the scale is aculeate and it is admissible.
sent1: if something is a theist the foredeck is not a kind of a wristlet or it is not admissible or both. sent2: the scale is admissible. sent3: the foredeck is not imperfect but it does redecorate drought if the fact that the ganger is an exon is not false. sent4: if the foredeck is not a kind of a wristlet then the ganger is aculeate. sent5: the podzol does not tincture buttinsky and does not fall foredeck if that the ganger is not a kind of an exon hold. sent6: if the monochromat is not aculeate then the scale is not aculeate but admissible. sent7: the monochromat is not aculeate if the fact that the foredeck is not imperfect is right. sent8: something is a theist if it is profound. sent9: the monochromat is profound. sent10: something is a count if it does redecorate drought. sent11: the neoclassicist immobilizes if that the ganger is a kind of an exon but it does not immobilizes is wrong. sent12: something is imperfect and it does attenuate if it is not intercontinental. sent13: something does tincture buttinsky if it is a wristlet. sent14: something is not an exon if it does redecorate drought. sent15: if there exists something such that that it is imperfect is right then the fact that the neoclassicist redecorates drought hold. sent16: the foredeck is not admissible. sent17: something redecorates drought if it is imperfect. sent18: if the foredeck is not admissible the ganger is aculeate. sent19: if that something is aculeate is true then the fact that it is an exon and it does not immobilize is not right. sent20: the foredeck does redecorate drought if the ganger is an exon. sent21: the podzol is a wristlet and it does attenuate. sent22: the fact that something is aculeate thing that is admissible does not hold if the fact that it is not an exon is correct. sent23: if the monochromat is not aculeate then the scale is admissible. sent24: the scale does not attenuate and is admissible. sent25: the podzol is not admissible.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the ganger is not a kind of an exon.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the podzol does not tincture buttinsky and it does not fall foredeck.; int1 -> int2: the podzol does not tincture buttinsky.; sent13 -> int3: if the podzol is a wristlet then it tinctures buttinsky.; sent21 -> int4: the podzol is a wristlet.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the podzol tinctures buttinsky.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: that the ganger is an exon is correct.; int7 & sent3 -> int8: the fact that the foredeck is not imperfect and redecorates drought is right.; int8 -> int9: the foredeck is not imperfect.; int9 & sent7 -> int10: the monochromat is not aculeate.; int10 & sent6 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the fact that the scale is a kind of aculeate thing that is admissible is false is right.
sent22 -> int11: that the scale is aculeate thing that is admissible does not hold if it is not a kind of an exon.; sent14 -> int12: the scale is not an exon if it does redecorate drought.; sent17 -> int13: the scale does redecorate drought if it is imperfect.;
$hypothesis$ = the scale is aculeate and it is admissible. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a theist the foredeck is not a kind of a wristlet or it is not admissible or both. sent2: the scale is admissible. sent3: the foredeck is not imperfect but it does redecorate drought if the fact that the ganger is an exon is not false. sent4: if the foredeck is not a kind of a wristlet then the ganger is aculeate. sent5: the podzol does not tincture buttinsky and does not fall foredeck if that the ganger is not a kind of an exon hold. sent6: if the monochromat is not aculeate then the scale is not aculeate but admissible. sent7: the monochromat is not aculeate if the fact that the foredeck is not imperfect is right. sent8: something is a theist if it is profound. sent9: the monochromat is profound. sent10: something is a count if it does redecorate drought. sent11: the neoclassicist immobilizes if that the ganger is a kind of an exon but it does not immobilizes is wrong. sent12: something is imperfect and it does attenuate if it is not intercontinental. sent13: something does tincture buttinsky if it is a wristlet. sent14: something is not an exon if it does redecorate drought. sent15: if there exists something such that that it is imperfect is right then the fact that the neoclassicist redecorates drought hold. sent16: the foredeck is not admissible. sent17: something redecorates drought if it is imperfect. sent18: if the foredeck is not admissible the ganger is aculeate. sent19: if that something is aculeate is true then the fact that it is an exon and it does not immobilize is not right. sent20: the foredeck does redecorate drought if the ganger is an exon. sent21: the podzol is a wristlet and it does attenuate. sent22: the fact that something is aculeate thing that is admissible does not hold if the fact that it is not an exon is correct. sent23: if the monochromat is not aculeate then the scale is admissible. sent24: the scale does not attenuate and is admissible. sent25: the podzol is not admissible. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the ganger is not a kind of an exon.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the podzol does not tincture buttinsky and it does not fall foredeck.; int1 -> int2: the podzol does not tincture buttinsky.; sent13 -> int3: if the podzol is a wristlet then it tinctures buttinsky.; sent21 -> int4: the podzol is a wristlet.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the podzol tinctures buttinsky.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: that the ganger is an exon is correct.; int7 & sent3 -> int8: the fact that the foredeck is not imperfect and redecorates drought is right.; int8 -> int9: the foredeck is not imperfect.; int9 & sent7 -> int10: the monochromat is not aculeate.; int10 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__