the defoliant is antagonistic if the monotreme is a detonator.
sent1: if the monotreme does trundle defoliant then the defoliant does not trundle defoliant and it is not a Cochran. sent2: if something is semiotic then that it is not a detonator and it is not a perceptiveness does not hold. sent3: the defoliant is not advisable if the monotreme is a Cochran. sent4: the defoliant is antagonistic if it trundles defoliant and is not a kind of a Cochran. sent5: if the monotreme greens then it is a kind of a thermel. sent6: the fact that the fact that the monotreme is the green and not inadvisable is not correct if the monotreme is a kind of a detonator is true. sent7: if the monotreme does trundle defoliant the defoliant does not trundle defoliant. sent8: if the defoliant does not trundle defoliant and is not a Cochran then that it is antagonistic is not wrong. sent9: the fact that the monotreme is not antagonistic and it does not green is not true. sent10: the monotreme does trundle defoliant if it is a thermel. sent11: the defoliant does not trundle defoliant. sent12: if the fact that the monotreme is both non-green and advisable is not true the fact that it is a thermel is correct. sent13: that the monotreme is not a green and is not inadvisable does not hold if it is a detonator. sent14: the fact that the monotreme is green and is not inadvisable is false.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the monotreme is a kind of a detonator.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: that the monotreme is not a green and it is not inadvisable is not true.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the monotreme is a kind of a thermel.; int2 & sent10 -> int3: the monotreme trundles defoliant.; int3 & sent1 -> int4: the defoliant does not trundle defoliant and it is not a Cochran.; int4 & sent8 -> int5: the fact that the defoliant is not non-antagonistic is not incorrect.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis;
if the fact that the bedding is semiotic is true that the fact that it is not a detonator and it is not a kind of a perceptiveness is true does not hold.
sent2 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the defoliant is antagonistic if the monotreme is a detonator. ; $context$ = sent1: if the monotreme does trundle defoliant then the defoliant does not trundle defoliant and it is not a Cochran. sent2: if something is semiotic then that it is not a detonator and it is not a perceptiveness does not hold. sent3: the defoliant is not advisable if the monotreme is a Cochran. sent4: the defoliant is antagonistic if it trundles defoliant and is not a kind of a Cochran. sent5: if the monotreme greens then it is a kind of a thermel. sent6: the fact that the fact that the monotreme is the green and not inadvisable is not correct if the monotreme is a kind of a detonator is true. sent7: if the monotreme does trundle defoliant the defoliant does not trundle defoliant. sent8: if the defoliant does not trundle defoliant and is not a Cochran then that it is antagonistic is not wrong. sent9: the fact that the monotreme is not antagonistic and it does not green is not true. sent10: the monotreme does trundle defoliant if it is a thermel. sent11: the defoliant does not trundle defoliant. sent12: if the fact that the monotreme is both non-green and advisable is not true the fact that it is a thermel is correct. sent13: that the monotreme is not a green and is not inadvisable does not hold if it is a detonator. sent14: the fact that the monotreme is green and is not inadvisable is false. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the monotreme is a kind of a detonator.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: that the monotreme is not a green and it is not inadvisable is not true.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the monotreme is a kind of a thermel.; int2 & sent10 -> int3: the monotreme trundles defoliant.; int3 & sent1 -> int4: the defoliant does not trundle defoliant and it is not a Cochran.; int4 & sent8 -> int5: the fact that the defoliant is not non-antagonistic is not incorrect.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__