if that the isopropanol is not a dray but paniculate is incorrect then the garnish does not bend vitalization.
sent1: that the garnish does not furnish is not incorrect if there exists something such that the fact that it does not act isopropanol and it does not act garnish is wrong. sent2: the fact that there exists something such that the fact that it does act isopropanol and does not act garnish is not true is not incorrect. sent3: the garnish is axillary if there exists something such that that it is both not a dray and paniculate is not true. sent4: if the garnish does not furnish it is a nightshade and Andalusian. sent5: there exists something such that that it does not act isopropanol and does not act garnish is wrong. sent6: that something is not a kind of a nightshade is not incorrect if it is a kind of axillary thing that bends vitalization.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the fact that the isopropanol is not a dray but it is paniculate is not true.; assump2 -> int1: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a dray and it is paniculate is wrong.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the garnish is axillary.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the garnish does bend vitalization is right.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the garnish is axillary and it does bend vitalization.; sent6 -> int4: the garnish is not a nightshade if it is axillary and it does bend vitalization.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the garnish is not a nightshade.; sent5 & sent1 -> int6: the garnish does not furnish.; sent4 & int6 -> int7: the garnish is a kind of a nightshade and it is Andalusian.; int7 -> int8: the garnish is a nightshade.; int5 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> int10: the garnish does not bend vitalization.; [assump2] & int10 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = if that the isopropanol is not a dray but paniculate is incorrect then the garnish does not bend vitalization. ; $context$ = sent1: that the garnish does not furnish is not incorrect if there exists something such that the fact that it does not act isopropanol and it does not act garnish is wrong. sent2: the fact that there exists something such that the fact that it does act isopropanol and does not act garnish is not true is not incorrect. sent3: the garnish is axillary if there exists something such that that it is both not a dray and paniculate is not true. sent4: if the garnish does not furnish it is a nightshade and Andalusian. sent5: there exists something such that that it does not act isopropanol and does not act garnish is wrong. sent6: that something is not a kind of a nightshade is not incorrect if it is a kind of axillary thing that bends vitalization. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the fact that the isopropanol is not a dray but it is paniculate is not true.; assump2 -> int1: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a dray and it is paniculate is wrong.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the garnish is axillary.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the garnish does bend vitalization is right.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the garnish is axillary and it does bend vitalization.; sent6 -> int4: the garnish is not a nightshade if it is axillary and it does bend vitalization.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the garnish is not a nightshade.; sent5 & sent1 -> int6: the garnish does not furnish.; sent4 & int6 -> int7: the garnish is a kind of a nightshade and it is Andalusian.; int7 -> int8: the garnish is a nightshade.; int5 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> int10: the garnish does not bend vitalization.; [assump2] & int10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__