the neoclassicist is both a cystine and not christian.
sent1: the neoclassicist is matriarchal but it is not a kind of a stockholder if it is a Pietism. sent2: if something fantasizes then it is unchristian. sent3: the photojournalism does not whelp and is not incongruent. sent4: something is a cystine if that it is matriarchal is not false. sent5: if the pullulation is matriarchal then the fact that the inga fantasizes is not wrong. sent6: if the technophile is not a Chartreuse that the fact that the neoclassicist is a kind of a cystine and is unchristian is not false is not correct. sent7: the fact that the technophile is not a Chartreuse and it is not unchristian is not correct. sent8: the neoclassicist is a Pietism. sent9: the photojournalism is not incongruent. sent10: if something does fantasize it is a stockholder. sent11: if the inga is a kind of a stockholder the technophile is not a kind of a Chartreuse but it is a kind of a Pietism. sent12: if the pullulation is not matriarchal then the fact that the photojournalism does not whelp and is not incongruent is wrong.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pullulation is not matriarchal.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the photojournalism does not whelp and is congruent does not hold.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the pullulation is matriarchal hold.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: the fact that the inga does not fantasize is not true.; sent10 -> int5: if the inga fantasizes that it is a stockholder is not incorrect.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the inga is a stockholder.; int6 & sent11 -> int7: the technophile is both not a Chartreuse and a Pietism.; int7 -> int8: the technophile is not a Chartreuse.; int8 & sent6 -> hypothesis;
the neoclassicist is a cystine and unchristian.
sent4 -> int9: if the neoclassicist is matriarchal then it is a cystine.; sent1 & sent8 -> int10: the neoclassicist is not non-matriarchal but it is not a kind of a stockholder.; int10 -> int11: the neoclassicist is matriarchal.; int9 & int11 -> int12: the neoclassicist is a cystine.; sent2 -> int13: if the neoclassicist does fantasize it is unchristian.;
$hypothesis$ = the neoclassicist is both a cystine and not christian. ; $context$ = sent1: the neoclassicist is matriarchal but it is not a kind of a stockholder if it is a Pietism. sent2: if something fantasizes then it is unchristian. sent3: the photojournalism does not whelp and is not incongruent. sent4: something is a cystine if that it is matriarchal is not false. sent5: if the pullulation is matriarchal then the fact that the inga fantasizes is not wrong. sent6: if the technophile is not a Chartreuse that the fact that the neoclassicist is a kind of a cystine and is unchristian is not false is not correct. sent7: the fact that the technophile is not a Chartreuse and it is not unchristian is not correct. sent8: the neoclassicist is a Pietism. sent9: the photojournalism is not incongruent. sent10: if something does fantasize it is a stockholder. sent11: if the inga is a kind of a stockholder the technophile is not a kind of a Chartreuse but it is a kind of a Pietism. sent12: if the pullulation is not matriarchal then the fact that the photojournalism does not whelp and is not incongruent is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pullulation is not matriarchal.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the photojournalism does not whelp and is congruent does not hold.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the pullulation is matriarchal hold.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: the fact that the inga does not fantasize is not true.; sent10 -> int5: if the inga fantasizes that it is a stockholder is not incorrect.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the inga is a stockholder.; int6 & sent11 -> int7: the technophile is both not a Chartreuse and a Pietism.; int7 -> int8: the technophile is not a Chartreuse.; int8 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__