotherapeutic does not hold then the chartist does not crystallize Alabaman. sent3: the fives does not shatter overshot if the gloriosa either is a flan or does weld bellicosity or both. sent4: if something is a crinoid it is not a provitamin. sent5: the gloriosa is not a crinoid. sent6: if the Rambouillet is a provitamin then that it is memberless and it is not psychotherapeutic is false. sent7: the fives shatters overshot. sent8: if the Rambouillet is a provitamin then that it is both not membered and psychotherapeutic does not hold. sent9: the fives does not crystallize treated. sent10: that the Rambouillet is memberless and psychotherapeutic is not right. sent11: if the gloriosa does weld bellicosity then the fives does not shatter overshot. sent12: if the Rambouillet is psychotherapeutic the chartist does not crystallize Alabaman. sent13: if something is both crinoid and not a flan then it crystallizes Alabaman. sent14: the chartist is not a flan if the fact that the gloriosa is a flan and/or does not shatter overshot is wrong. sent15: the fact that the gloriosa is a flan that is a crinoid is not right. sent16: if that something is a flan but it is not a crinoid is not correct then it is not a provitamin. sent17: if that the gloriosa does weld bellicosity but it does not crystallize treated is wrong it does not weld bellicosity. sent18: if the gloriosa is not a provitamin then that the Rambouillet does crystallize treated is correct. sent19: if the gloriosa is not a kind of a provitamin then the fact that the Rambouillet is a kind of a provitamin that does crystallize treated is true.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the gloriosa is both a flan and not crinoid.; assump1 -> int1: the gloriosa is a kind of a flan.; int1 -> int2: the gloriosa is a flan and/or it does weld bellicosity.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the fives does not shatter overshot.; int3 & sent7 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the gloriosa is a flan but not a crinoid is false.; sent16 -> int6: the gloriosa is not a kind of a provitamin if the fact that it is a flan and not a crinoid is not correct.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the gloriosa is not a kind of a provitamin.; int7 & sent19 -> int8: the Rambouillet is a provitamin and crystallizes treated.; int8 -> int9: the Rambouillet is a provitamin.; int9 & sent6 -> int10: that the Rambouillet is memberless but it is non-psychotherapeutic is false.; int10 & sent2 -> hypothesis;
the chartist crystallizes Alabaman.
sent13 -> int11: the chartist does crystallize Alabaman if it is a kind of crinoid thing that is not a flan.;
$hypothesis$ = the chartist does not crystallize Alabaman. ; $context$ = sent1: The overshot shatters fives. sent2: if that the Rambouillet is both not membered and non-psychotherapeutic does not hold then the chartist does not crystallize Alabaman. sent3: the fives does not shatter overshot if the gloriosa either is a flan or does weld bellicosity or both. sent4: if something is a crinoid it is not a provitamin. sent5: the gloriosa is not a crinoid. sent6: if the Rambouillet is a provitamin then that it is memberless and it is not psychotherapeutic is false. sent7: the fives shatters overshot. sent8: if the Rambouillet is a provitamin then that it is both not membered and psychotherapeutic does not hold. sent9: the fives does not crystallize treated. sent10: that the Rambouillet is memberless and psychotherapeutic is not right. sent11: if the gloriosa does weld bellicosity then the fives does not shatter overshot. sent12: if the Rambouillet is psychotherapeutic the chartist does not crystallize Alabaman. sent13: if something is both crinoid and not a flan then it crystallizes Alabaman. sent14: the chartist is not a flan if the fact that the gloriosa is a flan and/or does not shatter overshot is wrong. sent15: the fact that the gloriosa is a flan that is a crinoid is not right. sent16: if that something is a flan but it is not a crinoid is not correct then it is not a provitamin. sent17: if that the gloriosa does weld bellicosity but it does not crystallize treated is wrong it does not weld bellicosity. sent18: if the gloriosa is not a provitamin then that the Rambouillet does crystallize treated is correct. sent19: if the gloriosa is not a kind of a provitamin then the fact that the Rambouillet is a kind of a provitamin that does crystallize treated is true. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the gloriosa is both a flan and not crinoid.; assump1 -> int1: the gloriosa is a kind of a flan.; int1 -> int2: the gloriosa is a flan and/or it does weld bellicosity.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the fives does not shatter overshot.; int3 & sent7 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the gloriosa is a flan but not a crinoid is false.; sent16 -> int6: the gloriosa is not a kind of a provitamin if the fact that it is a flan and not a crinoid is not correct.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the gloriosa is not a kind of a provitamin.; int7 & sent19 -> int8: the Rambouillet is a provitamin and crystallizes treated.; int8 -> int9: the Rambouillet is a provitamin.; int9 & sent6 -> int10: that the Rambouillet is memberless but it is non-psychotherapeutic is false.; int10 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__